PDA

View Full Version : Liberals Do Not Respect Democracy


7SteelGal43
08-09-2009, 11:28 PM
I remember fairly recently in the state of Louisiana, a gay marriage referendum was put before the voters. Roughly 75% voted NO. They affirmed marriage was one woman, one man. The (overwhelming) majority had spoken. There ya go. Or maybe not. A law suit was brought before the Louisiana Supreme Court to overturn the vote. I am a lesbian. But this thoroughly sickened me.

In 2000, Al Gore sought to find a way in to the White House through litigation.

Currently, there is legislation being rammed down our throat that by all appearances, a majority of Americans do not want (and dare I say don't need). At a town hall meeting, one congressmen actually told his constituant "now go sit down".

And I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that these recent town hall meetings had been heated and maybe loud, but yet overall, civil, non violent. It wasn't until Libs decided to counter with the help of their "special interest" pets that they escalated into physical confrontations. Thankfully those have been few....so far.

Yep. Liberals Do Not Respect Democracy.

tony hipchest
08-09-2009, 11:57 PM
obama won... mccain lost.

looks like perfectublicans dont like democracy either. :hunch:

who can take 7 more years of whining w/o another terrorist attack to galvanize us and supposedly bring us together?

Preacher
08-10-2009, 12:07 AM
obama won... mccain lost.

looks like perfectublicans dont like democracy either. :hunch:

who can take 7 more years of whining w/o another terrorist attack to galvanize us and supposedly bring us together?

Not sure what one has to do with the other, but it is a politony post... so it is what it is.

Funny thing happened to the way to the polls, there was no official GOP court action to disprove the election... kinda of proving her point, don't you think?

In California, a law banning gay marriage was approved, and then struck down the the courts... So the people approved a constitutional amendment... and the liberals tried to strike that down as well.

Seems the Republicans want to do things through a voting public, and the Dems want to do things through the court system. Kind of telling, if you ask me.

I now await Polititony logic to find out why I am all wrong... if of course, we can understand such high faluting logic!

tony hipchest
08-10-2009, 12:12 AM
gays should not be allowed to be married.

God made Adam and Eve, not adam and steve.

of course that is my own personal feeling and has absolutely NOTHING to do with political affiliation. however Jesus preached "give unto ceasar what is ceasar's, so i abide by that analogy.

Preacher
08-10-2009, 12:15 AM
gays should not be allowed to be married.

God made Adam and Eve, not adam and steve.

Hey Tony... :moon:


:chuckle:

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 12:26 AM
obama won... mccain lost.

looks like perfectublicans dont like democracy either. :hunch:

who can take 7 more years of whining w/o another terrorist attack to galvanize us and supposedly bring us together?


When Conservatives want to see change, we go to town hall meetings. When Liberals want to see change, they make an appointment with their attorney. I see that Tony couldn't offer up anything to deny that this is a pattern we see.

tony hipchest
08-10-2009, 12:29 AM
When Conservatives want to see change, we go to town hall meetings. When Liberals want to see change, they make an appointment with their attorney. I see that Tony couldn't offer up anything to deny that this is a pattern we see.when conservatives wanna see change they go into the closet and cry. when liberals wanna see change they head on out to the voting booths.

Preacher
08-10-2009, 12:34 AM
when conservatives wanna see change they go into the closet and cry. when liberals wanna see change they head on out to the voting booths.

:rofl:

I guess that is why there has only been 16 years of dem presidents (including Obama's four) in the last 40 (44 counting this term).

Yep, it was the LIBERALS voting for Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush's.

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 12:39 AM
when conservatives wanna see change they go into the closet and cry. when liberals wanna see change they head on out to the voting booths.



EPIC FAIL.

You can't have it both ways Tony. Either we're in the closet crying or we're disrupting the political process (according to libs).

And when the voting booths don't produce the desired results, you demand a ruling from the Supreme Court.

MACH1
08-10-2009, 12:40 AM
when liberals wanna see change they put on blindfolds and sign on the dotted line.

:doh:

tony hipchest
08-10-2009, 12:42 AM
:rofl:

I guess that is why there has only been 16 years of dem presidents (including Obama's four) in the last 40 (44 counting this term).

Yep, it was the LIBERALS voting for Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush's.


so a sense of entitlement is why the conservatives cry so loudly?

liberals understand the meaning of seperation of church and state. conservatives do not.

i WISH the bible was taught in grade schools and i WISH the 10 commandments could be posted in our courts, but i am grounded in reality, and as a liberal i understand where i live, and the rules and laws that govern us.

conservative moonbats who disagree can either hit the polls or not let the door knob hit them where the good Lord split them. :chuckle:

CantStop85
08-10-2009, 12:49 AM
I remember fairly recently in the state of Louisiana, a gay marriage referendum was put before the voters. Roughly 75% voted NO. They affirmed marriage was one woman, one man. The (overwhelming) majority had spoken. There ya go. Or maybe not. A law suit was brought before the Louisiana Supreme Court to overturn the vote. I am a lesbian. But this thoroughly sickened me.

It sickens you that people are trying to overturn a referendum that would take away your own liberties? I can see the point you're making (sour grapes over losing a vote)...but I think the gay marriage topic is a bad example. The banning of gay marriage is based almost solely on religious dogma and only helps in limiting an individual's freedom through discrimination of their sexual orientation. 100-200 years ago there would have been a majority of people that approved of slavery...but did that make it any less of a violation of someone's freedom/liberty? Sometimes basic civil liberties take precedent over the idea of "democracy"...this is one of those cases.

...in my opinion. :chuckle:

Preacher
08-10-2009, 01:45 AM
It sickens you that people are trying to overturn a referendum that would take away your own liberties? I can see the point you're making (sour grapes over losing a vote)...but I think the gay marriage topic is a bad example. The banning of gay marriage is based almost solely on religious dogma and only helps in limiting an individual's freedom through discrimination of their sexual orientation. 100-200 years ago there would have been a majority of people that approved of slavery...but did that make it any less of a violation of someone's freedom/liberty? Sometimes basic civil liberties take precedent over the idea of "democracy"...this is one of those cases.

...in my opinion. :chuckle:

That is the entire problem. Who determines what civil liberties? it is MY opinion that I should be have the civil liberty of being able to own and buy guns without restriction to the best of my ability.

So why is gay marriage more important than the ability to defend my family from physical attack in my home?

See the problem? "Civil Liberty" is in the eye of the beholder. What is a basic civil liberty to you, may not be to me,and what may be for me, is not to you.

THAT is why elections are so important, and NOT running everything through the court system, cause usually, the courts screw it up. Separate but equal? Supreme court case law, NOT a law created by elected representatives.

GBMelBlount
08-10-2009, 05:44 AM
when conservatives wanna see change they go into the closet and cry. when liberals wanna "pay raise" they head on out to the voting booths.

There. Fixed it for ya Tony. :chuckle:

Vincent
08-10-2009, 07:16 AM
The banning of gay marriage is based almost solely on religious dogma and only helps in limiting an individual's freedom through discrimination of their sexual orientation.

Marriage is a religious sacrament. What's the mystery?

The Patriot
08-10-2009, 08:55 AM
The lawsuit was probably a civil rights case. If the courts were to say gay marriage was a civil right then it wouldn't matter how people voted on it.

The Patriot
08-10-2009, 08:59 AM
Marriage is a religious sacrament. What's the mystery?

Yes, a religious sacrament that is recognized by the state, even though this country has separation of church and state. So if some religious institution were to allow gay marriage, how would the courts be justified in not recognizing it. That's what the MA courts ruled.

I personally don't see why this is a big deal.

CantStop85
08-10-2009, 09:02 AM
Marriage is a religious sacrament. What's the mystery?

I disagree. A wedding is typically a religious ceremony, but a marriage has nothing to do with religion. A marriage is a legal contract between two individuals that creates kinship. If it were strictly religious then there would be nothing to debate...if it were strictly religious then there would be no legal value or benefits.

Heck, if marriage is a religious sacrament as you say, shouldn't we first ban atheists from getting married? :noidea:

revefsreleets
08-10-2009, 09:13 AM
Marriage is an outdated and antiquated institution anyway. Who cares if gays get married?

The religious aspect is different...people are certainly more than welcome to do whatever they like in the eyes of their God, but legal recognition of marriage has served it's purpose, and it's time for us to become a little more enlightened.

Besides, we heterosexuals have done enough ourselves to wreck whatever sanctity there once was what with the "disposable" or "Starter" marriage mentality. If it meant anything the divorce rate wouldn't be over 50%...

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 10:09 AM
I disagree. A wedding is typically a religious ceremony, but a marriage has nothing to do with religion. A marriage is a legal contract between two individuals that creates kinship. If it were strictly religious then there would be nothing to debate...if it were strictly religious then there would be no legal value or benefits.

Heck, if marriage is a religious sacrament as you say, shouldn't we first ban atheists from getting married? :noidea:

Good points, CantStop, but frankly, when I think of "wedding" and "marriage", the first thing that comes to mind is "Church", as God first instituted marriage. As far as same sex couples enjoying the same benefiets as Church wedded hetero couples once there is a "union", I believe there are ways for same sex couples to ensure MOST of those benefiets. I hope to address that a little further as I'm currenlty doing research on the matter. My thing about "same sex marriage" though, is that I'm not sure it can be instituted without the government encroaching on the Separation of Church and State. Would the Church be forced by a government act (or amendment to the Constitution) to perform same sex marriages when they are diametrically opposed to it ? When it goes against a doctrine the Church holds firm ? And before anyone says anything about evil hateful Churchs, I as a lesbian, go to a non denominational Christian Church which is one of those Churchs that holds firm to that doctrince. My pastor and his wife both know my sexual preference and they still make me feel very welcomed and loved. Oh wait...that sounds an awful lot like tolerance :thumbsup:

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 10:28 AM
It sickens you that people are trying to overturn a referendum that would take away your own liberties? I can see the point you're making (sour grapes over losing a vote)...but I think the gay marriage topic is a bad example. The banning of gay marriage is based almost solely on religious dogma and only helps in limiting an individual's freedom through discrimination of their sexual orientation. 100-200 years ago there would have been a majority of people that approved of slavery...but did that make it any less of a violation of someone's freedom/liberty? Sometimes basic civil liberties take precedent over the idea of "democracy"...this is one of those cases.

...in my opinion. :chuckle:


What liberties are taken away ? I am not kept away from the polling places. I'm not counted as "property" in the census. I don't have to keep walking past "heteros only" signs. I don't have to stand in the back when there are plenty of seats up front. The sherrif doesn't look the other way while a group of citizens administers it's own brand of justice sans trial, or evidence. I've never been denied the right to hold public office. I've never had to pray for an amendment that would mean I could actually walk around without shackles on my feet. I feel anything but denied, CantStop. In fact, I feel quite blessed.

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 10:40 AM
Sometimes basic civil liberties take precedent over the idea of "democracy"...this is one of those cases. NOT

...in my opinion. :chuckle:


And sometimes democracy takes precedence over pandering to special interests who create a perception they are being unjustly denied "civil liberties" when they really just need to grow a set and realize they live in the country that guarantees them the finest selection of liberties and freedoms on Gods green earth.

revefsreleets
08-10-2009, 10:53 AM
Too narrow of a focus...this is a "pocket issue" where there are pockets of people who will NEVER vote yes on gay marriage, and pockets that would vote overwhelmingly for it...there are two ways to look at this, IMO:

1) States rights. Let each state determine if they want gays to have the right to get married
2) Take a national vote on it and be done with it. Since states rights are anathema to some, take a vote and let that be the law of the land.

In the meantime, I still think companies have the right to extend benefits to significant others, gay or straight, either way, for as long as companies are still operating in a capacity to MAKE those decisions (although as Charles Krauthammer pointed out in his piece I recently posted, employers offering insurance has run it's course, and needs to be scrapped for an updated system where people buy health insurance the same way they buy car or life or home insurance).

Vincent
08-10-2009, 11:24 AM
Yes, a religious sacrament that is recognized by the state, even though this country has separation of church and state.

Our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof.” Further, “No religious tests shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” That was conceived of and incorporated into the Constitution by folks that wouldn’t dream of opening a session of congress without beseeching the grace and blessing of their Almighty, a tradition that continues to this day. The intent of the founders was unambiguous. The assault on their intentions is but another leftist move on our foundations, and identity as a people. Regardless of what you have been led to believe, this country was founded by religious gun nuts. That is our heritage. That is who most of us still are.

I disagree. A wedding is typically a religious ceremony, but a marriage has nothing to do with religion. A marriage is a legal contract between two individuals that creates kinship. If it were strictly religious then there would be nothing to debate...if it were strictly religious then there would be no legal value or benefits.
Heck, if marriage is a religious sacrament as you say, shouldn't we first ban atheists from getting married? :noidea:

Quite the opposite. Anybody can have a "wedding" and go play house. “Marriage” has everything to do with “religion”, and nothing else. The first Canon of the 24th Council of Trent is quite to the point - “If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, (a sacrament) instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.”.

As this a “religious” country, and because “marriage” was and is held within the traditional framework of “the church”, the institution of that sacrament is “religious”. Civil unions and so forth are another matter.

marxism attacks religion as the “opiate of the masses”, as a centerpiece of it’s deconstruction of civil society. The assault on marriage is just another increment of that agenda. Destroy marriage, destroy the family. Destroy the family, destroy the church - all as incremental objectives to destroy the union.

I’m not particularly “religious”, nor do I subscribe to a denominational school of thought. But I have observed that “religion” is the only real governance of man.

The Patriot
08-10-2009, 12:28 PM
Our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof.” Further, “No religious tests shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” That was conceived of and incorporated into the Constitution by folks that wouldn’t dream of opening a session of congress without beseeching the grace and blessing of their Almighty, a tradition that continues to this day. The intent of the founders was unambiguous. The assault on their intentions is but another leftist move on our foundations, and identity as a people. Regardless of what you have been led to believe, this country was founded by religious gun nuts. That is our heritage. That is who most of us still are.


Our founding fathers were also slave owners. That's one tradition we've put a stop to.

Vincent
08-10-2009, 01:00 PM
Our founding fathers were also slave owners. That's one tradition we've put a stop to.

I don't see the linkage.

"We" didn't end anything. The first elephant president, and those that fought and died in the 1860's ended slavery. The other team, by the way, fought against this. I absolutely love how the donkeys, the most racist bastards that have ever walked the Earth, try to position themselves as the "champions of 'civil rights'". http://ccrgop.com/CivilRights.htm

What does slavery (in the context of this thread :chuckle:) have to do with marriage? Are you saying that some "founders" were also "slave owners" so the whole foundation of the country should be shed?

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 01:31 PM
Our founding fathers were also slave owners. That's one tradition we've put a stop to.

so...starting each session with prayer to Almighty God is an evil comparable to slavery that must not be practiced ? Honestly, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I'm not exactly sure what else you could be inferring so please clarify. I do realize we have Separation of Church and State. That is clearly established and I like the principal. But if you are really and truly honest with yourself, what is the big deal of walking into a courtroom and seeing the Ten Commandments displayed on a wall behind the judge. Where is the harm ? That judge is still bound to uphold the law according to the Constitution. Where is the harm in a public school offering a "Biblical History" or "Christian Study" or even having an elective Bible Study ? Do we not offer "culture studies" , "black culture studies" et al in these same public schools ? Where is the harm in letting a group of Christian students gather around a flag pole on the school grounds before or after school hours and have voluntary prayer in Jesus name ? Tell me who it is hurting. Before you talk about "but the courts have decided it's unconstitutional", listen closely to the question. Where is the harm in any of the aforementioned cases ? Who is being hurt ? Christians are told "other religious groups might find it offensive" , which is why I don't see a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn and yet government funded a piece of art called "Piss Christ" featuring a crucifix in a vat of urine. Yeah, way to take care not to offend anyone else's religion.

