An honest question for Republicans/Obama bashers...

prime311

prime311

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3027058
"When endowed by their creator"
Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61
The first ammendment specifically protects religion.
What does this have to do with our government? We protect the freedom of religion, we do not base our government on it. In fact, basing the government on any religion couldn't be any more contrary to what our founding fathers set out to do. Our country was not founded on religious principle, it was founded on a belief that we have the freedom to follow whichever principles we want to as long as it does not impose on the rights of others.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by prime311
http:///forum/post/3028981
What does this have to do with our government? We protect the freedom of religion, we do not base our government on it. In fact, basing the government on any religion couldn't be any more contrary to what our founding fathers set out to do. Our country was not founded on religious principle, it was founded on a belief that we have the freedom to follow whichever principles we want to as long as it does not impose on the rights of others.
True, but the basic Judeo-Christian laws/beliefs helped mold the Constitutionr founding fathers. In my mind the most important phrase is "endowed by their creator". Why? If our "inalienable rights" come from a higher power than man, then man cannot remove those rights.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by prime311
http:///forum/post/3028981
, it was founded on a belief that we have the freedom to follow whichever principles we want to as long as it does not impose on the rights of others.
Unfortunately, many groups think the opposite ( gay marriage).
 
prime311

prime311

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3030034
True, but the basic Judeo-Christian laws/beliefs helped mold the Constitutionr founding fathers. In my mind the most important phrase is "endowed by their creator". Why? If our "inalienable rights" come from a higher power than man, then man cannot remove those rights.
How does keeping religion, or more importantly the influence of organized religion, out of government allow our inalienable rights to be removed? I would argue the reliance on organized religion is more likely to take away from our inalienable rights as their beliefs are inconsistent and often outdated.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by prime311
http:///forum/post/3030116
What do you mean? Are you saying gay marriage imposes on the rights of Christians?
This is a slippery slope. Think about it. Any decision not to do something based on gender orientation has now been equated with racism. So say a photographer who says no I won't do a gay wedding is now "discriminating" and thus open to prosecution.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547 (sorry I couldn't find a more mainstream news service.) For some strange reason this got burried...
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
The gay marriage deal opens a door that is better to remain closed.
If you can't say it is between one man and one woman you can't really make a legitimate case against polygamists and a host of other crap.
Those Judeo Christian values our laws are based on for the most part aren't all bad.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by prime311
http:///forum/post/3030116
What do you mean? Are you saying gay marriage imposes on the rights of Christians?
No, they (among others) force their beliefs on everyone else in the name of "rights", "social justice", "fairness".
How they act is their decision, but don't force me ( and a majority) to have to accept a new norm.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/3028900
Re: Walmart. "We" complain about their employment practices but we don't complain about their low prices. Can't have it both ways folks; either you enjoy the low pricing *and* accept the accompanying (legal and sound BTW) business practices, or you pay higher prices to companies that offer more of the "living wage" that some want. Take your pick.
If "we" cared that much, we would boycott Walmart until they were forced to give full time employment and benefits to employees and had to raise their prices to afford this (which, in turn, would make them less competitive,) or they would be run out of business. Either way, you lose the low prices.
Bottom line is "we" really must not care that much 'cuz they continue to exist and prosper. Kind of ironic that the very people who complain about the way they do business are the very same who shop there regularly because of the low prices, and these prices are exactly due to the way they run their business.
Good point.
BTW I don't shop at Wal-Mart unless they are the only place that has an item, or it is an extreme discount. Why would I send the profit margin to Bentonville, Arkansas when the guy down the street sells the same thing for .1% more and the profit margin increase the local wealth?
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3030343
No, they (among others) force their beliefs on everyone else in the name of "rights", "social justice", "fairness".
How they act is their decision, but don't force me ( and a majority) to have to accept a new norm.
If people didn't constantly say they were wrong then you probably wouldn't ever hear about it.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3030175
The gay marriage deal opens a door that is better to remain closed.
If you can't say it is between one man and one woman you can't really make a legitimate case against polygamists and a host of other crap.
Those Judeo Christian values our laws are based on for the most part aren't all bad.

