patrick.net

Bap33 says

Marriage is far from a right. Not even close

Nitpicking. Who cares ?

The point is that gays deserve the benefits and rights that come with marriage under federal law, regarding taxation, inheritance, visitation rights in the hospital, being considered basically "family," and so on.

Where are you on civil unions that accomplish all of these ?

Because if you are okay with that, IT WILL become known as marriage, regardless of what the government says.

RE: Hippies - God + Drugs = DNC. The immoral dope smoking group is now in charge and that is why things are F-ed up, and also why their guilt makes them want to make dope legal ... that will really show their folks just how stupid they were to ground them when they busted them smoking dope. Silly Hippies.

Hippies + God + Drugs = Branch Dividians

thomaswong.1986 says

Eisenhower's policies such as ?

Taxes and investment in infrastructure are enough.

marcus says

Where are you on civil unions that accomplish all of these ?

read my value of procreation to the tribe, and then respond, and I'll frorm a response.

Sorry, I guess it was too difficult a question.

no, really, I responded above and ahead of your question

meaning, I answered it already and I think you will agree ... since your vocation is anchored in the same Tribe survival system

Bap33 says

Hippies - God + Drugs = DNC.

IT is fascinating how much you have in common with the Taliban, that is with regard to the evil of western values.

Bap33 says

meaning, I answered it already

Okay, but I'm not going to search for it, and I guess you don't know how to put a link on your comment to it.

I do like their views on morality and modest public behavior. I dislike their entire system being based on lies, fear, hate, and zero individualism. I like individualism.

Bap33 says

marcus says

Bap33 says

Good point Vincent.

I saw that coming.

well .... without more people the Tribe dies. In a way, your vocation came about due to the Tribe wanting to survive, and made education valuable ... much like procreation. Can you see what I'm saying?

re-post

You mean this ?

Bap33 says

and from this the view the Tribe's view of deviant coupling can be found. And the value of reproduction, and the value of a strong normal family, are why taxation systems should support reproduction. Good point Vincent.

time-out, wife is calling me to watch some home repair show with her .... adios, good evening.

I'll check back later on marcus.

Tolerating 1o percent or whatever the percentage is to live out their gay life style with toleration hardly limits the tribe.

There are over 7 trillion people on the planet, expected to level out at around 10 billion.

By the way, it could be said that there are natural reasons for the population leveling out at about 10 trillion. The need for it to level out in the aggregate is obvious. The way that it plays out on the small community level is maybe not so obvious.

People are having less children than they used to. Especially in poor countres.

(note: Correction 7 billion not trillion.)

so, your position is to tollerate something that is not healthy for the tribe? We agree.

I mistook your position to be "view as equal and normal", not "just tollerate, the rest of us can make up the difference". Tolleration is the least that the rest of us can do when we are talking about what two (or more) adults do to reach sexual gratification. As long as no minors, or mentally challenged people are part of it, I don't see it as a big deal .... mainly because I dont see it, and shouldn't see it, and dont wanna see it, and I can change the channel if a TV show has it. See, I am not all weird about it. Tollerance works when we are talking about male/male sodomites. Until their activity is found to be a burdan on the Tribe ... then, the tribe must protect itself. So far, other than some AIDS costs, and the general spread of that diseasem I dont know of a major threat from the sodomites, so tolleration is warranted.

We tollerate in our free America. That's what we do. It's the progressive liberal left that has an issue with tollerance.

Tolerance has somewhat of a range to it.

For some, tolerance of gays might mean that they are pretty judgemental about it being deviant and not so healthy, but they say it's a free country, live and let live etc.

To others tolerance means that they have way less of an issue with it. Those of us with gay friends or family surprisingly do find these people to be normal and don't even think much (if at all) about what they do sexually in the privacy of their homes.

How often do you find yourself thinking or caring about the sex habits of your friends ? Not much if you're normal. Guess what, if you are in an urban area working in a diverse environment, you may end up having gay acquaintences, and it's not that you think it's normal, its just that you're likely not to even think about it much, once you get over the novelty of it.

It's not unlike race differences. If you had never been around people of other races, then it's kind of a big deal to have a friend of another race. But if you're in a diverse environment your whole life, then it's just people. YOu are aware of the ethnic differences but people are pretty much the same. You're less likely to see them as particularly different, in ways that matter (or in ways that have to do with their race).

marcus says

Tolerating 1o percent or whatever the percentage is to live out their gay life style with toleration hardly limits the tribe.

There are over 7 trillion people on the planet, expected to level out at around 10 billion.

By the way, it could be said that there are natural reasons for the population leveling out at about 10 trillion. The need for it to level out in the aggregate is obvious. The way that it plays out on the small community level is maybe not so obvious.

People are having less children than they used to. Especially in poor countres.