SteelersinCA
08-10-2009, 01:37 PM
Ever heard of tyranny of the majority? Personally, I'm not a liberal but I don't respect democracy much either. We'd probably still have slaves and all sorts of other happy horsesh*t if it were a pure democracy. Good thing we are a Republic with a strong Constitution and Supreme Court.

SteelTalons
08-10-2009, 01:42 PM
obama won... mccain lost.

looks like perfectublicans dont like democracy either. :hunch:

who can take 7 more years of whining w/o another terrorist attack to galvanize us and supposedly bring us together?

Al Franken won and Norm Coleman lost also... Notice Norm tried his damn best to in every manner he could to get back in office. I dont see how this is out of line... Your rights stop where they get in the way of someone elses.

Personally... I think all marriages should be called civil unions when it comes to the government. Let the Churches do it so they can call it a marriage in God's name or whatever. But otherwise just level the playing field. Why do we even had a distinction between marriage and civil union in the USA?

Where's my separation of Church and State at? This is really the bread and butter of the issue gays want to be seen as equal to straights...

And civil unions are seen to be lesser than marriage. And personally as a secular humanist, that bothers me. Because I thought I had a separation of Church and state. I dont care God's on the money, in the pledge, dont care. But when God obstructs people. Enough.

We straight people have no right, to tell a gay what they can and cant do. This is a victimless crime. Its something thats illegal/banned just because of some 2,000 year old book written by desert goat herders said its immoral... However it oddly supports slavery and rape... Like where it says you can beat your slaves so long as they live 24hrs after the beating... And you the story about God telling the Jews to destroy a city and to kill the men, non-virgin women, and children. But to keep the virgins and take them as wives...

So having your entire family murdered and then be forced to lie down with a strange man isn't rape? Seriously, this is not something we should be debating.

Why isn't gay marriage legal already? :coffee:

And on the notes of the first "elephant president". No Republican alive, Sarah Palin, McCain, Bush, etc... None of them hold a candle to Lincoln, nor to Teddy Roosevelt, and so forth. The Republicans some where down the line, roughly about from Nixon and on turned into the party of God, and pretty much let the Democrats have every position the Republicans ever had an advantage in.

I respect the old Republicans... But somewhere down the line you lost your way. At least the democrats have changed for the better... Since they were once the pro-slavery bunch ya know?

Show me a viable Republican other than Ron Paul and we will talk. Ron and Bob Barr have run off with the last leg of the party that is actually crazy enough to work and would be truly Conservative. When Ron said legalize marijuana and automatic weapons my ears perked up. :chuckle:

So theres a good chance us liberals would entertain that idea and vote for that. :drink: I mean hey if we are gonna have guns lets have big guns! :thumbsup:

Vincent
08-10-2009, 01:55 PM
Ever heard of tyranny of the majority? Personally, I'm not a liberal but I don't respect democracy much either. We'd probably still have slaves and all sorts of other happy horsesh*t if it were a pure democracy. Good thing we are a Republic with a strong Constitution and Supreme Court.

What he said!!

When Ron said legalize marijuana and automatic weapons my ears perked up. :chuckle:

So theres a good chance us liberals would entertain that idea and vote for that. :drink: I mean hey if we are gonna have guns lets have big guns! :thumbsup:

I be down widdat.

revefsreleets
08-10-2009, 01:59 PM
By the way, one of the "promises" of the left was that they would pass gay marriage, and ONLY the Republicans were holding them up.

Now that THAT bullshit excuse no longer stands, what IS holding up this Democratic majority?

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 02:08 PM
Ever heard of tyranny of the majority? Personally, I'm not a liberal but I don't respect democracy much either. We'd probably still have slaves and all sorts of other happy horsesh*t if it were a pure democracy. Good thing we are a Republic with a strong Constitution and Supreme Court.

And what form of government would you find preferable ? What form of government ever established has been better than what the founding fathers set up that we generally know as a democracy ?

I AM NOW EDITING :)

I apologize SteelersinCa....I guess I got a l'il focused on "I don't respect democracy much either". Clearly, taken with the statement "Good thing we are a Republic with a strong Constitution and Supreme Court" I'm with you.

I suppose when I use the word democracy, I'm referring to the PEOPLE who have a right to vote against those in government who would weaken or change (for the worse) that Constitution and use the Supreme Court to rule against rather than uphold that constitution (again, for the worse). I suppose what I'm saying is, I have great respect for representative democracy (the way we know it) , just not the group of idiots we've elected to represent us in Washington. Still, at least the system comes with a built in mechanism by which we can send these idiots back home...if only we'd get off our collective asses, give a shit, pay attention to what they're really doing, and vote to dismiss the defective ones on election day !!!

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 02:13 PM
By the way, one of the "promises" of the left was that they would pass gay marriage, and ONLY the Republicans were holding them up.

Now that THAT bullshit excuse no longer stands, what IS holding up this Democratic majority?

Rev, I already got on to one poster. I'm going to have to ask you to stop your hate speech.

HATE SPEECH = any statement that is contrary to Liberal dogma or can in any way expose their lies, hypocracy and arrogance. :thumbsup:

The Patriot
08-10-2009, 03:50 PM
so...starting each session with prayer to Almighty God is an evil comparable to slavery that must not be practiced ? Honestly, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I'm not exactly sure what else you could be inferring so please clarify. I do realize we have Separation of Church and State. That is clearly established and I like the principal. But if you are really and truly honest with yourself, what is the big deal of walking into a courtroom and seeing the Ten Commandments displayed on a wall behind the judge. Where is the harm ? That judge is still bound to uphold the law according to the Constitution. Where is the harm in a public school offering a "Biblical History" or "Christian Study" or even having an elective Bible Study ? Do we not offer "culture studies" , "black culture studies" et al in these same public schools ? Where is the harm in letting a group of Christian students gather around a flag pole on the school grounds before or after school hours and have voluntary prayer in Jesus name ? Tell me who it is hurting. Before you talk about "but the courts have decided it's unconstitutional", listen closely to the question. Where is the harm in any of the aforementioned cases ? Who is being hurt ? Christians are told "other religious groups might find it offensive" , which is why I don't see a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn and yet government funded a piece of art called "Piss Christ" featuring a crucifix in a vat of urine. Yeah, way to take care not to offend anyone else's religion.

There is no harm. Now where is the harm in giving gay couples binding contracts for insurance and inheritance purposes? The later poster argued that it was against tradition, so I argued that slavery was also once tradition.

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 04:09 PM
marxism attacks religion as the “opiate of the masses”,

Wait....so you're saying the side that is trying to remove and ridicule the role of religion in our country are acting in line with a Marxist doctrine. Yet, they call the side that upholds, honors, reveres the religious heritage of our country the Marxist :tap:

UP is DOWN, BLACK is WHITE, and LIBS are dumber than a bag o' hammers.


EDIT: 'ridicule' may be a bit strong, let's go with 'downplay'

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 05:55 PM
I don't see the linkage. http://ccrgop.com/CivilRights.htm



Awesome Awesome read Vincent. It's good to see that the Republican party hasn't changed since it's inception. Then again, neither has the Democrat party. They just use new tactics to enslave blacks.

SteelersinCA
08-10-2009, 06:57 PM
And what form of government would you find preferable ? What form of government ever established has been better than what the founding fathers set up that we generally know as a democracy ?

I AM NOW EDITING :)

I apologize SteelersinCa....I guess I got a l'il focused on "I don't respect democracy much either". Clearly, taken with the statement "Good thing we are a Republic with a strong Constitution and Supreme Court" I'm with you.

I suppose when I use the word democracy, I'm referring to the PEOPLE who have a right to vote against those in government who would weaken or change (for the worse) that Constitution and use the Supreme Court to rule against rather than uphold that constitution (again, for the worse). I suppose what I'm saying is, I have great respect for representative democracy (the way we know it) , just not the group of idiots we've elected to represent us in Washington. Still, at least the system comes with a built in mechanism by which we can send these idiots back home...if only we'd get off our collective asses, give a shit, pay attention to what they're really doing, and vote to dismiss the defective ones on election day !!!

Bolded for truth. I'm just fine with our system of government, not the idiots we have elected, but then when you look at it that way, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

tony hipchest
08-10-2009, 08:09 PM
My pastor and his wife both know my sexual preference and they still make me feel very welcomed and loved. Oh wait...that sounds an awful lot like tolerance :thumbsup:

agreed. :drink:

it sounds an awful lot like a rather liberal approach to your sexual preferrence.

i have nothing against gays. its not my job to judge. i have a homo uncle who i love as much as any other family member and have roomed with a lesbian. :noidea:

to each their own.

what does irk me is whe some with no "tolerance" can proclaim all liberals as dumb as a bag of hammers, yet would probably be offended if a religious zealot vehemently stated that they will burn in hell for eternity based on nothing more than who they sleep with.

the smoke is filling the room. i can barely see through all the irony and hypocricy that has been exposed. :smoker:

Godfather
08-10-2009, 08:49 PM
What liberties are taken away ?

That 15% of your paycheck that gets taken away but you or your partner won't get the survivor benefits.

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 09:19 PM
agreed. :drink:

it sounds an awful lot like a rather liberal approach to your sexual preferrence.

if you new anything about Conservatives, you'd know they aren't the intolerant lot you'd paint to be.

i have nothing against gays. its not my job to judge.

I know I'll sleep better tonite.

what does irk me is whe some with no "tolerance" can proclaim all liberals as dumb as a bag of hammers, yet would probably be offended if a religious zealot vehemently stated that they will burn in hell for eternity based on nothing more than who they sleep with.

I've come to realize you can't control what other people think about you. Even if it is an unflattering dogma. It's still only words

the smoke is filling the room. i can barely see through all the irony and hypocricy that has been exposed. :smoker:

Tony, you should really stop hanging out in a room full of liberals without opening the windows.

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 09:27 PM
That 15% of your paycheck that gets taken away but you or your partner won't get the survivor benefits.

I hardly see that as a blatant violation of "civil liberties". A widow could pass away months after her husband dies. She doesn't really recoup that money either. :noidea:


EDIT: Not to mention, my tax dollars are already going towards entitlements to people I ain't even sleeping with :wink02:

tony hipchest
08-10-2009, 09:29 PM
Tony, you should really stop hanging out in a room full of liberals without opening the windows.and you should quit taking all the "holy communion" at this "chuch" you attend.

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 09:32 PM
Bolded for truth. I'm just fine with our system of government, not the idiots we have elected, but then when you look at it that way, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

:drink:

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 09:34 PM
and you should quit taking all the "holy communion" at this "chuch" you attend.

Now tony, I thought you said it wasn't yours to judge :nono:

tony hipchest
08-10-2009, 09:38 PM
just because i wont condemn you to hell dont mean i cant look at you as a moonbat. :hunch:

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 10:20 PM
It sickens you that people are trying to overturn a referendum that would take away your own liberties? I can see the point you're making (sour grapes over losing a vote)...but I think the gay marriage topic is a bad example. The banning of gay marriage is based almost solely on religious dogma and only helps in limiting an individual's freedom through discrimination of their sexual orientation. 100-200 years ago there would have been a majority of people that approved of slavery...but did that make it any less of a violation of someone's freedom/liberty? Sometimes basic civil liberties take precedent over the idea of "democracy"...this is one of those cases.

...in my opinion. :chuckle:


CantStop, I appreciate your views. What some people don't realize is that the same sex marriage issue is really kind of a non issue. There are simple and legal ways that a same sex couple can enjoy the privelages, benefiets and rights that hetero married couples enjoy without passing any further legislation. Some of the benefiets they like to point out that same sex couples don't have, a lot of hetero couples (for one reason or another) don't/can't enjoy. About the only thing missing is a single peice of paper with the words Marriage License on it. In the end, it seems to me that when people push for "gay rights", it's not about civil liberties, they're really just screaming out for validation. From the state, the Church, I don't know. As for me, I'm free to enjoy all the civil liberties I want. As long as my partner and I are surrounded by family and friends that love and accept us, that's all the validation I need.

And so there's no misunderstanding, the gay and lesbian community in no way and at no time in American history ever endured the hardships (not even close by a sight) that blacks did before emancipation, voters rights, and civil rights. All the work of Republicans I might add...jus' saying :chuckle:

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 10:30 PM
just because i wont condemn you to hell dont mean i cant look at you as a moonbat. :hunch:

awww tony, that's so sweet. i look at you as a moonbat too. c'mere u :hug:


:chuckle:

Godfather
08-10-2009, 10:46 PM
voters rights, and civil rights. All the work of Republicans I might add...jus' saying :chuckle:

The last two had a significant D contribution. Hubert Humphrey was the politician on the national stage who pushed the hardest for civil rights and the Voting Rights Act was passed by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President.

The racists started jumping ship to the GOP as a result, which is unfortunate because it made Republican a dirty word among black people.

Godfather
08-10-2009, 10:52 PM
EDIT: Not to mention, my tax dollars are already going towards entitlements to people I ain't even sleeping with :wink02:

LOL....well, they're just getting their Ponzi scheme money back. :drink:

tony hipchest
08-10-2009, 10:56 PM
awww tony, that's so sweet. i look at you as a moonbat too. c'mere u :hug:


:chuckle:

:hug:

the only difference is you try to condemn others to hell. :mg:

:hunch:

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 11:03 PM
:hug:

the only difference is you try to condemn others to hell. :mg:

:hunch:

Dude, you know good and well I've never ever even hinted that someone was condemned to hell on this board. You're goin to hell fer that one, tone :flap: j/k

I oughta start callin u "tone joke" :checkit:

tony hipchest
08-10-2009, 11:18 PM
Dude, you know good and well I've never ever even hinted that someone was condemned to hell on this board. You're goin to hell fer that one, tone :flap: j/k

I oughta start callin u "tone joke" :checkit:my bad.

youve just lumped ALL liberals into a pot of water and placed that kettle above a boil induing flame.

same difference to those who are burning, no?

7SteelGal43
08-10-2009, 11:35 PM
The racists started jumping ship to the GOP as a result, which is unfortunate because it made Republican a dirty word among black people.


The Republican party has always been a party of equality for men, women, black, white..... It's what it was founded on. It's something we've never waivered on. We didn't have to try to reinvent ourselves or put on masks to hide the truth. We are what we've always been. THE GOP ! :usa:

tony hipchest
08-10-2009, 11:54 PM
The Republican party has always been a party of equality for men, women, black, white..... It's what it was founded on. It's something we've never waivered on. We didn't have to try to reinvent ourselves or put on masks to hide the truth. We are what we've always been. THE GOP ! :usa::cheer:

so what youre saying is that YOU have no respect for democracy? :noidea:

Preacher
08-11-2009, 12:09 AM
:cheer:

so what youre saying is that YOU have no respect for democracy? :noidea:

I sure don't. It has proven to be inefficient.