Couple that with the gay community using terms such as "partner", "life Partner" and such instead of husband/wife. I see the fight over the word marriage yet the gay community creates their own words to represent each other in the relationship instead of using the standard wife or husband.
You want Marriage, then use ALL the terminology....seriously, in the end it is just a word. The difference between Marriage and a civil Union is what?
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3030343
No, they (among others) force their beliefs on everyone else in the name of "rights", "social justice", "fairness".
How they act is their decision, but don't force me ( and a majority) to have to accept a new norm.
Who are "they?" Hmmm? Go ahead - you can say it...
Here's where I figured we'd be going with the clarification thing. You seem to be delineating rights here as allocatable to the majority in the instance of marital preference, and to the minority in the instance of religious preference, but not the opposite.
I'm not sure the law is capable of working both ways.
You appear to be quite accepting of the rights of religious minorities, but not of minority sexual orientation. If a religion you disagree with can't affect you, and is also to be a protected minority, how so is a sexual orientation different, either as a protected status or in its effect on you?
There is no "imposition" taking place. You don't have to be gay any more than you have to be Branch Davidian.
It's a matter of equal rights under the law.
Nothing more, and absolutely nothing less.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3030518
Who are "they?" Hmmm? Go ahead - you can say it...
Here's where I figured we'd be going with the clarification thing. You seem to be delineating rights here as allocatable to the majority in the instance of marital preference, and to the minority in the instance of religious preference, but not the opposite.
I'm not sure the law is capable of working both ways.
You appear to be quite accepting of the rights of religious minorities, but not of minority sexual orientation. If a religion you disagree with can't affect you, and is also to be a protected minority, how so is a sexual orientation different, either as a protected status or in its effect on you?
There is no "imposition" taking place. You don't have to be gay any more than you have to be Branch Davidian.
It's a matter of equal rights under the law.
Nothing more, and absolutely nothing less.
What minority in religion? 90%+ of the world follows some religion. There are "bad apples" yet an overwhelming majority of the world follows some reilgion.
No, I don't have to be gay,yet I'm a (insert group)phobe for thinking that it is not biologically normal to be gay.
I'm a xenophobe because I want immigrants to follow the laws to come into this country. I'm a xenophobe in that I want illegals OUT of this country.
They have all kinds of names for those of us who respect the law. In fact we're put on watch lists because of it. Last I checked, a Communist shot JFK, The weathermen were Leftists. Why are they not on lists too?
That is not equal treatment under the law.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3031125
What minority in religion? 90%+ of the world follows some religion. There are "bad apples" yet an overwhelming majority of the world follows some reilgion.
I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics here.
Of the 6 billion people on the planet ~1 billion people are Catholic (Europe, North and South America, bits and pieces of formerly colonial Africa), same for Muslim (Middle East, North Africa and parts of Asia). The billion that live in China are officially atheist, but actually mostly Buddhist. That's 50% of world population there. A seriously large chunk of Sub-Saharan Africa is Animist of some sort, and India's billion is largely Hindu, there's most of the rest. Of the remaining billion, ~ 1/2 are Protestant of some flavor and the rest fall under some declension of "other."
Which 90% are we talking about?
No, I don't have to be gay,yet I'm a (insert group)phobe for thinking that it is not biologically normal to be gay.
I didn't say you were homophobic. You may have a fear of using the term. I don't know. You have yet to define who "they" are.
I also have no idea what the definition of biologically normal is. O positive is the majority blood type. Asian is the majority genotype. Is that what we're talking about? Yeah, it's a silly question. It's also a silly argument.
I'm a xenophobe because I want immigrants to follow the laws to come into this country. I'm a xenophobe in that I want illegals OUT of this country.
Ok. I assume that's a facetious statement, but I'll reserve response until I'm sure.
They have all kinds of names for those of us who respect the law. In fact we're put on watch lists because of it. Last I checked, a Communist shot JFK, The weathermen were Leftists. Why are they not on lists too?
I have no security clearance, so I am, unfortunately, unable to intelligently discuss lists, who's on them, or their very existence, on any level. I have read, however, about the McCarthy era.
That is not equal treatment under the law.
Equal treatment under the law guarantees the protection of minorities at the potentially abusive hand of the majority. I fail to see the distinction between race and gender orientation. Perhaps we should roll back the clock on interracial marriage as well?
(And, for the sake of clarity, I'm posing a question which I believe to be relevant to the argument. I am absolutely not accusing you of racism.)
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3031206
Equal treatment under the law guarantees the protection of minorities at the potentially abusive hand of the majority. I fail to see the distinction between race and gender orientation. Perhaps we should roll back the clock on interracial marriage as well?
I think the big difference is one you are born, the other may or may not be a choice.