7 billion people call earth home. To get to seven trillion we'd have to have a lot less homosexual sex and a WHOLE lot more good old fashioned 10-15 person families. Ladies, get ready to give those uteruses a workout! Marcus is only off by a factor of 10, don't let him down and make him look the fool again.

"7 billion people call earth home"

You're correct, 7 billion not 7 trillion. Off by a factor of a thousand, makes me sound like Mish or indigenous, with their problems dealing with large numbers and proportions.

People been killing one another since the dawn of man, most of it ain't got nothing to do with religion. Stalin, Hitler, Alexander, Khan were willing to kill to grow and "perfect" their empires. Try demonizing the demons and leave your average religious folk out of it.

sbh says

If one were to strip off the elegant archetype and intrinsic humanity of
religious scripture in order to focus on its primitive, remnant ugliness, it
does a great injustice to many it seeks to comfort. As a purely spiritual
endeavor of the individual as seeker of the fundaments of existence it is the
most natural expression of humanity. Once it bears any name, as given by any
man, living or dead, it becomes a divisive agony of humanity, casting the world
into that of the blessed or the infidel. And people begin killing each other.

excellant post

sbh says

Dan8267 says

You talking atheists or trolls?

I was talking atheists. I wonder what it is for trolls.

I suspect higher.

marcus says

thomaswong.1986 says

Eisenhower's policies such as ?

Taxes and investment in infrastructure are enough.

The fiscal policies using high taxes was to keep inflation down. Thats all.. building roads is not the problem .. its a distraction to the real issues at hand from being discussed.

to talk of infrastructure is useless. today the Democrats are incapable and unwilling to allow building of factories and allowing natural level of labor costs to exist in the USA.

thomaswong.1986 says

The fiscal policies using high taxes was to keep inflation down.

I thought it was because conservative used to mean paying your debts, rather than running them up. As I've explained on this site dozens of times. If you pay your bills, you're less likely to live beyond your means. If our taxes were close to what we spent the previous years, we would control spending. I understand why republicans don't want to do that. It's because we are a democracy, and we would take care of the peoples needs before we would take care of defense contractors.

If it was just about inflation then is it okay if we do it again when inflation kicks in ?

thomaswong.1986 says

allowing natural level of labor costs to exist in the USA

Yeah, it's practically criminal the way those commie liberals don't want the US to be nothing better than a big third world country with giant shanty towns that also happens to hosts a lot of global corporations.

marcus says

If our taxes were close to what we spent the previous years, we would control spending. I understand why republicans don't want to do that. It's because we are a democracy, and we would take care of the peoples needs before we would take care of defense contractors.

Because Govt is incapable of having any spending disciple doesn't mean you should tax more. You need to say NO! we are not going to spend for this. Our FED government covers national defense, its states who run other spending programs.

what is a Defense Contractor or any Contractor but a vendor with specialized skills unable to be found in government.. it could be Payroll Services..ADP who cuts the Payroll Checks for the federal employees. It makes plenty of sense to cut that service infavor of private sector handling such tasks. Others do services beyond the knowledge scope of government workers. IT is the same way, private sector is better at deploying various technology as it has done for decades.

marcus says

thomaswong.1986 says

allowing natural level of labor costs to exist in the USA

Yeah, it's practically criminal the way those commie liberals don't want the US to be nothing better than a big third world country with giant shanty towns that also happens to hosts a lot of global corporations.

Look at California... Decades ago, conservative govt in CA have done a great job building the economy to international rankings... look around today, yes its the Libs who are creating the run away spending which is ruining the CA economy.

The same happened decades ago with NYC.. went bankrupt due to out of control spending over social programs. Yes, frankly NYC looked like some 3rd world war zone back in the 70s.

thomaswong.1986 says

Because Govt is incapable of having any spending disciple doesn't mean you should tax more

Is there too much common sense involved in the following simple fact ?

IF you pay for what you spend, you have more motive to spend less than if you push it off on future generations.

No self respecting conservative can deny this. The funny thing is that I'm far more conservative than you. You're all about "my team against your team" to such a great extent that you are willing to deny the most fundamental conservative axioms.

Bap33 says

the words you say are in the USConst are not in there - anywhere as you said ... that lingo aint there. Know what is?? "We hold these truths to be self evident, that WE are ENDOWED by our CREATOR with certian unalienable RIGHTS"

Those words aren't in the Constitution either, you twit.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

sorry, I did not copy=paste the first one, I did it from memory.

And I messed up by blurring two arguements at once, added to the fact I am an idiot.

I like the DoI too! Show some love!

Love,
Twit

Bap33 says

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

There is no mention of an particular "god" in the constitution. It simple indicates a "Creator", which doesn't automatically mean a Christian god, or even neccesarily a God.