A Representative Republican however, I have great respect for. Thank goodness that is what this nation is!

tony hipchest
08-11-2009, 12:31 AM
great.

so what we all can gather from this thread is that nobody really has any respect for democracy or being liberal and tolerant of others.

no wonder were in the situation we are in.

i dont really care. the whole planet is headed to hell in a handbasket.

i just choose to be on the optomist side as opposed to the daily bitcher and whiner pessimist society club's side.

whether the glass is half full or half empty, life is what we make it. :noidea:

Preacher
08-11-2009, 01:40 AM
great.

so what we all can gather from this thread is that nobody really has any respect for democracy or being liberal and tolerant of others.

no wonder were in the situation we are in.

i dont really care. the whole planet is headed to hell in a handbasket.

i just choose to be on the optomist side as opposed to the daily bitcher and whiner pessimist society club's side.

whether the glass is half full or half empty, life is what we make it. :noidea:

And this ladies and gentlemen... Is the new political logic called Polititony! Don't try it at home!!! (or on any research papers you may have to turn in for a grade!)

MasterOfPuppets
08-11-2009, 03:09 AM
The Republican party has always been a party of equality for men, women, black, white..... It's what it was founded on. It's something we've never waivered on. We didn't have to try to reinvent ourselves or put on masks to hide the truth. We are what we've always been. THE GOP ! :usa: but only if they're not gay .....

That's not to say that gay-bashing from the Republicans was not at an all-time high. In Kentucky, Sen. Jim Bunning won reelection—even though he seems to be suffering from dementia—by having his surrogates call his opponent "limp-wristed." Right-wing Republican extremist Tom Coburn warned of "rampant lesbianism" in high schools and won a Senate race in Oklahoma. Jim DeMint said that gays should not be given jobs teaching in the schools and took a Senate seat in South Carolina.

Similarly, the Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee used fear, hatred and religious dogmatism shamelessly against John Kerry, whose campaign rarely if ever responded. While Karl Rove energized Christian-right groups to get out the vote, using same-sex marriage and a whole host of issues—and using the Republican National Committee and its front groups to send out mailings and conduct telephone push polls that claimed that Kerry supported same-sex marriage—the Democratic Party worked to keep the issue quiet. They ducked and ran for cover. But as a certain cowboy says, you can run but you can't hide.

Rather than distancing themselves from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, for example, Democrats should have lauded him for taking a moral stand, however much they may disagree on civil unions or same-sex marriage. Bill Clinton may not have supported same-sex marriage, but he did support gay rights and was vocal about it during his 1992 campaign. He garnered more of the gay vote than the more circumspect Al Gore and John Kerry—more than 75 percent—and certainly got the support of many others among the base who saw supporting civil rights as a priority. Taking a page out of the Republican playbook, Democrats should have sent out equally targeted and hard-hitting mailings focused on the Republican Party's attempt to change the Constitution of the United States and turn a minority group into second-class citizens, hitting the issue head on rather than running from it.
http://www.nypress.com/article-10474-dont-blame-the-gays.html

Preacher
08-11-2009, 04:18 AM
but only if they're not gay .....

http://www.nypress.com/article-10474-dont-blame-the-gays.html

And the democrats don't gay bash? :laughing:

Oh wait, they only gay bash if the gay person is republican.

7SteelGal43
08-11-2009, 12:17 PM
:cheer:

so what youre saying is that YOU have no respect for democracy? :noidea:

EPIC FAIL.

There is no way you could read the words I wrote and come to the ascertion you're making. You sir, have a made a 5000 foot jump to get from what I said to "so what youre saying is that YOU have no respect for democracy?" I truly hope you didn't hurt yourself when you landed. :thmbup:

7SteelGal43
08-11-2009, 01:34 PM
but only if they're not gay .....



I am gay and feel right at home in the GOP.

7SteelGal43
08-11-2009, 02:11 PM
but only if they're not gay .....

http://www.nypress.com/article-10474-dont-blame-the-gays.html

Let me quote myself from a post I left in another thread....

If I thought for a second that Representative Kern's views were prevelant in the thinking, speaking, or actions of the Republican party, I would not remain a registered Republican. Period. If I didn't think her views and statements were nothing more than a single, no bigger than a pin point, blip on the radar, I'd be gone. I hear so many on the outside of the Republican party say we need to practice more 'tolerance'. Well, from where I stand, inside, I see tolerance.

The above quote is from a lesbian who happens to be a proud registered Republican.

It's those outside that are telling me what I should feel about "tolerance" within the Republican party. I'm inside. Somone inside a hot tub of water would be a much better judge than somone standing there looking at a hot tub of water just how hot the water really is. Especially if that person standing there looking at it already made up their mind that hot tubs of water are evil. A few Kems do not make up the whole Republican party just like a few Pelosis do not make up the whole Democrat party. As for the GOP trying to turn gays and lesbians into 2nd class citizens, this is complete and utter nonsense. To say that because the Republican party does not support same sex marriage, they are somehow denying me my civil liberties is totally inaccurate. Please read my post from earlier in this very thread that talks about that subject. We sometimes cry out for 'preferential treatment' but label it 'civil liberties'. Blacks 'civil liberties' were non existant. Blacks had NO 'civil rights' or 'civil liberties'. To say that gays and lesbians are denied 'civil liberties' or 'civil rights' is not only a myth, it's an out and out lie.

All you who praise the Democrat party as 'champion of civil rights', here's something for you to ponder. How much of a role would the Democrat party have played in the 'civil rights' movement if not for the formation of the Republican party ? Yes, there was a big gap between the formation of the GOP and 'civil rights'. But when the GOP formed, it's first elected president and Republican members of congress abolished slavery and ratified the Emancipation Proclomation. That was one of the main objectives that led to it's very formation. Every Democrat voted against it. As I said earlier, it's not the GOP that had to reinvent itself or hide behind masks.

7SteelGal43
08-11-2009, 02:54 PM
One more thing......I guaran****tee you that if the number of gays/lesbians in America was equal to the number of blacks in America, the Democrats would be doing a helluva lot more than just paying lip service to us. So far, they've kept gays/lesbians "on the plantation" by simply saying "we're all for same sex marriage, gay rights...but those darned Republicans........." . :jerkit: This lesbian ain't buyin "massa's" lies.

Vincent
08-11-2009, 05:13 PM
One more thing......I guaran****tee you that if the number of gays/lesbians in America was equal to the number of blacks in America, the Democrats would be doing a helluva lot more than just paying lip service to us. So far, they've kept gays/lesbians "on the plantation" by simply saying "we're all for same sex marriage, gay rights...but those darned Republicans........." . :jerkit: This lesbian ain't buyin "massa's" lies.

If I was "gay", I might look at all the donkeys have done for black America and say "um, see ya!".

7SteelGal43
08-13-2009, 03:41 PM
Ever heard of tyranny of the majority? .

Ever hear of tyranny by the minority ? Yeah, it's a simple philosophy. "if they out vote us, sue."

Preacher
08-13-2009, 03:43 PM
Ever hear of tyranny by the minority ? Yeah, it's a simple philosophy. "if they out vote us, sue."
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

SteelersinCA
08-13-2009, 05:11 PM
Ever hear of tyranny by the minority ? Yeah, it's a simple philosophy. "if they out vote us, sue."

Actually, I never have heard of it.

7SteelGal43
08-13-2009, 05:25 PM
Actually, I never have heard of it.

but, certainly you've seen in action if you've lived in America any length ot time.

Preacher
08-13-2009, 06:20 PM
but, certainly you've seen in action if you've lived in America any length ot time.
Yep, and it comes back to activist courts.

The LAW was established: Equality for all. The activist court stepped in during 1896 "Plessy v. Fergusson and determined that equality was only a demand before the law, not socially (which means a race can be discriminated against socially

From the Majority Opinion; Plessy v Fergusson
The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguish d from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation, in places where they are liable to be brought into contact, do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power.

and again

'The great principle,' said Chief Justice Shaw, 'advanced by the learned and eloquent advocate for the plaintiff [Mr. Charles Sumner], is that, by the constitution and laws of Massachusetts, all persons, without distinction of age or sex, birth or color, origin or condition, are equal before the law. ... But, when this great principle comes to be applied to the actual and various conditions of persons in society, it will not warrant the assertion that men and women are legally clothed with the same civil and political powers, and that children and adults are legally to have the same functions and be subject to the same treatment; but only that the rights of all, as they are settled and regulated by law, are equally entitled to the paternal consideration and protection of the law for their maintenance and security.' It was held that the powers of the committee extended to the establish- [163 U.S. 537, 545] ment of separate schools for children of different ages, sexes and colors, and that they might also establish special schools for poor and neglected children, who have become too old to attend the primary school, and yet have not acquired the rudiments of learning, to enable them to enter the ordinary schools. Similar laws have been enacted by congress under its general power of legislation over the District of Columbia (sections 281- 283, 310, 319, Rev. St. D. C.), as well as by the legislatures of many of the states, and have been generally, if not uniformly, sustained by the courts. State v. McCann, 21 Ohio St. 210; Lehew v. Brummell (Mo. Sup.) 15 S. W. 765; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36; Bertonneau v. Directors of City Schools, 3 Woods, 177, Fed. Cas. No. 1,361; People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 337; Dawson v. Lee, 83 Ky. 49. Laws forbidding the intermarriage of the two races may be said in a technical sense to interfere with the freedom of contract, and yet have been universally recognized as within the police power of the state. State v. Gibson, 36 Ind. 389.


It was an activist court which instilled separate but equal against the 14th amendment (go read all the mental gyrations done around it). Thus, it took ANOTHER activist court to change back.

Going back to Scott v Saniford (better known as Dredd Scott), the federal courts took over a state case, reversing rulings and after a second line of argumentation (because after the first arguments, it was found out that dissenting judges were going to affirm the Missouri Compromise) put out that horrendous ruling, also establishing laws via case law on citizenship and states rights to come to agreements with other states via slaves.

_______________

Activist courts are a detriment to society. Dredd Scott pushed the nation much closer to the civil war. Plessy Ferguson instituted the horrendous separate but equal laws. Both, IMO, were reaches for the court, where they went places they should not go.

St33lersguy
08-14-2009, 08:21 AM
These crooks spend rapidly increase our debt make us pay for their private jets and now want nationalized healthcare which is a total failure then proceed to call us unamerican and try to intimidate us with union thugs. This is what the Obama administration is all about.
Though to be fair both parties have failed to represent the people, both have hurt us dearly. Common sense is completely absent

Godfather
08-14-2009, 09:04 AM
Activist courts are a detriment to society. Dredd Scott pushed the nation much closer to the civil war. Plessy Ferguson instituted the horrendous separate but equal laws. Both, IMO, were reaches for the court, where they went places they should not go.

That's why precedent shouldn't be written in stone. We shouldn't be stuck with a decision just because the Supreme Court ignored the Constitution.

There are some horrible rulings that have been made over the years. Kelo is a recent example. Upholding forfeiture laws was pure and utter BS--the Constitution states explicitly that the government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process. That's a definition of activism people seem to forget. It's just as bad to uphold a clearly unconstitutional law as it is to strike down a law that doesn't violate the Constitution.

Preacher
08-14-2009, 04:36 PM
That's why precedent shouldn't be written in stone. We shouldn't be stuck with a decision just because the Supreme Court ignored the Constitution.

There are some horrible rulings that have been made over the years. Kelo is a recent example. Upholding forfeiture laws was pure and utter BS--the Constitution states explicitly that the government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process. That's a definition of activism people seem to forget. It's just as bad to uphold a clearly unconstitutional law as it is to strike down a law that doesn't violate the Constitution.

Precedent IS important. Stare decisis is the foundation for clear understanding of the law. otherwise, what was legal last week may be illegal this week and again legal next week. It is only with the most serious study and forethought of the constitution that Stare decisis should be annulled...

but that goes back to what I believe is the point behind your post, in which I am in absolute agreement with.

If Judges ONLY followed the constitution... and case law was abolished. Then changes wanted or needed could and would be done where they were ORIGINALLY INTENDED... in the legislature. Thus, activism is abandoned as is unconstitutional law... and politicians are made to take a stand... instead of passing everything off to the courts because they are too chicken to morally stand for something and risk not getting reelected.

Godfather
08-15-2009, 03:10 PM
Precedent IS important. Stare decisis is the foundation for clear understanding of the law. otherwise, what was legal last week may be illegal this week and again legal next week. It is only with the most serious study and forethought of the constitution that Stare decisis should be annulled...

but that goes back to what I believe is the point behind your post, in which I am in absolute agreement with.

If Judges ONLY followed the constitution... and case law was abolished. Then changes wanted or needed could and would be done where they were ORIGINALLY INTENDED... in the legislature. Thus, activism is abandoned as is unconstitutional law... and politicians are made to take a stand... instead of passing everything off to the courts because they are too chicken to morally stand for something and risk not getting reelected.

All good points.

I don't think you can get rid of case law completely, of course. Rulings like Miranda and Mapp (whether you like them or not) were decided in the right forum. Judges are best qualified to decide rules for legal procedure. Sometimes you have to define what due process means, or what the proper remedy is for a Fourth Amendment violation.

With precedent I think the Court should be allowed to reverse an egregious mistake by a previous Court. And a 9-0 decision should be a stronger precedent than 5-4. 9-0 means it's an obvious call. 5-4 means it's a difficult and complex question (or there are 4 or 5 activist hacks) that needs further examination.

Preacher
08-15-2009, 04:22 PM
All good points.

I don't think you can get rid of case law completely, of course. Rulings like Miranda and Mapp (whether you like them or not) were decided in the right forum. Judges are best qualified to decide rules for legal procedure. Sometimes you have to define what due process means, or what the proper remedy is for a Fourth Amendment violation.

With precedent I think the Court should be allowed to reverse an egregious mistake by a previous Court. And a 9-0 decision should be a stronger precedent than 5-4. 9-0 means it's an obvious call. 5-4 means it's a difficult and complex question (or there are 4 or 5 activist hacks) that needs further examination.

Thanks...

I think what I would prefer, is for the court to simply say, "THe consitituion does not define due process... and it is imperative for congress to define it" Then, the next time a "Due Process" case comes us, the court says, "The right of the individual shall not be violated without due process, since due process is not defined, The court must come down on the right of the individual, since the dec. of indep. and constituion protects the rights of the people from the govt."

See how fast congress then establishes laws of "due process"

And there is something swarmy to my about a group of people who make their living off the law being the ones to define the law.

7SteelGal43
08-30-2009, 09:48 PM
I found the following passages in an article by Jeremy Boreing entitled "A Christian Nation". This man makes compelling arguments against the revisionist history claim that we are a secular nation. Those of you who honor and cherish our Godly heritage will love it, I promise. I'm including a link to the entire article below.

"Martin Luther and William Tyndale had begun translating the Bible into common languages, giving the people the opportunity to explore God for themselves. What they discovered surprised them. In the Book of Exodus, God establishes a civil leader for his people in Moses. He also establishes a religious leader in Aaron. Then he does something really interesting: He commands that they remain separate forever. If the king tries to supersede the religious authority of the priesthood, God will destroy him, as he does in 2 Chronicles, cursing a king named Uzziah for conducting a religious rite in the temple. Of course, God was God of the state, as well as the religion. He gave guidance to Moses just as surely as he did to Aaron. He just precluded the civil leader from also being the religious leader. Undoubtedly, God understood that without that distinction, all kings would be like Henry VIII. Separation of church and state, then, is actually a Biblical principle."

