T1B

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2007 8:19 pm**

If you choose to belong to a religion, basically, you choose to adhere to that religion's tenets.

Why do people deem it necessary to make it into legislation, also?

For example, if your spiritual leader prohibits gay marriage, then by God, don't get gay-married.

If your spiritual leader says that drinking alcohol is an abomination against Allah, then switch to OJ.

Why do the radicals want to make these things into laws for society at large?

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2007 8:57 pm**

Because the entire point of organized religion is to offer self-esteem and a superiority complex to those who otherwise have no business feeling superior about anything.

If you instill an air of superiority in someone, it becomes very easy to take advantage of them. This holds true in all aspects of life, but organized religion is by far the best example.

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2007 9:31 pm**

So if your religion is opposed to murder, then being opposed to murder is nothing but mindless fanatacism?

Possibly those who oppose 'gay marriage' think homosexuality is A) disfunctional B) immoral C) bad for society or D) just plain icky. It doesn't nessecarily have anything to do with their theological beliefs.

A better question would be, if you don't believe the tenets of your religion (i.e. 'pro-choice' Catholics) why not join a differant church?

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2007 9:34 pm**

As far as the thing about alcohol, Islam has a slightly differant attitude. Basicly convert or die.

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2007 11:18 pm**

Diogenes wrote:So if your religion is opposed to murder, then being opposed to murder is nothing but mindless fanatacism?

Possibly those who oppose 'gay marriage' think homosexuality is A) disfunctional B) immoral C) bad for society or D) just plain icky. It doesn't nessecarily have anything to do with their theological beliefs.

I think eating liver & onions is just plain icky. But instead of asking for legislation banning other people from eating it I just don't eat it.

Why can't the thumpers do the same?

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2007 11:29 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote:Why can't the thumpers do the same?

Because it doesn't reinforce the superiority complex they've been BSed with their entire lives.

Quite simple, actually. If someone has to comform to your ideas by force/legislation, it does wonders to bolster the artificial esteem that's arbitrarily been bestowed upon them. If the law says that everyone should conform to your personal morals, it gives you legal authority to walk around thinking you're in the right, and everyone else is in the wrong...a fairly basic need that genetics hasn't bred out yet, unfortunately.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2007 12:19 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Diogenes wrote:So if your religion is opposed to murder, then being opposed to murder is nothing but mindless fanatacism?

Possibly those who oppose 'gay marriage' think homosexuality is A) disfunctional B) immoral C) bad for society or D) just plain icky. It doesn't nessecarily have anything to do with their theological beliefs.
I think eating liver & onions is just plain icky. But instead of asking for legislation banning other people from eating it I just don't eat it.

Why can't the thumpers do the same?

Missing the point as usual.

The fact that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to 'gay marriage' has little or nothing to do with theology. And the ones wielding force on the issue are the judiciary creating nonexistant rights to overturn legislative actions. As far as Dimsdale's tedious psychobabble...

Nevermind. Who cares.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2007 12:55 am**

Diogenes wrote:A better question would be, if you don't believe the tenets of your religion (i.e. 'pro-choice' Catholics) why not join a differant church?[/b]

Great point.

It makes no sense for Roman Catholics to stay within their denomination if they honestly don't believe in and/or refuse to adhere to Church teachings: unmarried priests, male-only priesthood, contraception, abortion, confession, etc. It's not like the RCC is a democracy in any way, shape, or form and that if they get enough delegates they can "change" the Church. The Pope doesn't hold votes to decide issues.

I at least was honest with myself and left the RCC because I honestly could not buy into their horseshit. It's laughable and sad that other folks keep calling themselves "Roman Catholic" when they don't buy a thing the papacy is selling...

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2007 1:14 am**

Diogenes wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:
Diogenes wrote:So if your religion is opposed to murder, then being opposed to murder is nothing but mindless fanatacism?

Possibly those who oppose 'gay marriage' think homosexuality is A) disfunctional B) immoral C) bad for society or D) just plain icky. It doesn't nessecarily have anything to do with their theological beliefs.
I think eating liver & onions is just plain icky. But instead of asking for legislation banning other people from eating it I just don't eat it.