I personally believe it is a choice. It has to be.Because if it is not, we have to change the entire law book on pedophiles. since basically if homosexuality is not a choice but a gene thing, then pedophilia is as well. And if this is the case and as long as a child consents (or their parents) we should not prosecute many of these cases, including some statutory ones.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
They = gays, pro abortion, pro illegal immigration basically the left. "They" are out to not only push their agenda, but also belittle and remove others from the debate. I can be for all sorts of legal ties between a gay couple, yet I'm an "evil conservative", or clinging to religion for protecting marriage as a hetero institution and legal definition.
I am not a homophobe, as the saying goes I have gay friends, we just do not agree on lifestyles.
Like you said we protect the minorities, yet we should not let them define the majority or norm. The libertarian in me thinks if you want to have relations with a bear, then go for it. The realist relizes there are some boundaries not to be crossed ( like relations with relatives and the genetic problems).
That's why I dislike "hate crimes" why is a murder more of a murder? We should have equal protection. If I am murdered, should my killer not be punished the same whether or not I'm gay or a minority, or part of the "majority".
I can't get the results of an HIV test on a patient, its "protected". I can't give good care without all the info. Politics just might cost someone their life.
I'd argue the "majority" is treated more like the minority these days.
Just because I have specific, unchanging values and morals, I am not evil. I try to live up to them and keep consistant. I'd don't bend to the breeze like Arlen Spector. I'm not perfect, yet I've lived the best life I could. I've worked hard, helped others and had some fun. How many people can say they've saved multiple lives, taugh others to save life? How many have held the hand of the dying to comfort them. I've given closure to families of veterans.
As to interracial marriage, I have the same beliefs, hetero only. You can still have the common law interests and benefits, but "marriage" is fine like it is. I'm not sorry for my beliefs. I will not thrust them on you.
Those are my beliefs, take them or leave them. We need to stop defining groups and become more "American". I remember the term "melting pot" from when I was a kid. We've stopped melting together, we're more like oil and vinegar dressing. Even shaken up we are not mixing. The harder we are shaken the more fractioned we become. I don't want anyone part of a group other than "American" ( or "Canadian" etc). See I have a bit of an open mind, I'm not too arrogant.
Now, am I totally vetted to run for POTUS?
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3031239
I think the big difference is one you are born, the other may or may not be a choice.
I personally believe it is a choice. It has to be.Because if it is not, we have to change the entire law book on pedophiles. since basically if homosexuality is not a choice but a gene thing, then pedophilia is as well. And if this is the case and as long as a child consents (or their parents) we should not prosecute many of these cases, including some statutory ones.
That's an interesting can of worms.
Define pædophelia. In Japan, the age of consent is 13. In other countries it's younger than that. I realize this is the US, we follow our own rules and rightfully so, but we cannot expect that the rest of the planet ought to as well.
I'm not arguing in favor of lowering the age of consent, I'm just pointing out facts.
Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is far from established. Until the jury is out, opinion is all we've got. As such, I favor erring on the side of the law, that is to say, protect and grant the minority equal rights.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3031243
They ... POTUS
(sorry, I didn't want to take up server space reposting your entire statement - pet peeve of mine - no offence.)
I have no argument whatsoever with anything in your above statement.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3031254
That's an interesting can of worms.
Define pædophelia. In Japan, the age of consent is 13. In other countries it's younger than that. I realize this is the US, we follow our own rules and rightfully so, but we cannot expect that the rest of the planet ought to as well.
I'm not arguing in favor of lowering the age of consent, I'm just pointing out facts.
True, I can also show countries in the world where women are property. Where men have multiple wives and some of them as low as 9 in age. Where people actively and openly have a relationship with an animal.
With that said I am unsure of what this has to do within our own country. I am approaching it from a U.S. law standpoint and a U.S. view. What the rest of the world does in this regard is no concern of ours really.....
science has shown the human brain is not fully developed at the young age.....but if the parents of a child consent to allow their 13 year old to marry and join with a 30 year old, the laws of this nation allow in certain states for the adult to still be prosecuted...regardless of consent. The psycological side of this shows this type of behavior to have long term emotional detrimental effects on the young.....but regardless of all that....
Everyone agrees to this and consents....so should the law stand in the way?
Nambla is a huge minority..........huge....should they receive the same rights and be given the same options and protections? If you say no.....then how are they any different than those asking for gay marriage as the minority?
Neither are no where near the racial struggle of our historical past. and can't even be compared or seen as similarities.
To go even further...historically there have been empires that fell shortly after public acceptance of open and active homosexual acts/lifestyles. Now I will say this occurance did not itself bring about the fall of some of these empires, but my personal opinions is it did allow the door to open to other acts and thought process not healthy or conducive in an educated and civil society.....granted each of these empires did have other major problems and this was very small comparatively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top