"When Jefferson’s own American forefathers, the Pilgrims, took sanctuary from religious persecution in this new world, they sought to be true to the Biblical teachings that their former rulers had violated. In America, as in Israel thousands of years before, government and religious authority would be forever separated, though just as in Israel, God would be God of both. God and religion, after all, are not the same thing. One is the Supreme Being over all, and the other is the institution by which he is taught and worshiped. Jefferson understood this distinction, which is why he could assure the Danbury Baptists that there was a “wall of separation between church and state,” ensuring that the government would never dictate or enforce religious decrees, while at the same time he also recognized God though the government, and based the legitimacy of both on him."


http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jdboreing/2009/08/29/a-christian-nation/#more-210542

revefsreleets
08-31-2009, 10:59 AM
If the Christians feel so strongly about making sure we all believe that we were founded as a Christian nation, I for one, concede...I don't really care one way or the other, since it has very little to do with anything, and it seems to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside if we let them "win" this battle...

But the founding fathers were VERY clear about separation of Church and State (I know, there's a HUGE contradiction, but, you know, whatever...), so that is a boundary that still stands and cannot be crossed.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-31-2009, 12:12 PM
If the Christians feel so strongly about making sure we all believe that we were founded as a Christian nation, I for one, concede...I don't really care one way or the other, since it has very little to do with anything, and it seems to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside if we let them "win" this battle...

But the founding fathers were VERY clear about separation of Church and State (I know, there's a HUGE contradiction, but, you know, whatever...), so that is a boundary that still stands and cannot be crossed.

You are right in saying that our founding fathers were clear about seperation of church and state..HOWEVER...It should be noted that the current twist is backwards from the original intent of protecting RELIGION from Government interference.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 in answer to a letter from them written in October 1801. ... The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted"

He responded that the Government would not establish a "state church" nor interfere with religion.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

7SteelGal43
08-31-2009, 12:52 PM
If the Christians feel so strongly about making sure we all believe that we were founded as a Christian nation, I for one, concede...I don't really care one way or the other, since it has very little to do with anything, and it seems to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside if we let them "win" this battle...

But the founding fathers were VERY clear about separation of Church and State (I know, there's a HUGE contradiction, but, you know, whatever...), so that is a boundary that still stands and cannot be crossed.


rev, noone is denying the Separation of Church and State or even saying the founding fathers were vague on the matter. As I've said - more than once - I very much believe in Separation of Church and State. As the article points out, it's a Biblical principal. I 'bolded' a few lines in the exerpts from the article to hilite what I thought were a good points - among many in the article.

The article itself is a very good read on the topic of our nations Godly heritage as well as Separation of Church and State. I especially liked how the author makes the point that God and religion are not the same thing. It was religion, after all, that the founding fathers had had enough of and were escaping from. Not God. They had doubts at times, as all men do, and differences about finer points on the subject of God, Jesus Christ, religion in general, but they were Godly men.

You certainly don't have to believe as I do, but don't come with contradiction if you havn't even read the article. From your last post, I have to wonder if you understood my post.

signed,
LRL

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jdboreing/2009/08/29/a-christian-nation/

revefsreleets
09-01-2009, 10:49 AM
rev, noone is denying the Separation of Church and State or even saying the founding fathers were vague on the matter. As I've said - more than once - I very much believe in Separation of Church and State. As the article points out, it's a Biblical principal. I 'bolded' a few lines in the exerpts from the article to hilite what I thought were a good points - among many in the article.

The article itself is a very good read on the topic of our nations Godly heritage as well as Separation of Church and State. I especially liked how the author makes the point that God and religion are not the same thing. It was religion, after all, that the founding fathers had had enough of and were escaping from. Not God. They had doubts at times, as all men do, and differences about finer points on the subject of God, Jesus Christ, religion in general, but they were Godly men.

You certainly don't have to believe as I do, but don't come with contradiction if you havn't even read the article. From your last post, I have to wonder if you understood my post.

signed,
LRL

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jdboreing/2009/08/29/a-christian-nation/

Look, enough with the lectures, okay? There IS a contradiction because the Christians almost DEMAND that everyone recognize that this is a Christian nation, founded by Christians on Christian principles, blah, blah, blah (and it wasn't and isn't, but I'm through debating that)...

So, anyway, it's impossible to have a nation that is both Christian AND secular all at once...hence the obvious contraction and dichotomy.

SteelCurtain
09-01-2009, 02:02 PM
Marriage is an outdated and antiquated institution anyway. Who cares if gays get married?

The religious aspect is different...people are certainly more than welcome to do whatever they like in the eyes of their God, but legal recognition of marriage has served it's purpose, and it's time for us to become a little more enlightened.

Besides, we heterosexuals have done enough ourselves to wreck whatever sanctity there once was what with the "disposable" or "Starter" marriage mentality. If it meant anything the divorce rate wouldn't be over 50%...


Exactly...well said

7SteelGal43
09-02-2009, 11:11 AM
Look, enough with the lectures, okay? There IS a contradiction because the Christians almost DEMAND that everyone recognize that this is a Christian nation, founded by Christians on Christian principles, blah, blah, blah (and it wasn't and isn't, but I'm through debating that)...

So, anyway, it's impossible to have a nation that is both Christian AND secular all at once...hence the obvious contraction and dichotomy.


Oh, I'm not lecturing you, little man, just offering facts and opinions. That's what we do here at SF, right ?

For every quote - or in a few cases, misquote - cited to show the founding fathers were not true believers, one could find several to show they were. They opened each meeting with prayer. They constantly refer to our dependence on God for strength. They included "the Creator" and "Natures God" in the Declaration of Independence. Other documents also include references to God. Sounds pretty spiritual, or dare I say Biblical, to me. During the civil war, "In God We Trust" was added to coins because the people wanted to recognize God."Our God;Our Country" and "God, Our Trust" were the two original suggestions. "In God We Trust" actually became the official national motto in 1956 and was added to paper currency in 1957.

But you're probably right. The founding fathers never meant for God, the Bible, or even Jesus Christ to be part of the equation at all.

7SteelGal43
09-02-2009, 11:21 AM
"The tired argument that the Founders were not Christians but Deists is not only false (there were more overtly Christian men among the Founders than even supposed Deists by orders of magnitude), but more importantly, it is irrelevant. Whatever the nuances of their personal faiths, the Founders were to-a-man theists, believers in God, and in the Christian tradition. While some of them, men like Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson, were skeptical of many of the miraculous claims of the Bible, they were none-the-less scholarly about and reverent toward what they saw as its philosophy, and its God. They may not have been Christians by the standards of the church, but they were certainly Christians by the standards of atheists."

from the article "A Christian Nation" by Jeremy D. Boreing

stlrtruck
09-02-2009, 12:47 PM
If the Christians feel so strongly about making sure we all believe that we were founded as a Christian nation, I for one, concede...I don't really care one way or the other, since it has very little to do with anything, and it seems to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside if we let them "win" this battle...


This isn't a battle for the here and now, it's a battle for the future of this country.

For those that believe we are a Christian Nation and for those who believe that we should rely on God's wisdom, knowledge, and Holy Word to guide this nation, it's about seeing the promises of God fulfilled.

revefsreleets
09-02-2009, 12:56 PM
This isn't a battle for the here and now, it's a battle for the future of this country.

For those that believe we are a Christian Nation and for those who believe that we should rely on God's wisdom, knowledge, and Holy Word to guide this nation, it's about seeing the promises of God fulfilled.

I'm sorry, I think that's as silly as two little league teams playing and the winning team claiming that they won because "God was on our team".

PisnNapalm
09-02-2009, 01:02 PM
I remember fairly recently in the state of Louisiana, a gay marriage referendum was put before the voters. Roughly 75% voted NO. They affirmed marriage was one woman, one man. The (overwhelming) majority had spoken. There ya go. Or maybe not. A law suit was brought before the Louisiana Supreme Court to overturn the vote. I am a lesbian. But this thoroughly sickened me.

In 2000, Al Gore sought to find a way in to the White House through litigation.

Currently, there is legislation being rammed down our throat that by all appearances, a majority of Americans do not want (and dare I say don't need). At a town hall meeting, one congressmen actually told his constituant "now go sit down".

And I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that these recent town hall meetings had been heated and maybe loud, but yet overall, civil, non violent. It wasn't until Libs decided to counter with the help of their "special interest" pets that they escalated into physical confrontations. Thankfully those have been few....so far.

Yep. Liberals Do Not Respect Democracy.

I know I'm coming to this thread late, but there is something I have to say.


Democracy is EVIL. It is mob rule. It is where the majority tramples the rights of the minority.

We do not live in a democracy! We live in a constitutional representative republic. Everyone's rights are supposed to be equal. The minority's rights are as important as the majority's.

I absolutely hate that nearly everyone thinks our form of government is a democracy. They're wrong.

revefsreleets
09-02-2009, 01:17 PM
"The tired argument that the Founders were not Christians but Deists is not only false (there were more overtly Christian men among the Founders than even supposed Deists by orders of magnitude), but more importantly, it is irrelevant. Whatever the nuances of their personal faiths, the Founders were to-a-man theists, believers in God, and in the Christian tradition. While some of them, men like Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson, were skeptical of many of the miraculous claims of the Bible, they were none-the-less scholarly about and reverent toward what they saw as its philosophy, and its God. They may not have been Christians by the standards of the church, but they were certainly Christians by the standards of atheists."

from the article "A Christian Nation" by Jeremy D. Boeing

That's one article form one source...I've posted dozens, and many were slightly contradictory. I'm not about to put all my eggs in one basket, ESPECIALLY one as fragile as that...

Jeremy D. Boering is a blogger, no more, no less. I read some of his stuff, and found it interesting that he's a "birther" apologist. Discrediting him isn't even necessary because he has no reputation or credibility, and certainly no scholarly or intellectual merit, to begin with. Citing him doesn't even make any sense...is he a friend of yours or something?

Concerning the ad hominem "little man" deflection, is that a lesbian thing? Marginalizing masculinity or some kind of anti-man thing? A penis size reference? If you were trying to get a rise out of me, you fail. But I did note the frustrated tone behind it...

Back on point, your arguments are all convener belt, garden variety neo-con toe the line right wing christian pseudo-intellectual semantics, right out of the handbook...uninteresting, largely dogma, mostly indoctrination based, and, most importantly, light on facts and really heavy on opinion and conjecture...

As for MY assertions, you are either A) Ignoring my point, B) Realize you can't win this particular point, or C) have some reading comprehension problems.

I take umbrage with Christians forcing their wish that this was originally (or at any point, really) a Christian country upon all others who know better. I never said we were GODLESS nation, simply that we are not a CHRISTIAN nation. There is a difference.

Christianity is not the only religion. It was not the only religion practiced by the founding fathers. In fact, many practiced no religion at all, which, by the very definition of Christianity as a religion, means they could not have been Christians. This was not, is not, and was never intended to be a Christian country. We were not founded on Christianity, there is no mention of Jesus or Christ in the constitution, there is a distinct separation of church and state, and, in point of fact, we were actually a country modeled after the great polytheistic Republics of Greece and Rome.

Like I said, in a balanced laissez faire state of things, I could care less what Christians want to believe, and as long as it's harmless, I'll concede that their fantasy is true if it makes them feel better, but when pushed, the facts and truth are on my side, and I have no problem bringing them to bear...

7SteelGal43
09-02-2009, 02:54 PM
I know I'm coming to this thread late, but there is something I have to say.


Democracy is EVIL. It is mob rule. It is where the majority tramples the rights of the minority.

We do not live in a democracy! We live in a constitutional representative republic. Everyone's rights are supposed to be equal. The minority's rights are as important as the majority's.

I absolutely hate that nearly everyone thinks our form of government is a democracy. They're wrong.


So that's your beef ? That I used the word democracy instead of constitutional representative republic even though that's what I meant and thought everyone understood ? :drink: Cool, I stand corrected. :hatsoff: I think we do pretty well in this country as far as civil liberties. The constitution - and by default, our government - guarantees equal rights. To many people confuse equal rights with equal outcome though. IMO.

Preacher
09-02-2009, 03:10 PM
I take umbrage with Christians forcing their wish that this was originally (or at any point, really) a Christian country upon all others who know better. I never said we were GODLESS nation, simply that we are not a CHRISTIAN nation. There is a difference.
.

Rev...

You know as well as I do that many of our founding fathers were deists. Those who weren't, were mainly theists. I can't think of one that doesn't fall into those two categories.

you also know as well as I do that deism is an enlightment religion based on laws of nature-- however, it is formed out of the understanding of nature and the logical assumptions proposed by Thomas Aquinas, Augustan, etc. etc. It was the original "liberal theology" of christianity... God as creator, but no longer sustainer or interloper.

So I think you and many others here are drawing a false dichotomy. The entire premise of the Declaration of Independence is that we are born with inalienable rights endowed by God (creator). The constitution create within that premise, which is why the original constitution doesn't give the citizen any rights, it rightly assumed that we all had rights which only a few could be taken by the govt. when the governed agreed. That is based on the Amago dei-- the concept of the Image of God in teh Old testament.

So yes, everything we have is built on and based on the bible, more OT than new testament... though much more was added via the enlightenment.

But you are also right, that our govt. was never intended to be govt. that demand obedience to a faith, nor wanted to push anyone to that obediance. However, it also wasn't intended to strip faith away from local communities and allow multiple faith groups to interact on public grounds.

Thus, I think our founding fathers would be aghast to see public squares banning religious symbols during Christmas. I think their intent would be a public square which allows Christian, Jewish, Muslism, Pagan, and Atheist symbols in the public square at Christmas. That is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

PisnNapalm
09-02-2009, 04:37 PM
I think we do pretty well in this country as far as civil liberties. The constitution - and by default, our government - guarantees equal rights.

That's where you're very mistaken.

What we have here in the United States now is the appearance of freedom. Virtually everything is regulated, taxed and controlled by the government. Everything from the food you eat to the air you breathe.

You have licenses and permits to travel, get married, build a home, etc...

7SteelGal43
09-02-2009, 06:16 PM
That's where you're very mistaken.

What we have here in the United States now is the appearance of freedom. Virtually everything is regulated, taxed and controlled by the government. Everything from the food you eat to the air you breathe.

You have licenses and permits to travel, get married, build a home, etc...

So there's no misunderstanding, I believe smaller government is better. That's what was originally set up and what I hope we go back too. I am a firm believer in much less government interference then we currently have in this country. However, SOME manner of regulation, taxation, even licenses and permits are necessary. Otherwise you have chaos.

7SteelGal43
09-02-2009, 06:26 PM
“little man” – a deflection ? really ? So I guess you were deflecting and/or trying to get a rise out of me when you called me “lesbian republican lady”. You may as well get it right though…it’s “lesbian CONSERVATIVE lady”, k ? Miss Lady to you. :chuckle: And just to set ya straight, I’m not ‘anti-man’. Most of my best buds are guys. Interesting that you are the one who connected “little man” to penis size. I LOL’d, you’re on a roll, dude. You seem to be full of assumptions and conjectures. You got all that out of two l'il words ? Wow. :laughing:

Funny, it’s usually the lefties that resort to name calling like “neo-con” and “Christian right”. I’m sure that the Christians on the left would point out it’s not a left-right thing, and they’d be correct. You state you have ”fact and truth” on your side but so far havn’t made a good showing of it. So far your only source on the topic has been….you. By the way, I linked – and have included passages from - Jeremy D Boreings article only because it articulated my VIEWS quite well. I never claimed it to be factual evidence.

You said that you could care less anyway, and yet it seems to be you who’s making it some sort of personal fight. And no, there was no frustration on my part. All smiles here. :thumbsup:

Sincerely,
LCL ; formerly known as LRL.

stlrtruck
09-03-2009, 06:46 AM
I'm sorry, I think that's as silly as two little league teams playing and the winning team claiming that they won because "God was on our team".

minimize it all you want, but anyone would tell you that God doesn't care who wins the games that are played. He cares about the condition of a person's heart.

revefsreleets
09-03-2009, 08:41 AM
You state you have ”fact and truth” on your side but so far havn’t made a good showing of it. So far your only source on the topic has been….you.