Why can't the thumpers do the same?
Missing the point as usual.

The fact that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to 'gay marriage' has little or nothing to do with theology. And the ones wielding force on the issue are the judiciary creating nonexistant rights to overturn legislative actions.

Non-existant rights?

The rights (and privileges) that you say don't exist....they do. Because hetero couples have them. The gay/lesbian community just wants the same (which the 14th amendment provides for). And that's made much more clear than gun ownership by citizens who are not part of well-regulated militias.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2007 2:02 am**

I see Diodumbass' inability to use the American English language hasn't changed, and has even become contagious. It's hard to take a person seriously on any intellectual level when the word "difference" is beyond their grasp. Although "nonexistent" is a little tougher, it's certainly not beyond the capabilities of your average 6th grader.

But although this is the wrong forum, and this debate is old (and never was a debate to begin with) --

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment

Oh, and how about one from the American Heritage Dictionary, which explains the definiton of "militia" as used by the Founders in their time -- "The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. "

It's deplorable that anyone would quote the words of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, then pervert their meanings and intentions to try and denounce the Bill of Rights...deplorable.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2007 4:56 am**

It makes no sense for Roman Catholics to stay within their denomination if they honestly don't believe in and/or refuse to adhere to Church teachings

I very much agree. Yet, one of the most celebrated aspects of RCism is the way that its adherents seem to be willing to countenance that kind of contradiction, with nary a thought of leaving.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2007 5:24 am**

PSUFAN wrote:
It makes no sense for Roman Catholics to stay within their denomination if they honestly don't believe in and/or refuse to adhere to Church teachings
I very much agree. Yet, one of the most celebrated aspects of RCism is the way that its adherents seem to be willing to countenance that kind of contradiction, with nary a thought of leaving.

That's pretty much a Western phenomenon BTW. The Church in Latin America, Africa etc doesn't have this kind of endemic apostacy.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2007 5:31 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Diogenes wrote: The Church in Latin America, Africa etc doesn't have this kind of endemic apostacy.
So it is a cult fit only for the most backwards savages on the planet?

No. It is merely at odds with the corruption and decadance of post modern society. Which is nwhy post modern society tends to just give lip service to it.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 3:51 am**

PSUFAN wrote:Why do people deem it necessary to make it into legislation, also?

Why do the radicals want to make these things into laws for society at large?

I vote for candidates who I think will push legislation that benefits myself and my country the most.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 3:43 pm**

poptart wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Why do people deem it necessary to make it into legislation, also?

Why do the radicals want to make these things into laws for society at large?
I vote for candidates who I think will push legislation that benefits myself and my country the most.

Lemme guess...a better seasoning for Dog?

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 3:44 pm**

The Roman Catholic Church has been wallowing in corruption and decadance for the last thousand years and more

It's just that they hate being upstaged by amateurs.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 5:51 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Diogenes wrote:So if your religion is opposed to murder, then being opposed to murder is nothing but mindless fanatacism?

Possibly those who oppose 'gay marriage' think homosexuality is A) disfunctional B) immoral C) bad for society or D) just plain icky. It doesn't nessecarily have anything to do with their theological beliefs.
I think eating liver & onions is just plain icky. But instead of asking for legislation banning other people from eating it I just don't eat it.

Why can't the thumpers do the same?

nothing says the fags can't get married in their own gay churches. there is no Constitutional right for the gov't to recognize that marriage and grant them benefits, however.

sorry you had to find out this way.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 6:14 pm**

titlover wrote:nothing says the fags can't get married in their own gay churches. there is no Constitutional right for the gov't to recognize that marriage and grant them benefits, however.

sorry you had to find out this way.

There is nothing in the US Constitution regarding marriage of any kind. Sorry you had to find out this way.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 6:17 pm**

BSmack wrote:
titlover wrote:nothing says the fags can't get married in their own gay churches. there is no Constitutional right for the gov't to recognize that marriage and grant them benefits, however.

sorry you had to find out this way.
There is nothing in the US Constitution regarding marriage of any kind.

Which means there is no Constitutional 'right' for sexual deviants to get 'married'.