Go back and study the US Constitution again because the separation of Church and State is without a doubt within it in the first amendment and it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That makes is crystal clear that while anyone can practice whatever religion they please without government interference, likewise religion cannot interfere with the government and as such, any and all arguments against rights of others based from Christian moral beliefs is automatically null and void.

So as such, if one were to try and use any sort of Christian moral belief system to base their opposition to Gay marriage then they don't actually have a legitimate constitutional basis to back up that claim. This is why they will lose. Plain and simple.

Amazing since I already knew this by the time I was probably in 1st grade....

Bap33 says

certain unalienable Rights.

I reserve the right to declare my "certain" unalienable rights.

I'm an American God damn it, what in the hell is wrong with you People?

lol.
edvard,
do you believe in absolute right and absolute wrong?

I believe in the US constitution in its regard to how the US is governed. That is the law of our country. As such, the laws within are laws that were meant to be followed and thus why to me this is a straightforward discussion. What my personal morals or beliefs are have nothing to do with it.

edvard2 says

What my personal morals or beliefs are have nothing to do with it.

Yep, that's the crux of the bisquit.

But Bap is conflicted. He even knows that the American system troubles him, and that the Taliban have a lot going for them (in his view). He would like to see a Christian version of sharia law, totally undoing what America is even meant to be.

OR maybe not. But he's deeply conflicted about the separation of church and state, and does not comprehend the beauty and benefit that comes from this separation.

IF he was an atheist, or a member of any other religion (probably even catholic or non fundy Christion), he would get it.

marcus says

But Bap is conflicted. He even knows that the American system troubles him, and that the Taliban have a lot going for them (in his view). He would like to see a Christian version of sharia law, totally undoing what America is even meant to be.

given we are a christian nation, can you in the past some 200+ years, ever show we were anywhere close to having a Sharia Laws ?

Would you call the 12 Commandments anything like the Sharia Laws ?

marcus says

But he's deeply conflicted about the separation of church and state, and does not comprehend the beauty and benefit that comes from this separation.

Seperation of Church and State..

what exactly does that mean pre-1947 or pre-secularists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States

The phrase of Jefferson (see above) was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.[18] The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, the court determined that the first amendment applied to the states and that a law enabling reimbursement for busing to all schools (including parochial schools) was constitutional.

Before 1947, however, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; indeed in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to accomplish this, but it was accomplished by judicial decision in 1947.

The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in the Massachusetts Bay Colony to found the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.

Williams was motivated by historical abuse of governmental power, and believed that government must remove itself from anything that touched upon human beings’ relationship with God, advocating a "hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world" in order to keep the church pure.

edvard2 says

I believe in the US constitution in its regard to how the US is governed. That is the law of our country. As such, the laws within are laws that were meant to be followed and thus why to me this is a straightforward discussion. What my personal morals or beliefs are have nothing to do with it.

ok. cool. so you must be upset as me with how the left has trampled on the 2nd Ammendment?
And upset with the bastardizing of the naturalization ammendment (13 or 14 I think) that was meant for slaves, and legal visitors, and not for invaders who spawn while in our country. Right?

thomaswong.1986 says

given we are a christian nation

Wrong again.

"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

thomaswong.1986 says

the 12 Commandments

When did they add the extra two?

Bap33 says

edvard2 says

I believe in the US constitution in its regard to how the US is governed. That is the law of our country. As such, the laws within are laws that were meant to be followed and thus why to me this is a straightforward discussion. What my personal morals or beliefs are have nothing to do with it.

ok. cool. so you must be upset as me with how the left has trampled on the 2nd Ammendment?

And upset with the bastardizing of the naturalization ammendment (13 or 14 I think) that was meant for slaves, and legal visitors, and not for invaders who spawn while in our country. Right?

He's got another good point here.

finehoe says

thomaswong.1986 says

given we are a christian nation

Wrong again.

"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

thomaswong.1986 says

the 12 Commandments

When did they add the extra two?

dude, we lied in that treaty to beat the crazy arab pirates ... they have not changed over the past zillion years -- rape and pillage everything from little boys to granny -- that's how mohamad wants things done. Anyways, we lied, told a fib, to break their backs, much like we lied to the Indians when we wrote treaties.

The American experiement is founded in the system of right/wrong set up by the God of Abraham ... the God of Enoch ... the God of Solomon ... The God of Sumar ... The God of Enki. Not built on "religion", because that is a stupid thing man made up, but built on the freedom to worship God in a way that suits you, and to live a moral and just life so as to allow others to worship God in their own manner. It is all about freedom so the individual spirit can grow and connect with God. Freedom without spirituality is an empty life without purpose. Spirituality without freedom is a life whos purpose can not be known. America offers freedom based on spitiuality, and spirituality can only be enjoyed in freedom. I think, maybe, that is why things started as they did. I also think man has managed to completely F-up every good thing God has shown him.