This isn't the first time I've been over this ground...I needn't spend time digging up all the stuff I've posted in the past, because it's already been posted.

As for facts and evidence, a lot of it is contained right in the very citations YOU'VE been posting...there's really no need to go digging around to prove things that aren't even really being argued...for instance, deists are deists, not Christians. It's fine for Preach to make a case that they are related, and perhaps they are to a small extent, but they still aren't Christians. That's pretty clear...

And there is not a single mention of Jesus or Christianity in the constitution, which, if we were a Christian nation, would certainly NOT be the case.

This is a country founded upon the models of Greece and Rome, with greater or equal religious freedom. We aren't a Christian Country, we are a religious-neutral country, with a religion-free government who happens to have a majority of Christians citizens CURRENTLY. And the winners always write (and in this case, revise) the history books...

7SteelGal43
09-03-2009, 07:45 PM
This isn't the first time I've been over this ground...I needn't spend time digging up all the stuff I've posted in the past, because it's already been posted.

As for facts and evidence, a lot of it is contained right in the very citations YOU'VE been posting...there's really no need to go digging around to prove things that aren't even really being argued...for instance, deists are deists, not Christians. It's fine for Preach to make a case that they are related, and perhaps they are to a small extent, but they still aren't Christians. That's pretty clear...

And there is not a single mention of Jesus or Christianity in the constitution, which, if we were a Christian nation, would certainly NOT be the case.

This is a country founded upon the models of Greece and Rome, with greater or equal religious freedom. We aren't a Christian Country, we are a religious-neutral country, with a religion-free government who happens to have a majority of Christians citizens CURRENTLY. And the winners always write (and in this case, revise) the history books...

:scratchchin: nope, sorry, just not seein it rev, but I respect the conclusion that you've come to. I simply have come to a different conclusion after scouring writings of the founding fathers; speeches, letters, journals. I just don't and never will see it your way.:noidea: any more than you'll ever see it my way.

revefsreleets
09-03-2009, 09:10 PM
:scratchchin: nope, sorry, just not seein it rev, but I respect the conclusion that you've come to. I simply have come to a different conclusion after scouring writings of the founding fathers; speeches, letters, journals. I just don't and never will see it your way.:noidea: any more than you'll ever see it my way.

So you're saying that, even though we know they weren't all Christians (and you've conceded that), and they made a huge point of separating religion from the state, and there is no mention of Jesus or Christianity in the Constitution, in spite of ALL that evidence, you're sticking with what your church told ya?

Ok.

steelwalls
09-03-2009, 09:51 PM
Let the gays get married. We should not judge, their judgement will come.... politics wont matter at that point.

7SteelGal43
09-03-2009, 11:26 PM
So you're saying that, even though we know they weren't all Christians (and you've conceded that), and they made a huge point of separating religion from the state, and there is no mention of Jesus or Christianity in the Constitution,

Concerning the ad hominem "little man" deflection, is that a lesbian thing? Marginalizing masculinity or some kind of anti-man thing? A penis size reference?

I called you "little man" and from those two words you got "lesbian thing", "marginalizing masculinity", "anti-man" and "reference to penis". Now you start your latest response with "so you're saying that...". How 'bout doing us both a favor and stop putting words in my mouth, k ? Would that be good ? :thmbup:


in spite of ALL that evidence, you're sticking with what your church told ya?

Have I once used the phrase "my church says" or "my pastor told me" ? Or are you just ASSuming that's where I got my information ?

HometownGal
09-04-2009, 06:38 AM
Folks - I think we can all reasonably hold a discussion without making reference to one's pecker size or sexual preference, don't ya agree?

xfl2001fan
09-04-2009, 06:53 AM
Folks - I think we can all reasonably hold a discussion without making reference to one's pecker size or sexual preference, don't ya agree?

You're just jealous because I have a bigger penis than you do. Admit it. :flap:

revefsreleets
09-04-2009, 08:21 AM
OK, so please clarify for me, are we, or are we not (according to you), A Christian Nation as established by the founding fathers?

Hines0wnz
09-11-2009, 04:58 PM
By the way, one of the "promises" of the left was that they would pass gay marriage, and ONLY the Republicans were holding them up.

Now that THAT bullshit excuse no longer stands, what IS holding up this Democratic majority?

Too busy finishing the list of broken promises and paying back their loony base.

Hines0wnz
09-11-2009, 05:04 PM
OK, so please clarify for me, are we, or are we not (according to you), A Christian Nation as established by the founding fathers?

I do not consider myself religious but I consider this country to be a Christian nation. And so what if it is because it changes nothing. Even Muslim nations have other religions within their borders. I mean what does the anti-religious crowd prefer us to be called, a non-denominational nation?

revefsreleets
09-12-2009, 06:10 AM
A secular Nation, with a Christian majority in it's population...

Vincent
09-12-2009, 11:25 AM
OK, so please clarify for me, are we, or are we not (according to you), A Christian Nation as established by the founding fathers?

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html

Is America a Christian Nation?
CARL PEARLSTON
Is America a Christian nation? The answer is both yes and no, depending on what one means by the phrase.

The use of Christian religious references in the recent Presidential Inauguration prayers has served to reopen the debate over religion in America's public life. Professor Alan Dershowitz led off with an article strongly objecting that America wasn't a Christian nation; Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby replied that it certainly was. Who is right? Is America a Christian nation? The answer is both yes and no, depending on what one means by the phrase.

When President Harry Truman wrote to Pope Pius XII in 1947 that "This is a Christian nation.", he certainly did not mean that the United States has an official or legally-preferred religion or church. Nor did he mean to slight adherents of non-Christian religions. But he certainly did mean to recognize that this nation, its institutions and laws, was founded on Biblical principles basic to Christianity and to Judaism from which it flowed. As he told an Attorney General's Conference in 1950, "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."

Woodrow Wilson, in his election campaign for President, made the same point: "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.... America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture."

The crucial role of Christianity in this nation's formation is not without dispute, although as Revolutionary leader Patrick Henry said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship."

John Ashcroft was roundly criticized for his "No King but Jesus" speech at Bob Jones University, but he was only reminding us of our colonial and Revolutionary War heritage. In a 1774 report to King George, the Governor of Boston noted: "If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ." The pre-war Colonial Committees of Correspondence soon made this the American motto: "No King but King Jesus." And this sentiment was carried over into the 1783 peace treaty with Great Britain ending that war, which begins "In the name of the most Holy and Undivided Trinity... ."

Samuel Adams, who has been called 'The Father of the American Revolution' wrote The Rights of the Colonists in 1772, which stated: "The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

It is frequently asserted by those seeking to minimize Christianity's central role in our nation's founding and history, that the founders themselves were not practicing Christians, but rather were Deists or Agnostics. In a 1962 speech to Congress, Senator Robert Byrd noted that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, and among the rest were 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker-sometimes Anglican, and only 1 open Deist — Benjamin Franklin who attended all Christian worships and called for public prayer.

Samuel Chase was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, and, as Chief Justice of the State of Maryland, wrote in 1799 ( Runkel v Winemiller): "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion... ." (Maryland was one of nine States having established churches supported by taxpayers at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; these churches were gradually disestablished, the last in 1833. The Maryland constitution, typical of many of the States, restricted public office to Christians until, in 1851, it was changed to allow Jews who believed in a future state of rewards and punishments to also serve).

Christianity pervaded the laws and the legal system of the States and the federal government. For example, Judge Nathaniel Freeman in 1802 charged Massachusetts Grand Juries as follows: "The laws of the Christian system, as embraced by the Bible, must be respected as of high authority in all our courts... . [Our government] originating in the voluntary compact of a people who in that very instrument profess the Christian religion, it may be considered, not as republic Rome was, a Pagan, but a Christian republic." In 1811 ( People v Ruggles), New York Chief Justice James Kent held: "'...whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government... .' We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity... . Christianity in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is part and parcel of the law of the land... ." In 1824, the Pennsylvania Supreme court held ( Updegraph v The Commonwealth): Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law...not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men... ."

Our sixth President, John Quincy Adams said "From the day of the Declaration...they [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct"

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their ruler, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." This was said despite the explicit provision in the federal Constitution forbidding any religious test for federal public office.

Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Madison, said in an 1829 speech at Harvard: "There never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation." Story wrote several respected treatises or Commentaries on Constitutional Law, in which are found the following: "Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the [First] Amendment...the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government".

Justice Story wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in 1844 ( Vidal v Girard's Executors): "It is also said, and truly that the Christian religion is a part of the common law... ."

In 1854, The United States House of Congress passed a resolution: "The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

During the Civil War, The Senate passed a resolution in 1863: "...devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God...encouraged ...to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ, the Senate ...does hereby request the President ...to set aside a day for national prayer and humiliation." President Lincoln promptly issued a Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day, stating "...in compliance with the request and fully concurring in the view of the Senate... ."

The US Supreme Court forbade polygamy in 1890 (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v United States): "It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world." Two years later, the Court, by Justice Brewer, approvingly cited many of the earlier cases cited above, discussed the history and prominent role of religion in laws, business, customs, and society, and held (Church of the Holy Trinity v United States): "...this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation... . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian Nation... .we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth."

Continued in next post

Vincent
09-12-2009, 11:27 AM
OK, so please clarify for me, are we, or are we not (according to you), A Christian Nation as established by the founding fathers?

Continuation of Post 105...

Congress in essence summarized all this preceding history when it passed a Joint Resolution designating 1983 as The Year of the Bible, stating: "Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people; ...deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation; ...Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States....designate 1983 as a national 'Year of the Bible in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures". In 1988, a Joint Resolution of Congress declared that the first Thursday in May of each year is to be a National Day of Prayer.

The historical record from the foregoing quotes from past Presidents, leaders, Congressmen, Jurists and court decisions, seems firmly on the side of those claiming that America was born and maintained as a Christian nation whose laws, morals, and customs derive from Christian (and Jewish) scriptures. The opponents of this view, however, point to the first sentence of Article 11 of the obscure Tripoli Treaty of 1797 as seeming conclusive proof that America was never a Christian nation. Before discussing that critical sentence, the treaty itself should be read in context with all of the Barbary treaties.

The Barbary States on the coast of North Africa, comprising the Moslem States of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, attacked ships in their coastal waters which would not pay tribute, and held captives for ransom. The European nations had treaties with those states, under which, in exchange for tribute, shipping was protected. After the Revolutionary War, our new nation followed the lead of those European nations and entered into similar treaties. Breach of those treaties by the Barbary nations led to the Barbary wars in 1801.

The first treaty was with Morocco in 1786, negotiated by Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. It was written in Arabic with an English translation. The treaty language assumes that the world was divided between Christians and Moors (Moslems), e.g. "If we shall be at war with any Christian Power ... .", "... no Vessel whatever belonging either to Moorish or Christian Powers with whom the United States may be at War ... .", "...be their enemies Moors or Christians." These along with numerous references to God, e.g., "In the name of Almighty God,", "... trusting in God ...", "Grace to the only God", "...the servant of God ...", "... whom God preserve ...". are the only references to religion in this treaty of Peace and Friendship.

The next was the Treaty of Peace and Amity with Algiers in 1795,written in Turkish. The only reference to religion was in Article 17 which gave the Consul of the United States "... Liberty to Exercise his Religion in his own House [and] all Slaves of the Same Religion shall not be impeded in going to Said Consul's house at hours of prayer... ." The Consul's house was to function in lieu of a Christian church.

The Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation with Tunis in 1797 was in Turkish with a French translation. It begins "God is infinite.", and refers to the Ottoman Emperor "whose realm may God prosper", and to the President of the United States "... the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah, ...." Other than a reference to "the Christian year", there is no further mention of religion.

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli was signed in 1796 in Arabic, and was later translated into English by Joel Barlow, United States Consul General at Algiers. Except for the typical phrases "Praise be to God" and "whom God Exalt", there is no reference to religion other than the aforesaid remarkable Article 11, which reads,

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (sic) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The treaty, with this language, was submitted to the Senate by President Adams, and was ratified. Thus, opponents of the 'Christian nation' concept point to this seemingly official repudiation of the very idea. Yet the language is less a repudiation of the role of Christianity in the nation's heritage than a reminder that there was no national established church in the United States as there was in the European states with which Tripoli had previously dealt. This provided reassurance to the Moslem Bey and his religious establishment that religion, in of itself, would not be a basis of hostility between the two nations. None of the other similar treaties with the Barbary states, before or after this treaty, including the replacement treaties signed in 1804 after the Barbary Wars, have any language remotely similar.

And there is a deeper mystery: As noted in a footnote at page 1070 of the authoritative treatise by Bevans, Treaties and other International Agreements of the United States of America, citing treaty scholar Hunter Miller.

"While the Barlow translation quoted above has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since 1797, most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.' does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point" (Emphasis added)

In sum, the phrase was no doubt an invention of Mr. Barlow, who inserted it on his own for his own, unknown, purposes. It was duly ratified without question by the United States Senate, which would no doubt be hesitant to object to any phraseology which was represented as desired by the Bey of Tripoli, with whom the United States wanted peaceful relations. It remains a mystery.

Can America still be called a Christian nation? It is certainly a more religiously pluralistic and diverse society than it was during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. There are increasing numbers of non-Christians immigrating to this country, and there has been a rapid rise in adherents to Islam among our population. There are millions of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, Hindus, Wiccans, Naturists, Agnostics, and Atheists, but Christians comprise roughly 84% of the population. Our constitutional legal system is still based on the Jewish/Christian Bible, not the Koran or other holy book. We still observe Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, as an official holiday. Easter and Christmas still have a special place in the holiday lexicon. The Ten Commandments are still on the wall behind the Supreme Court Justices when they take the bench. Our coins still display the motto "In God We Trust." The US is still firmly part of a Western Civilization fashioned by a Judeo-Christian religious ethic and heritage. Alexis de Tocqueville observed more than a century and a half ago, "There is no country in the world, where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America." That is still true today. We live, not under a Christian government, but in a nation where all are free to practice their particular religion, in accommodation with other religions, and in accordance with the basic principles of the nation, which are Christian in origin. It is in that sense that America may properly be referred to as a Christian nation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Pearlston, Carl "Is America a Christian Nation." Connecticut Jewish Ledger (April, 2001)

Reprinted with permission of Carl Pealston.

THE AUTHOR

Carl Pearlston is an attorney in the Los Angeles area, specializing in arbitration/mediation, a former professor of Constitutional Law, an Annapolis graduate, and a Jewish conservative active in various organizations including Toward Tradition.

Copyright © 2001 Carl Pearlston

Steelerama
09-13-2009, 04:43 PM
http://www.geocities.com/johnie_rebel/RepublicansAndFriends.JPG

MACH1
09-13-2009, 07:36 PM
http://www.rightwingconservativestore.com/media/gif-republicans/obamalist.gif

SteelerEmpire
09-18-2009, 01:26 PM
My personal opinion is that gays should not allowed to 1) be married or 2) "market / promote" their lifestyle to children. I don't know of one country on earth in which a majority of the people accept the gay lifestyle (their was the cities of sodom and gomorrah, but look what happened to them). I have no problem with gays who are "already there", but when you try to put it out there to the mass public to "veiledly" try to recruit members... thats doin a bit too much.
To address the title of this post, there are libs and conservatives who are "out there".... Anyone that keeps up with politics knows who they are. The last Repub. administration screwed up (admittantly by most of them) now they are a minority in Washington. If the Dems do it with the ball in their hands, they will become a minority soon enough as they have all the power now, so there will be no excuses. Another way to look at it is the only way this set of Repubs. can get back in power is if the Dems screw up as the Repubs basically have no power to make decisions. As individual citizens, it is up to each of us to be able to "adapt" to whomever is in office and whatever rules they put down in order to make it in this life.... Yes. EACH of us can be part of the problem, or part of the solution...... just like the politicians...