Thanks for playing.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 6:24 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote:
titlover wrote:nothing says the fags can't get married in their own gay churches. there is no Constitutional right for the gov't to recognize that marriage and grant them benefits, however.

sorry you had to find out this way.
There is nothing in the US Constitution regarding marriage of any kind.
Which means there is no Constitutional 'right' for sexual deviants to get 'married'.

Thanks for playing.

It also means there is no Constitutional right for heterosexual couples to be recognized by the state.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 6:37 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote: There is nothing in the US Constitution regarding marriage of any kind.
Which means there is no Constitutional 'right' for sexual deviants to get 'married'.

Thanks for playing.
It also means there is no Constitutional right for heterosexual couples to be recognized by the state.

Correct. That is something left to the states to decide (according to the 10th Amendment), not for the judiciary to impose.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 6:44 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote: Which means there is no Constitutional 'right' for sexual deviants to get 'married'.

Thanks for playing.
It also means there is no Constitutional right for heterosexual couples to be recognized by the state.
Correct. That is something left to the states to decide (according to the 10th Amendment), not for the judiciary to impose.

14th Amendment out front should have told you about equal protection extending to the states.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 6:46 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote: It also means there is no Constitutional right for heterosexual couples to be recognized by the state.
Correct. That is something left to the states to decide (according to the 10th Amendment), not for the judiciary to impose.
14th Amendment out front should have told you about equal protection extending to the states.

So what? as you said before, it isn't a Constitutional issue.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 6:53 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote:14th Amendment out front should have told you about equal protection extending to the states.
So what? as you said before, it isn't a Constitutional issue.

You don't follow along so well. Though marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the principle of equal protection articulated in the 14th Amendment clearly enjoins states from discriminatory licensing practices. Imagine a world where a black man couldn't get a drivers license. Or a license to practice law.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 7:05 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote:14th Amendment out front should have told you about equal protection extending to the states.
So what? as you said before, it isn't a Constitutional issue.
You don't follow along so well. Though marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the principle of equal protection articulated in the 14th Amendment clearly enjoins states from discriminatory licensing practices. Imagine a world where a black man couldn't get a drivers license. Or a license to practice law.

Being black and being a pervert aren't comperable. Or maybe next we should worry about NAMBLA being 'discriminated' against. Besides....

BSmack wrote:It also means there is no Constitutional right for heterosexual couples to be recognized by the state.

Still not a Constitutional issue.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 7:07 pm**

BSmack wrote:Imagine a world where a black man couldn't get a drivers license. Or a license to practice law.

Swoon

Pickkkle

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 7:10 pm**

Diogenes wrote:Being black and being a pervert aren't comperable. Or maybe next we should worry about NAMBLA being 'discriminated' against. Besides....

That's an apples and oranges comparison. NAMBLA advocates DEPRIVING children of their right to live a life without middle aged men attempting to bugger them.

Still not a Constitutional issue.

It is not until the state gets involved in the sanctioning of one type of union over another. Then it becomes an issue of equal protection.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 7:21 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Being black and being a pervert aren't comperable. Or maybe next we should worry about NAMBLA being 'discriminated' against. Besides....
That's an apples and oranges comparison. NAMBLA advocates DEPRIVING children of their right to live a life without middle aged men attempting to bugger them.

So you are in favor of discriminating against them? Even if said buggery is privite and consensual? Not a comparison, BTW, just a logical extention of your inane argument.

Still not a Constitutional issue.

BSmack wrote:It is not until the state gets involved in the sanctioning of one type of union over another. Then it becomes an issue of equal protection.

No, it doesn't. Besides, homosexuals do have the right to marry. Just not each other.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 7:30 pm**

Diogenes wrote:So you are in favor of discriminating against them? Even if said buggery is privite and consensual? Not a comparison, BTW, just a logical extention of your inane argument.

It's not even close to a logical extension. Children do not have the ability to give consent. EOS.

No, it doesn't. Besides, homosexuals do have the right to marry. Just not each other.

So now the government has the right to say who one cannot marry? And here I thought that Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia changed that.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 7:40 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:So you are in favor of discriminating against them? Even if said buggery is privite and consensual? Not a comparison, BTW, just a logical extention of your inane argument.
It's not even close to a logical extension. Children do not have the ability to give consent.