Godfather
09-18-2009, 02:15 PM
but when you try to put it out there to the mass public to "veiledly" try to recruit members... thats doin a bit too much.


I know what you mean. Right now I'm attracted to women, but I'm sure that if only I saw the right TV commercial or magazine ad, I'd want to smoke a pole or take it in the can.

RunWillieRun
09-18-2009, 02:32 PM
I know what you mean. Right now I'm attracted to women, but I'm sure that if only I saw the right TV commercial or magazine ad, I'd want to smoke a pole or take it in the can.



:rofl:


Now I have to clean the soda off of my screen!

Leftoverhard
09-18-2009, 04:59 PM
The homophobia on this board is sick. I'm calling it out. I've done it before, and I'll do it again. Someone has got to stand up to this bs.

I especially find it appalling when a gay person has been so brainwashed as to believe that they are a second class citizen unless they follow the party line.

This is a FREE country. Not a christian country. I am not a christian, I'm an American.

And where do any of you get off thinking you should be "allowing" someone else to get married? BS! If that's the case, I'd like to vote on a few marriages. Yeah, wouldn't that be fun. Why don't we vote on some other civil rights issues too then - I'd like to see what some of you would seriously come up with.

It's always the people who claim to be the most patriotic who somehow think we're living in a less-than-free country. In a free country, freedom happens in all sorts of ways that you may not like - but in a free country, you can't always have your cake and eat it too. So, you don't like living in a free country? Go away then. Go live in Iran. They share a lot of your views over there.

This whole gay marriage "argument" is one of the ugliest, most backwards wastes of time ever. Move on. This thread will likely exist in 20 or 30 years, stored on SFs archives, and your homophobic rants will be available for all to see - which by then will undoubtedly be way more outdated than they are today, and likely very embarrasing to you and your grandchildren (who, by the way, will never be recruited by the gay people, that is some paranoid idea buddy). :noidea: I'm seriously trying to help the homophobes out for the future.

Just a curious question: Is there a clause to the "judge-not" part of that bible you read? I don't remember there being a "when it's convenient" in parentheses after that. Am I wrong? :wave:

7SteelGal43
09-18-2009, 05:59 PM
Homophobia ? Homophobic rants ? :huh: Did I miss something ?

Leftoverhard
09-18-2009, 06:16 PM
Homophobia ? Homophobic rants ? :huh: Did I miss something ?

Read the entire thread. If you still don't think there's a heap of homophobia here, then I don't know what to tell you.

Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is defined as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals",[1] or individuals perceived to be homosexual; it is also defined as "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality",[2] "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men",[2] as well as "behavior based on such a feeling".[2] It is defined by behavior (such as discrimination) as well as motivation (such as fear, antipathy or contempt).

Vincent
09-18-2009, 06:45 PM
The homophobia on this board is sick. I'm calling it out. I've done it before, and I'll do it again. Someone has got to stand up to this bs.

Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is defined as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals",[1] or individuals perceived to be homosexual; it is also defined as "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality",[2] "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men",[2] as well as "behavior based on such a feeling".[2] It is defined by behavior (such as discrimination) as well as motivation (such as fear, antipathy or contempt).

This homophobia you speak of, is it a disease? Can I catch it? How do you know if you have it?

The phobia part I get. The homo part is what eludes me. Are there people that are afraid of homos? For what possible reason?

You're just jealous because I have a bigger penis than you do. Admit it. :flap:

Is that it? Do homos have bigger winkies? Is that why people are afraid of them?

This is a FREE country. Not a christian country. I am not a christian, I'm an American.

This is a representative republic where, because of traditions and laws, we enjoy a measure of freedom unparalleled in history. Our freedom is endowed by our Creator. It is a reciprocal relationship. Pope John Paul put it well, "We are not free to do what we want to do. We are free to do what we ought to do".

And where do any of you get off thinking you should be "allowing" someone else to get married? BS! If that's the case, I'd like to vote on a few marriages. Yeah, wouldn't that be fun. Why don't we vote on some other civil rights issues too then - I'd like to see what some of you would seriously come up with.

You may have missed the earlier post...http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=636315&postcount=24 The whole "marriage" thing is religious. Since you're not religious, you should probably pass.

It's always the people who claim to be the most patriotic who somehow think we're living in a less-than-free country. In a free country, freedom happens in all sorts of ways that you may not like - but in a free country, you can't always have your cake and eat it too. So, you don't like living in a free country? Go away then. Go live in Iran. They share a lot of your views over there.

You seem upset for being so "free". This passage is difficult to follow. No, I would prefer not to live in Iran. See, they have a state imposed religion, and are very overbearing on lots of things like oh, um, homosexuality. I take your point though. By contrast, this is a very free country. That was your point, wasn't it?

This whole gay marriage "argument" is one of the ugliest, most backwards wastes of time ever. Move on. This thread will likely exist in 20 or 30 years, stored on SFs archives, and your homophobic rants will be available for all to see - which by then will undoubtedly be way more outdated than they are today, and likely very embarrasing to you and your grandchildren (who, by the way, will never be recruited by the gay people, that is some paranoid idea buddy). :noidea: I'm seriously trying to help the homophobes out for the future.

Homos recruit? Yikes!! Do homophobes recruit too?

Just a curious question: Is there a clause to the "judge-not" part of that bible you read? I don't remember there being a "when it's convenient" in parentheses after that. Am I wrong? :wave:

It goes "Judge not, lest ye be judged". As unambiguous as the Second Amendment.

Hey, let me ask a question if I may. When you approach a public rest room, do you feel you're being judged? They label them to identify where each gender should go. It's one of society's subtle ways of imposing order. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, and is defined as the union of a man and a woman. Apparently the Church takes that pretty seriously. Marriage is their program. Their order. Do you feel you're being judged?

Still mystified by this "homophobia" you speak of. Is there a rash?

Leftoverhard
09-18-2009, 08:05 PM
This is a representative republic where, because of traditions and laws, we enjoy a measure of freedom unparalleled in history. Our freedom is endowed by our Creator. It is a reciprocal relationship.

My freedom isn't endowed on me by a creator. I'm an atheist. I believe my freedom exists because I was lucky enough to born in the USA.

It goes "Judge not, lest ye be judged". As unambiguous as the Second Amendment.

Actually, I think that's pretty clear. Crystal clear.

When you approach a public rest room, do you feel you're being judged? They label them to identify where each gender should go. It's one of society's subtle ways of imposing order. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, and is defined as the union of a man and a woman. Apparently the Church takes that pretty seriously. Marriage is their program. Their order. Do you feel you're being judged?


Vincent - I have no idea what you just said. What's this about public restrooms? I'm reaching to find meaning in this analogy.
The thing about marriage. Marriage has a long history and an ever changing evolution. Are you trying to tell me that evangelical law dictates all marriages?

And no, I don't feel judged. Thanks anyway.

7SteelGal43
09-18-2009, 08:44 PM
Read the entire thread. If you still don't think there's a heap of homophobia here, then I don't know what to tell you.

Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is defined as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals",[1] or individuals perceived to be homosexual; it is also defined as "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality",[2] "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men",[2] as well as "behavior based on such a feeling".[2] It is defined by behavior (such as discrimination) as well as motivation (such as fear, antipathy or contempt).

I had already looked through the whole thread before I posted that. Nope, still not feeling it.:noidea:

tony hipchest
09-18-2009, 08:55 PM
Homophobia ? Homophobic rants ? :huh: Did I miss something ?

I had already looked through the whole thread before I posted that. Nope, still not feeling it.:noidea:

proof that some blind flying moonsquirrels will never find a skynut....

hint- who the hell bumped this dumbass thread anyways?

:popcorn:

7SteelGal43
09-18-2009, 09:10 PM
proof that some blind flying moonsquirrels will never find a skynut....

hint- who the hell bumped this dumbass thread anyways?

:popcorn:

Oh, you mean SteelerEmpire ? Yeah, he bumped it this afternoon. I read the post, and he stated his opinion. But in reading the post taken as a whole, I don't see clear cut 'homophobia'. Hell, I look at a Gay Pride parade myself and wonder if it's a recruiting session for new members or maybe just supporters. Hmmm, lemme re link the video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmEux9PlOj4

:rofl: I rofl everytime I watch this.

Leftoverhard
09-18-2009, 11:53 PM
That leprachaun guy is a wee bit of a cokehead. How novel, a religious druggie, fake comedian with straight out of the box opinions seemingly intraveniously fed into his "brain" from Rush Limbaugh's black heart.
I really liked this one - where he tells fat people that all physically fit people were once fat and had to "overcome" their original fatness. Then he goes on to tell the fat guys to pull up their bootstraps and work out and tells women to make a pie.
Mindboggling SteelGal.

MACH1
09-19-2009, 02:00 AM
I know what you mean. Right now I'm attracted to women, but I'm sure that if only I saw the right TV commercial or magazine ad, I'd want to smoke a pole or take it in the can.

:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

I nominate this as the line of the year.

revefsreleets
09-19-2009, 07:18 AM
Homophobia is a term used to describe:

* A culturally determined phobia manifesting as fear, revulsion, or contempt for homosexuality.
* A complex of antagonistic behaviors based on the above manifestations.

I'd say there's a good deal of this going on here...I've been guilty of it from time to time, but usually only when talking about Tom Brady.


But, since I want to keep this political, I'm going to once again ask why the Democrats, who have been clamoring to "legalize" gay marriage forever, and have always blamed the GOP for blocking them, have not gone ahead and done so now that they are in control of the Executive and Legislative branches? There's no one stopping them...

Vincent
09-28-2009, 07:16 PM
The homophobia on this board is sick. I'm calling it out. I've done it before, and I'll do it again. Someone has got to stand up to this bs.

"Score" one for your team :chuckle:

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=669550&postcount=23

MACH1
09-28-2009, 07:33 PM
"Score" one for your team :chuckle:

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=669550&postcount=23

Make that two. :chuckle:

http://www.cwire.net/images/TLAlbum.jpg

Leftoverhard
09-28-2009, 11:12 PM
"Score" one for your team :chuckle:

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=669550&postcount=23

Score? My team? If my team is the team that is sick of homophobes, then yeah, whatever. Your link is weak. It's another weak story that uses soundbites and FOX sensationalism to simplify and boil the blood of it's core readers, the homophobic right. Yeah, I said right, because that's the truth. Is everyone on the right a bigot? Nope. But that's where these people come from. (just making that clear for the gun-jumpers out there). This is about hating gays, that's it - it's just covered in something else, sort of like chocolate covered ants.

Here,check out this link, unless you think it might make you gay just by reading a gay website. It didn't make me gay (but I think you already assumed I was). And seriously, if you want to be fair in your judgement here, read the entire thing. It's not all black and white - unless or course, you just think lbgt people are second class citizens, which in that case, just say it.

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/06/they-hate-him-because-hes-a-progressive-gay-period.html

X-Terminator
09-28-2009, 11:25 PM
Yeah, there are absolutely NO homophobes on the left. No sirree Bob. None whatsoever. If they hate gays, they must automatically be right-wing.

:coffee:

SteelersinCA
09-29-2009, 12:07 AM
I know what you mean. Right now I'm attracted to women, but I'm sure that if only I saw the right TV commercial or magazine ad, I'd want to smoke a pole or take it in the can.

WTF is this!?!?!?!?! :rofl:

Leftoverhard
09-29-2009, 12:09 AM
Yeah, there are absolutely NO homophobes on the left. No sirree Bob. None whatsoever. If they hate gays, they must automatically be right-wing.

:coffee:

there you go.

Preacher
09-29-2009, 12:15 AM
there you go.

You gotta be about 18-22 years old. Maybe under 25 at the most. Your black and white absolutist thinking really does show your age.

Vincent
09-29-2009, 05:24 AM
Score? My team?

Not making assumptions about your orientation. You just seem all emotional about the subject.

Again with the "homophobia". Do you mean to imply that some folks are afraid of homos? I've never met someone that's afraid of homos. Have you? Now, are "homophobes" afraid of gays too? You guys get me all confused with the labels.

Godfather
09-29-2009, 07:16 AM
IRT the OP,
There are 2 things that any self-styled "conservative" should never have to be reminded of:
#1 We do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic.
#2 The Constitution is there for a reason.

Opponents of such referendums have every right to take such matters to court; such bans are blatantly unconstitutional, not to mention insulting to the entire concept of freedom and personal responsibility.

Haven't we learned by now that citizens in free societies afford each other every right so long as the other person's actions aren't picking your pocket or breaking your leg?

What have these people ever done to you? What justifies your attempts to single them out as a group in order to treat them as second-class citizens?

Well, the OP mentioned the Louisiana amendment on same sex marriage. The thread took went off on a different tangent so I didn't get to mention this before: the Louisiana Constitution requires an amendment to deal with a single subject. The amendment in question dealt with both marriage and civil unions, which are two different issues.

Gore sued, just like most losers of close elections, both Democrat and Republican. His actions were neither unusual nor unique to Democrats.

The last example (health care) doesn't seem to fit...the people elected Obama and huge D majorities in both houses of Congress knowing national health care was part of their agenda. So the people either wanted that or weren't opposed enough for it to be a dealbreaker. And you can be sure that conservatives will go to court to get it overturned if it passes.

Venom
09-29-2009, 09:50 AM
Conservatives Vs Liberals

Conservatives who don’t like guns, won’t buy one. If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.

Conservatives who are vegetarians, won’t eat meat. Liberal vegetarians want all meat products banned for everyone.

Conservatives who see a foreign threat, will think about how to defeat the threat A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

Conservatives who are homosexual, quietly enjoy their life. If a liberal is homosexual, demands are loudly made for special legislated rights.

Black men or Hispanics who are conservatives, see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

Conservatives who are down-and-out, will think about how to improve their situation. Liberals wonder who will take care of them.

A conservative who doesn’t like a talk show host will switch channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

A conservative who is a non-believer, doesn’t go to church. A liberal wants all churches to be silenced.

Conservatives who decide they need health care, go shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that neighbors pay for it.

Yes these are truisms, and the fact is they are Democrat party idealogy! Alarmingly, that’s more than 40% of our fellow citizens who blindly, mindlessly follow them.

Vincent
09-29-2009, 10:15 AM
Conservatives Vs Liberals

Conservatives who don’t like guns, won’t buy one. If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.

Conservatives who are vegetarians, won’t eat meat. Liberal vegetarians want all meat products banned for everyone.

Conservatives who see a foreign threat, will think about how to defeat the threat A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

Conservatives who are homosexual, quietly enjoy their life. If a liberal is homosexual, demands are loudly made for special legislated rights.

Black men or Hispanics who are conservatives, see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

Conservatives who are down-and-out, will think about how to improve their situation. Liberals wonder who will take care of them.

A conservative who doesn’t like a talk show host will switch channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

A conservative who is a non-believer, doesn’t go to church. A liberal wants all churches to be silenced.

Conservatives who decide they need health care, go shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that neighbors pay for it.

Yes these are truisms, and the fact is they are Democrat party idealogy! Alarmingly, that’s more than 40% of our fellow citizens who blindly, mindlessly follow them.

That sums things up quite nicely Venom. Well done!

I would add the marx quote that is the centerpiece to the "liberal" mindset you laid out - "Peace is the absence of opposition to socialism". Free men see it as "Peace is the absence of a threat".

revefsreleets
09-29-2009, 10:45 AM
I wonder... who's really on which "team"? :coffee:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

That's pretty much been accepted as intuitively correct for a long time. I've always believed that the more aggressively men pursued an anti-gay position, the more "closet" they were.

Interesting to see that there is now a definitive study showing as much:

Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Leftoverhard
09-30-2009, 01:16 AM
You gotta be about 18-22 years old. Maybe under 25 at the most. Your black and white absolutist thinking really does show your age.

Ok Preacher - I'm going to explain the sarcasm in my post (the one that made you assume my age and maturity level) but only for you.
I explained in my post how I didn't think all conservatives were homophobes, talked about how convenient sound bites can be - and then lo' and behold! The first person to respond to my post copied and pasted a sound bite from my post (ignoring what I said right after it), reacting and clearly only reading what he wanted to. And ironic- because that's what my post was actually about - taking parts of a story to fit a neatly designed argument.
I responded "there you go." That's my way of saying "you're gonna read into whatever you want about my post, how predictable, I'm going to shut down to that merry-go-round style of talking points, sound bites, and selective reading and throw in the towel. Clearly, you weren't paying much attention either. :noidea:

Preacher - I'm interested if you're going to call out Venom on his maturity level after that fine post of his? Why just me? Why just people who disagree with you?

Leftoverhard
09-30-2009, 01:31 AM
Not making assumptions about your orientation. You just seem all emotional about the subject.

Again with the "homophobia". Do you mean to imply that some folks are afraid of homos? I've never met someone that's afraid of homos. Have you? Now, are "homophobes" afraid of gays too? You guys get me all confused with the labels.


I've heard you question the word homophobia twice now and I guess I'll just say bigot from now on - see but that doesn't fit the bill. I think I hear you saying that you aren't physically afraid of a gay person because they are obviously big sissies, pretty harmless.

Ok then - the "phobia" part of the word is pretty clear - and yes, people are afraid of gay people - afraid they will "turn" someone gay, afraid the gays will take over the schools, afraid that the gays will turn this country into heathens, but mostly just the whole "turning our children gay" thing, that's the one that is the definition of fear. Do I really have to go on?

Maybe you can come up with a better word. I'll post the definition here again.

ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Vincent
09-30-2009, 08:10 AM
I've heard you question the word homophobia twice now and I guess I'll just say bigot from now on - see but that doesn't fit the bill.
The homophobia on this board is sick. I'm calling it out. I've done it before, and I'll do it again. Someone has got to stand up to this bs.
You introduced the term to the thread. You seemed to feel that there is “homophobia” in this thread. Perhaps you could point out what specifically set you off.

The way you and others have used the term here seems to imply that those you label as such aren’t “right” in some way. And now you have brought “bigot” into the discussion. Are those two terms interchangeable to you?

Are we to understand that disagreement with homosexuality, or an aspect of same, defines one as a “homophobe” or bigot? Does my questioning of your use of the terms make me a “homophobe”?

If one is labeled a “homophobe”, and what that would seem to imply, is there some sort of remedial program or treatment regimen necessary for “recovery”?

I think I hear you saying that you aren't physically afraid of a gay person because they are obviously big sissies, pretty harmless.
What I said was “Are there people that are afraid of homos? For what possible reason?” Those are questions, not statements. You made the inference.

But that raises more questions. You went to “because they are obviously big sissies, pretty harmless”. By “sissies” you mean? Isn’t that derogatory? If it’s derogatory, is it “phobic”?

The labeling is difficult to follow. See, you say “homophobe”. And me, I don’t know the rules, I hear that word and think “homophobe”. Hmmm. Fear of homos? But we’re not supposed to say “homo”. Or “profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprof anityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilter”. Or “gay”. So, what’s the right word for , you know? Wouldn’t it then be “______phobia”?

BTW, I called Brady a “twink” in another thread. Was that OK or do I need to correct that?

Ok then - the "phobia" part of the word is pretty clear - and yes, people are afraid of gay people - afraid they will "turn" someone gay, afraid the gays will take over the schools, afraid that the gays will turn this country into heathens, but mostly just the whole "turning our children gay" thing, that's the one that is the definition of fear. Do I really have to go on?

Does disagreement with liberalism make one “phobic”, or as you say “bigoted”, in some way? If one were to follow this “homophobia” reasoning consistently, one might wonder if such disagreement was really fear of liberalism, or liberals, or worse, that one might become liberal by contact or association. If one were to become aroused by liberalism, does that mean that they are a “closet liberal”? What would be the label for one possessed of such a fear?

Just askin. Trying to follow the program here.

Hey, I have another question. I do a fair amount of reading, I probably shouldn’t cause it just gets me in trouble. So I was reading about those nats-zees… Have you seen “Inglorious Basterds”? Absolutely spectacular. A Tarantino masterpiece. Col. Landa is off the charts. If he doesn’t get an Oscar, it’d be criminal. No, “homophobic”. But I digress. Anyway, a lot of those Nazis were homosexuals. Most of the “founders”. Much of the party “leadership. Now here’s where it gets confusing. It’s fairly widely known that the Nazis persecuted homosexuals. As a matter of fact, homosexuals were assigned the “pink triangle” as their designation just as Jews were assigned yellow. Could that be how the “pink triangle” became the symbol of the “gay community”? Day-ham!!. No, that wasn’t my question, but it is a damn good question. No, the question is, if the homonazis persecuted homosexuals, does that make them “homophobes”? See what I’m saying? This program is really hard to follow.

Preacher - I'm interested if you're going to call out Venom on his maturity level after that fine post of his? Why just me? Why just people who disagree with you?

WTF was immature about Venom’s post?

43Hitman
09-30-2009, 08:36 AM
Hey, I have another question. I do a fair amount of reading, I probably shouldn’t cause it just gets me in trouble. So I was reading about those nats-zees… Have you seen “Inglorious Basterds”? Absolutely spectacular. A Tarantino masterpiece. Col. Landa is off the charts. If he doesn’t get an Oscar, it’d be criminal. No, “homophobic”. But I digress. Anyway, a lot of those Nazis were homosexuals. Most of the “founders”. Much of the party “leadership. Now here’s where it gets confusing. It’s fairly widely known that the Nazis persecuted homosexuals. As a matter of fact, homosexuals were assigned the “pink triangle” as their designation just as Jews were assigned yellow. Could that be how the “pink triangle” became the symbol of the “gay community”? Day-ham!!. No, that wasn’t my question, but it is a damn good question. No, the question is, if the homonazis persecuted homosexuals, does that make them “homophobes”? See what I’m saying? This program is really hard to follow.

I did not know that. Oh and the bolded part I find very interesting.

Vincent
09-30-2009, 09:05 AM
I did not know that. Oh and the bolded part I find very interesting.

Yeah, those nats-zees had a really cool labeling system...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/German_concentration_camp_chart_of_prisoner_markin gs.jpg

Much easier to follow than this "phobia" labeling program of their modern liberal counterparts. You could just see the badge and tell what they were. So, as an example, if you had a pink triangle and a yellow one, you were a homosexual Jew. Oh man, you'da been in a world of @#$%. :chuckle: And if you had the stripe over them it meant you were a recidivist and that meant "Off to the ovens with you, Skippy".

Leftoverhard
09-30-2009, 02:35 PM
Why is this so important to you? To prove that gays and nazis are the same? What???

(and FYI, I did some research on some of these gay/nazi propaganda websites - I refuse to link to this hateful bs, but all on has to do is google it)

Why - can't you just simplify your opinions on gay people and call a spade a spade? I don't get all the smoke and mirrors.

Don't bother answering though, I know now there is no arguing this anymore with you, you've made it clear. You win - gays are nazis, nazis are gay. great. I'm bored.

Preacher
09-30-2009, 03:59 PM
Ok Preacher - I'm going to explain the sarcasm in my post (the one that made you assume my age and maturity level) but only for you.
I explained in my post how I didn't think all conservatives were homophobes, talked about how convenient sound bites can be - and then lo' and behold! The first person to respond to my post copied and pasted a sound bite from my post (ignoring what I said right after it), reacting and clearly only reading what he wanted to. And ironic- because that's what my post was actually about - taking parts of a story to fit a neatly designed argument.
I responded "there you go." That's my way of saying "you're gonna read into whatever you want about my post, how predictable, I'm going to shut down to that merry-go-round style of talking points, sound bites, and selective reading and throw in the towel. Clearly, you weren't paying much attention either. :noidea:

Preacher - I'm interested if you're going to call out Venom on his maturity level after that fine post of his? Why just me? Why just people who disagree with you?

Cause its more fun that way :chuckle:

Preacher
09-30-2009, 04:08 PM
On a serious note concerning homophobia.

It is a word that is becoming irrelevant due to its overuse and abuse, much like racist.

When the definitions get stretched, and the applications spread a mile wide, then it simply becomes irrelevent.

I, do not believe homosexuality is an appropriate or viable lifestyle. I person, believe it is a sin. I do not condone it, nor will I allow a gay marriage ceremony in my church. I will teach my children the same thing.

None of that is irrational, as it stems from a faith that I hold. That faith however, also sets boundaries concerning how I express myself and treat someone who is gay. I believe all human beings are made in the image of God. Thus, they all must be treated with dignity and respect. Dignity and respect however, does not mean I do not speak what I consider to be the truth. Because I believe it is a sin, the gay person is a sinner. How did Jesus treat the sinners? He spent time with them. He cared for them. He spoke the truth to them that whatever actions they were doing was sinful, but he did it while shoulder to shoulder with them, not opposed with a finger in the face.

As a result, I am opposed to homosexuality, but far from a homophobe. I do not fear homosexuals. My stand is not irrational. Those who are gay and have been in my life, will give you the same testimony about me. They all know what I believe and why. They also will tell you that I respect them as human beings.

THAT, should be the standard for differences. Not "acceptance". Respect.

Leftoverhard
09-30-2009, 05:38 PM
Hmm, how can you respect someone that you condemn as a sinner? Do you honestly think someone can change their sexual orientation? I can't. Can you change your sexuality?

When you just barely tolerate people (wow, lucky gay friends you have), you might as well be handing them your seal of approval for second class citizen status.
"You're a nice guy - but you're going to hell."

The words homophobia and racism aren't becoming irrelevant, the people who still have these issues are.

So, let me get this straight - someone who admits he is intolerant of homosexuals says that the word homophobia is irrelevant - that's what my grandpa would call a humdinger.

This myth that racism and homophobia don't exist mystifies me. :noidea:

tony hipchest
09-30-2009, 05:48 PM
wow. talk about muddied waters.

the almost disturbing thing is that i have absolutely no idea whether vincent is a flag waving, gay rights supporter, or whether he feels they need to be exterminated along with democrats and nazi's.

doesnt matter much. this thread was in the shitter from the get go.

Vincent
09-30-2009, 06:57 PM
Why is this so important to you?
It isn’t.

To prove that gays and nazis are the same? What???
You missed that point entirely. I’ll be more succinct. If one (whatever they are labeled) persecutes another (whatever they are labeled), is the former a “(whatever they are labeled)phobe”?

(and FYI, I did some research on some of these gay/nazi propaganda websites - I refuse to link to this hateful bs, but all on has to do is google it)
Again with the “hater” labeling. Is everyone you disagree with a “hater”?

Why - can't you just simplify your opinions on gay people and call a spade a spade? I haven’t said word one about homosexuals in this thread. I’ve simply asked you questions that descend from your declaration that the thread is laced with “homophobia” and that you were going to lay down the law.

I don't get all the smoke and mirrors.
Apparently.

Don't bother answering though, I know now there is no arguing this anymore with you, you've made it clear. You win - gays are nazis, nazis are gay. great. I'm bored.
What argument? I asked some questions that you haven’t answered. If you are going to jump into a thread and call people names, at least be prepared to furnish answers to the resultant questions. Regarding “gays” and Nazis, again, that was your inference.

the almost disturbing thing is that i have absolutely no idea whether vincent is a flag waving, gay rights supporter, or whether he feels they need to be exterminated along with democrats and nazi's.
I am a complex spirit Tony. Suffice to say that as I sit here on my hog in my “Ilsa ‘Shewolf of the SS’ teddy” and scoutmaster’s campaign hat, I’m lusting after your “beautiful lady”. She is so freekin hot!!

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/monkay.jpg

Leftoverhard
09-30-2009, 07:20 PM
I’ll be more succinct. If one (whatever they are labeled) persecutes another (whatever they are labeled), is the former a “(whatever they are labeled)phobe”?

You say succinct, I say convoluted.


Again with the “hater” labeling. Is everyone you disagree with a “hater”?

It's not about disagreeing, it's about hate - hate is what you get when you google "nazi" and "homosexual" together, some nasty websites out there - or is hate not a real word anymore? Again, "convoluted" is the only word that comes to mind.

GBMelBlount
09-30-2009, 07:46 PM
Nothing irrelevant about it. Homophobia is real, and it's a direct contributor to a process that is denying my fellow *Americans* their rights as citizens.

A phobia is an irrational fear; fearing something that does not pose a credible threat.
Not coincidentally, the social-conservatives cannot provide anything like a credible argument supporting their argument otherwise. Until such time as I see one, this is *by definition* a phobia.

But what you may NOT do is use the government to enforce your opinion upon them. This is made very clear by the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. And no offense, but here in America we have rules governing what we may and may not do, and the Bible is not part of those rules.
What we have is the Constitution, and what our Constitution says is that
*We may not single out any group of citizens and treat them as less than other Americans.
* We may not have our government enforce one group's religious beliefs upon another, and we certainly can't tell the Church who they may and may not "marry".
*The individual States have no power to violate anybody's rights as defined in the United States Constitution.

So regardless of what you approve or disapprove of, these people have every right to live their lives as they see fit, and you have no power to deny them that.

Personally, I'll be glad when this whole debate is dead and buried. I find it repulsive when people attempt to pay lip-service to the Constitution while ignoring it at the same time. Especially when those people label themselves "conservative"

A little quote from Sen. Goldwater (the father of modern Conservatism) on the social conservatives:
"Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."

Jumping in a little late here slash & I apologize if this has been covered in the thread already, but in what way do you feel conservatives are denying gays the right to live as they see fit?

GBMelBlount
09-30-2009, 08:04 PM
Gottya.

So by social conservatives "denying" them rights, you are simply referring to the fact that they do not have the same "rights" as people in a "traditional" marriage.

Preacher
09-30-2009, 08:11 PM
GBMel Blount,
Not all conservatives, just the "social conservatives" (a term that is fundamentally self-conflicted).
The rights that are being denied are:
The right to
-have full say in their chosen partner's medical decisions
-equitable distribution of property upon dissolution
-parental rights
-equal standing for adoption
-inheritance of property
-medical coverage from gainful employment
-assumed powers of attorney
-legally recognized ownership of marriage assets
-transfer of rights and responsibilities across state lines
-Hospital visitation

And this list is far from all-inclusive.
When they have chosen a partner to pool their resources and responsibilities, the State does not have the power to deny that contract, even if the majority of citizens disapprove of their choice of partner.
You assumed a lot in your post to me. Of this list here, I see very little which is NOT already given to the gay/lesbian couple. Of course, I live in California which is quite progressive in this area.