And homosexuals don't have the 'right' to 'marry' each other. The point is that discrimination per se isn't unconstitutional, we as a society discriminate all the time, for various reasons. And Loving V Commonwealth doesn't give you the right to marry a blowup doll or a horse. Or someone of the same sex.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 7:44 pm**

Diogenes wrote:And homosexuals don't have the 'right' to 'marry' each other. The point is that discrimination per se isn't unconstitutional, we as a society discriminate all the time, for various reasons. And Loving V Commonwealth doesn't give you the right to marry a blowup doll or a horse. Or someone of the same sex.

Blowup dolls and horses do not have the capacities to knowingly enter into a contractual relationship. Yet again, an apples to oranges comparison.

BTW: We are not talking about "discrimination per se", we are talking about an equitable application of the law.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 7:50 pm**

maybe next we should worry about NAMBLA being 'discriminated' against.

Here we go again.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Consensual, of age couples are a different matter than the examples you offer.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 8:00 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:
maybe next we should worry about NAMBLA being 'discriminated' against.
Consensual, of age couples are a different matter than the examples you offer.

And yet 16 year olds are considered competent to decide whether or not to get abortions in some states-even if they aren't considered old enough to decide who to sleep with. And by pointing out that consensual, of age adults are differant you make my point. You are perfectly willing to discriminate against all of the above; but when other discriminate against perverts you cry foul-and assume it must be because of some theological brainwashing.

And I have yet to see any of you defend the rights of consensual, of age adults whose religion embraces polygamy.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 8:37 pm**

I've got no problem with legalizing polygamy in and of itself. If it isn't fully consensual, and if the participants are not of legal age, that would be different.

I am "discriminating" against that which is non-consensual and involving underage participants.

Of-age fags who marry consensually - what's that got to do with me? Nothing. Just pay your property taxes, fags, and make sure you don't splash your neighbors with Butt Butter...

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2007 9:02 pm**

And yet age-of-consent laws are no less arbitrary and historicly much more of a recent phenomena than societal disapproval of homosexuality. All you are doing is saying that the discrimination you approve of is cool, the discrimination you don't approve of is illegal.

Personally I think that as long as adultery isn't treated at least as seriously as prostitution and no-fault divorce laws are on the books, marriage is meaningless anyway. They should change the wedding vows to reflect modern sensibilities.

Till death (or someone calls a time-out) may you part.

What God puts together may no man put assunder-unless he has a nifty black robe and gavel.

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2007 10:16 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:
poptart wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Why do people deem it necessary to make it into legislation, also?

Why do the radicals want to make these things into laws for society at large?
I vote for candidates who I think will push legislation that benefits myself and my country the most.
Lemme guess...a better seasoning for Dog?

So you ask a simple (transparent) question, get a simple answer, and that's your response?

You need to learn how to troll.

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 5:18 am**

Well, that's a matter for debate...but there's no question who I'll turn to should I need ankle-biting lessons.

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 12:24 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:And homosexuals don't have the 'right' to 'marry' each other. The point is that discrimination per se isn't unconstitutional, we as a society discriminate all the time, for various reasons. And Loving V Commonwealth doesn't give you the right to marry a blowup doll or a horse. Or someone of the same sex.
Blowup dolls and horses do not have the capacities to knowingly enter into a contractual relationship. Yet again, an apples to oranges comparison.

BTW: We are not talking about "discrimination per se", we are talking about an equitable application of the law.

Social Security is age discrimination.

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 4:46 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:Well, that's a matter for debate...but there's no question who I'll turn to should I need ankle-biting lessons.

Leave Dimsdale out of this.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2007 12:05 am**

Diogenes wrote:So if your religion is opposed to murder, then being opposed to murder is nothing but mindless fanatacism?

But what if your religion is opposed to the idea that thr earth is round? What legislation would you propose to deal with that?

T1B

Here's what I don't understand, Thumpers

Here's what I don't understand, Thumpers

Re: Here's what I don't understand, Thumpers

Re: Here's what I don't understand, Thumpers

Re: Here's what I don't understand, Thumpers