I do not by any means believe that I should use the govt. to proclaim my viewpoint. I also, by that same extent, believe that I should be able to hold my viewpoint without interference from the govt. equal rights are equal rights, for all groups.

Preacher
09-30-2009, 08:28 PM
Hmm, how can you respect someone that you condemn as a sinner? First, I condemn NO ONE. I simply repeat what the scriptures say. They speak of actions. It is between you and the Holy Spirit and his conviction. It isn't my job to condemn anyone. But to the rest of your post... its called perspective and understanding. I believe that I too am a sinner, as is everyone else. Thus, when I say sinner, I speak of myself as much as I do someone else. The difference is, according to my faith, I recognized that my thoughts and actions are sins, and ask for forgiveness. That makes me no better than anyone else. It also does not allow me to ignore what I beleive truth is and speak it. But I speak it from the belief that I am in the same boat, and we ALL are sinners.

Once again, its called perspective.


Do you honestly think someone can change their sexual orientation?
College buddy of mine is one of the largest homosexual counselors on the west coast. He has tons of success stories about that very thing happening.

When you just barely tolerate people (wow, lucky gay friends you have), you might as well be handing them your seal of approval for second class citizen status.
"You're a nice guy - but you're going to hell."
Um. Never said "barely tolerate". The problem with the entire discussion is when people like you try to put words into my mouth, and then turn around and accuse us of your words. I care about my friends, regardless of sexuality. Barely tolerate? Tell you what. Until you have spent an evening ministering to a gay man with AIDS who is in a stupor like I have, until you (like another pastor friend of mine) go and lay down next to a gay man dying of AIDS-- at the point that the doctors won't even get close to them-- and put your arms around him and hug him because he needs a human touch... like my friend did, DONT TALK TO ME about being "Barely Tolerant." You can spew from teh Ivory Tower of Political Correctness all you want. But don't you DARE think you actually know me until you walk with me in my shoes and see how me and MY friends show immediate love and care to the people you so desperately defend, from miles away.



The words homophobia and racism aren't becoming irrelevant, the people who still have these issues are. They are becoming irrelevent through overuse. When a demon is found behind every door, those who stand aside and watch the show learn that it isn't always a demon that is there. Translation: When Racism and Homophobia is yelled in almost EVERY situation, those who actually care to think through the situations realize that those terms are being used to mask other issues. It becomes a political game, rather than a real issue.

So, let me get this straight - someone who admits he is intolerant of homosexuals says that the word homophobia is irrelevant - that's what my grandpa would call a humdinger.

Intolerant? First you called me "barely tolerant" now its "intolerant". Hmm. Anyways, There is much I tolerate. Probably more than you do, to be honest. However, I think it would behoove you to learn the difference between tolerate and condone.

This myth that racism and homophobia don't exist mystifies me. :noidea:

Dang. Are you going to treat ONE of my statements fairly? Or are you going to try and twist EVERYTHING I said. I said THE TERMS are becoming irrelevent. Not that the actual CONCEPTS don't exist.

Much in the same way "Nazi" is becoming irrelevent in political speach as well.

Once again, when you stretch the definition of a term to encompass as much as these have been stretched, they come to a point where they don't really have any true meaning anymore.

The Patriot
09-30-2009, 08:44 PM
College buddy of mine is one of the largest homosexual counselors on the west coast. He has tons of success stories about that very thing happening.


You see, when you say "success stories" that immediately asserts that homosexuality is something negative like depression. Councilors like that just get people lying to themselves about who they are. Sexual preference is not something you determine through counseling. If a guy were to tell me he had to go through therapy sessions to develop an attraction to women, I'd be skeptical.

And, as a catholic, I decided years ago that the Bible is not God.

Preacher
09-30-2009, 08:47 PM
You see, when you say "success stories" that immediately asserts that homosexuality is something negative like depression. Councilors like that just get people lying to themselves about who they are. Sexual preference is not something you determine through counseling. If a guy were to tell me he had to go through therapy sessions to develop an attraction to women, I'd be skeptical.

And, as a catholic, I decided years ago that the Bible is not God.
I am not going to have this discussion with you in public, because it is too intricate. However, if you want, I would love to continue it in PM. I have learned that too many people jump in and read 1 or 2 lines, and then go off on a tangent, derailing the original discussion.

I am open to the PM... as long as it is a respectful discussion both ways. :thumbsup:

tony hipchest
09-30-2009, 09:01 PM
I am a complex spirit Tony. Suffice to say that as I sit here on my hog in my “Ilsa ‘Shewolf of the SS’ teddy” and scoutmaster’s campaign hat, I’m lusting after your “beautiful lady”. She is so freekin hot!!

i tell her every day she is my very own sweet little estelle getty and i love her so.

cubanstogie
09-30-2009, 09:29 PM
Gays have the same rights as everyone else. If a gay man chooses to marry he can, but it must be to a woman. Same right as a straight man. A straight man can't marry a man either, even if he wanted to. They both have the same rights, but one makes a different choice. Thats the only difference, personal choice.

Vincent
09-30-2009, 09:34 PM
It's not about disagreeing, it's about hate - hate is what you get when you google "nazi" and "homosexual" together, some nasty websites out there - or is hate not a real word anymore? Again, "convoluted" is the only word that comes to mind.

Google may be too potent a tool for you. Consider http://www.sesamestreet.org/home

Gays have the same rights as everyone else..

And there you have it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And a stogie in every pot. Or garage. Or whatever.

i tell her every day she is my very own sweet little estelle getty and i love her so.

You better. Cuz if you don't, I'm gonna come and take her from you.

Preacher
09-30-2009, 10:19 PM
i tell her every day she is my very own sweet little estelle getty and i love her so.

You are So SO SO wrong! :laughing:

Though, I gotta wonder what your fixation with monkey pics over the last few days is!!

tony hipchest
09-30-2009, 10:31 PM
You are So SO SO wrong! :laughing:

Though, I gotta wonder what your fixation with monkey pics over the last few days is!!

im just kissing up to the mods...

HTG just LOVES the cute lil fuzzy monkeys :hug:

:wink02:

revefsreleets
10-01-2009, 07:47 AM
I think we have gone off on a tangent here. There are a couple salient points to be made:

If a state like Massachusetts votes that gays can be legally married, so be it. That's fine. Nothing wrong with legal gay marriage. HOWEVER, if a church refuses to accept or acknowledge gay marriage, they are perfectly within their right to do so. I, not being even the slightest bit homophobic (in the strictest "fear of becoming gay" or "hatred of gays" definition), could care less either way, but for those who do, if it's a law, and people voted for it, that law should be respected. I don't mean respect like respect must be paid to the intent of the law, but the law itself must be adhered to.

Secondly, Preach's argument is okay...he has a religions belief that prompts him to not respect or acknowledge gays, and that makes sense for him. I sincerely doubt he hates gays or is afraid of "turning gay", therefore I doubt his position will ever become violent or vitriolic. However, I see several members of this board who cannot claim the same, and seem to really strongly dislike gays, almost to the point of irrationality. I find it extremely interesting, especially in light of the evidence presented in the earlier study. I think ANYONE who would commit an act of violence against another person based solely on their sexual orientation is highly suspect of being closet themselves.

cubanstogie
10-01-2009, 09:24 AM
I think anybody who says this sort of thing should be forced to marry a gay partner. That way they can find out for themselves what the outcome of that policy would be. :chuckle:
How 'bout it? You're so willing to saddle someone else with a lesbian... wanna take on the challenge of being married to someone who finds you physically repulsive?

Actually I would find them physically repulsive, they would be dying to take me up the arse.

cubanstogie
10-02-2009, 08:54 AM
Then you already understand how your future wife would feel about you.:noidea:
I'm talkin' a lesbian in your case. You want them married off to a guy so bad, then you go right ahead and marry one yourself. Tell us how it works out.

I don't want them married off to a guy. I stated they have the same rights and I proved it. I stated it was about choice. We both have the same rights, they make a different choice. Thats all I said. How you deciphered I wanted lesbians married to men is beyond me.

Vincent
10-02-2009, 12:21 PM
I think we have gone off on a tangent here.
http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=636173&postcount=1
Not at all. The thread was and is all about this issue.

And the larger issue that…
Liberals Do Not Respect Democracy.
I think anybody who says this sort of thing should be forced to marry a gay partner.
You would have someone who’s views you disagree with be damned to a life of torture. Well that’s delightfully “open minded”.
BTW Slash, I just love your av.
Not all conservatives, just the "social conservatives" (a term that is fundamentally self-conflicted).
Self conflicted? I’d love to hear the explanation for that one.
The rights that are being denied are… The right to …-equal standing for adoption
That’s a good idea. Give children to homosexuals. Right up there with giving 13 year old girls to Roman Polanski.:toofunny:

I’ve known (not in the Biblical sense:chuckle:) a lot of (:noidea:whatever the @#$% we’re allowed to call them:noidea:) and most of them would agree that this ain’t a real good idea for all the obvious reasons. Matter of fact, I know a (:noidea:?) “couple” that adopted two Ukrainian little boys. Yeah, they had to go out of country cause nobody would give them children in the US. They had to go to the Ukraine because nobody else would give them children, the “bigots”. Anyway, the stories that come out of that “family” are appalling. No amount of “politically correct” squishy psychobabble “love me I’m a liberal” bull@#$% will ever justify those “adoptions”.
Homophobia is real, and it's a direct contributor to a process that is denying my fellow *Americans* their rights as citizens.
Was it Andrew Dice Clay that coined the term “homo-American”? Sorry. :couch:

Anyway…My participation in the recent passages of this thread has revolved around the use of this term “homophobia”, and that’s the extent of my interest in this stage of the discussion, save homo-adoption. Everything to do with that term is wrong. To label people “homophobes” is in itself bigotry in the identical sense that you posit calling homosexuals names is.

“Homophobia” is specious bull@#$%. It’s a manufactured term designed to destroy any legitimate criticism of behavior that most of society views unfavorably. http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764 It’s a classic marxist construct – deflect criticism by destroying the source. Party A “You’re sick.”. Party B “No, actually you’re sick because you think I’m sick.”.

You yourself used (above) a forced gay marriage to illustrate the resulting repulsion. And yet you seem to believe that repulsion is an unnatural, indeed “phobic” reaction. That’s hilarious. Some people don’t like homosexuals. Some don’t like the behavior. These people aren’t “afraid” of “them” or “worried” about becoming “one of them”. Me personally? I don’t like lamb. But I don’t hate it, I’m not afraid of it, and I’m not worried that I might come to like it.

Not coincidentally, the social-conservatives cannot provide anything like a credible argument supporting their argument otherwise. Until such time as I see one, this is *by definition* a phobia.
In your mind. BTW, who died and left you arbiter of definitions? Rather pompous, aren’t we Skippy?
You see, when you say "success stories" that immediately asserts that homosexuality is something negative like depression.
Until 1973 it was treated as a mental disorder until the medical community succumbed to political pressure to “change their views”. See, we had just gone through the “sexual revolution” on the “leadership” of that paragon of sexual and mental well being himself, “Dr.” Alfred Kinsey.

Councilors like that just get people lying to themselves about who they are. Sexual preference is not something you determine through counseling. If a guy were to tell me he had to go through therapy sessions to develop an attraction to women, I'd be skeptical.
Yeah, they should go to a “gay” bar on “bareback night”. That’ll determine the direction the pee-pee points.

Individuals have a right to marry whoever they *&%^ well please (reference the 9th Amendment and Magna Carta) so long as the contract is struck between citizens of legal majority.
In as much as the Constitution doesn’t address marriage, what do you see in the 9th amendment that does?

The Magna Carta I read is subordinate to God and the Church, and the references to marriage are in that context.

Godfather
10-03-2009, 08:59 AM
That’s a good idea. Give children to homosexuals. Right up there with giving 13 year old girls to Roman Polanski.:toofunny:


????

That makes zero sense


I’ve known (not in the Biblical sense:chuckle:) a lot of (:noidea:whatever the @#$% we’re allowed to call them:noidea:) and most of them would agree that this ain’t a real good idea for all the obvious reasons.

What obvious reasons?

Anyway, the stories that come out of that “family” are appalling. No amount of “politically correct” squishy psychobabble “love me I’m a liberal” bull@#$% will ever justify those “adoptions”.

Do you support letting Woody Allen adopt? He's hetero so anything he does must be OK. Or should his behavior be grounds for banning heterosexuals from adopting?

The Magna Carta I read is subordinate to God and the Church, and the references to marriage are in that context.

Godfather
10-03-2009, 10:24 AM
BTW, this is a non-sequitur argument. There's a big difference between not liking certain foods and attempting to punish others for liking it or eating it.
I personally am not sexually attracted to men either, and have no interest in having sex with one, marrying one, or any concern that my attraction to girl-parts is ever going to change either.
Difference is, I see no reason why some other guys who feel that attraction settling down together affects me in any way, or why it's any of my business to interfere. And I can't see how anybody can make the logical leap in the other direction.
When advocating a government policy, you should always present a coherent argument supporting your position and facts to support your argument. When we're talking Government vs. individual liberty, it is paramount that you express how their exercise of their freedom is infringing yours.
Neither of these basic standards has been met by the social conservatives in this case.
The arguments are all of a theological nature (constitutionally inadmissible) or slippery slope (unsupportable), but they all revolve around the fear of what our society will become if we allow them to marry who they wish.
And when you're talkin' a fear that cannot be justified rationally or supported by established fact, you're talkin' about (I'll say it again) the very definition of a phobia.

Well stated. The irony is he played the Marxist card when he's the one who advocates big government stepping in to stop something for no other reason than it personally offends him.

Vincent
10-03-2009, 11:42 AM
Personally, I'd rather see all those unwanted children that the social "conservatives" are so intent to save raised by married gay couples than single crackheads. But that's just me...

If that were the choice, so would I. I'd also rather have a bottle in front me than a frontal lobotomy.

Difference is, I see no reason why some other guys who feel that attraction settling down together affects me in any way, or why it's any of my business to interfere. And I can't see how anybody can make the logical leap in the other direction.

Nor do I. Couldn't give a @#$% less.

When advocating a government policy, you should always present a coherent argument supporting your position and facts to support your argument. When we're talking Government vs. individual liberty, it is paramount that you express how their exercise of their freedom is infringing yours.
Neither of these basic standards has been met by the social conservatives in this case.

Well stated. The irony is he played the Marxist card when he's the one who advocates big government stepping in to stop something for no other reason than it personally offends him.

If you've read anything I've written in this thread, you'd know I don't advocate. I have made historical references. I've noted public dispositions. I've asked questions. I've made snide remarks (personal amusement. sorry :chuckle:).

And I have stated numerous times that my participation in the recent passages of this thread is strictly because of the introduction of the term "homophobia" (in it's various forms), to which I take exception.

Vincent here is certainly in good company. This is exactly what I mean when I say that the term "social conservative" is self-conflicted. They believe in limited government except when they don't. They believe in personal freedom except when they don't. They believe in adherence to the Constitution except when they don't. They advocate fiscal responsibility except when they don't...

Totally incoherent, and certainly not unique to Republicans.

Truth be known, on "social" issues I'm as libertarian as they come. In general, I don't want the federal gubmint involved in anything but trashing our enemies (oh goodness, does that make some kind of "phobic"?), defending our borders, maintaining a viable currency, and providing our representatives with meeting and office facilities.