U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-17-2009, 12:26 PM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,973 posts, read 24,826,803 times
Reputation: 15600

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
You're quite correct. I'm not gay. I'm presuming I'm talking to other heterosexuals who are having some boundary issues.

The only way gay-- or all this other mishagosh-- is connected to guns; the constitution is to be fulfilled. This means even if you disagree with someone else's choices, you respect their right to live their lives without harassment.

It would appear too many Americans have gotten very confused about what their 'rights' means. Too many believe if they have rights, no one else ought to. Their rights ought to be protected, but no one else's ought to. Their free speech is important, but no one else. They can make a living, but they'll have a scorched earth policy behind them, making sure no one else can make a living. A country of entitled cats pitted against each other with polemic arguments that keep people stuck on stupid.

None of you appear to actually want to engage a word I've said meaningfully. We don't pay the bills of gays, we don't pay their taxes, it's their lives, it's none of our business. Insisting law exclude them from their rights to live makes them less responsible for their own lives and the bill of rights reduced to hypocrisy. Are you willing to pay that price? Shall we have competing factions of government programs to compensate for what should be as simple as leaving them alone?

I don't want to pay for stuck on stupid anymore.
The question that pops into my head is do you think that the framers were governed by any morals? If the answer to that is yes (which is my belief btw) then wouldn't it also make sense that they also had the idea that their document would be interpreted with those same morals in mind? I would also suppose that those morals were directly contrived from a religeous belief since the whole shooting match (like how I linked to the gun theme of the thread?) is based on a Christian faith.
So to me the bottom line is when this document was written it was written with morals in mind and those morals or beliefs if you will specifically preclude gay marrage, marrage to animals, etc. just like morals would preculde murder,bankrobbery etc because heck if I have the right to unabridged or unfettered pursuit of happyness then money makes me happy and the quickest way to get it is to take it from others hence I'd have the right to rob people.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2009, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,912,193 times
Reputation: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
You're quite correct. I'm not gay. I'm presuming I'm talking to other heterosexuals who are having some boundary issues.

The only way gay-- or all this other mishagosh-- is connected to guns; the constitution is to be fulfilled. This means even if you disagree with someone else's choices, you respect their right to live their lives without harassment.

It would appear too many Americans have gotten very confused about what their 'rights' means. Too many believe if they have rights, no one else ought to. Their rights ought to be protected, but no one else's ought to. Their free speech is important, but no one else. They can make a living, but they'll have a scorched earth policy behind them, making sure no one else can make a living. A country of entitled cats pitted against each other with polemic arguments that keep people stuck on stupid.

None of you appear to actually want to engage a word I've said meaningfully. We don't pay the bills of gays, we don't pay their taxes, it's their lives, it's none of our business. Insisting law exclude them from their rights to live makes them less responsible for their own lives and the bill of rights reduced to hypocrisy. Are you willing to pay that price? Shall we have competing factions of government programs to compensate for what should be as simple as leaving them alone?

I don't want to pay for stuck on stupid anymore.
This is essentially what I have been trying to say. Rights are rights, and government should not be meddling in private areas, be-it in the form of speech, arms, or sexual matters.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,925 posts, read 13,819,338 times
Reputation: 3446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
As for succession, I'll keep my opinion private. Loose lips have messed up our economy, taken away more of our freedom and brought every exploitation driven entrepreneur to come and try to figure out a way to scam and take advantage of Montanans then any other medium.
Heh... well, shoot a few carpetbaggers at the border and the problem will go away real quick

BTW thanks to the devastating effect Prop2 will have on California agriculture, there is now a serious move afoot to split this state into two states, divided by Metro (all the cities) and Ag (everyone else). Got my support the moment I noticed the border would be drawn a few miles south of me
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 02:29 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
16,821 posts, read 13,631,348 times
Reputation: 15567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Heh... well, shoot a few carpetbaggers at the border and the problem will go away real quick

BTW thanks to the devastating effect Prop2 will have on California agriculture, there is now a serious move afoot to split this state into two states, divided by Metro (all the cities) and Ag (everyone else). Got my support the moment I noticed the border would be drawn a few miles south of me
There was a movement back in the early 90's I believe, where a bunch of NorCal counties wanted to secede from CA and be absorbed by Nevada. The Western Nevada movement , it was called. It was actually moving forward and the stage was set for it to happen. It would have been great! I'd LOVE for Shasta, Sierra, andPlumas county to be in NV. Well the CA legislature went into overdrive and made sure it could not happen legally. Up to that point it was a race to see who could get it on paper first and the CA government won. There was no law that would have stopped it ,at first, a special legislative session took care of that. Bummer...........
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 05:31 PM
 
11,943 posts, read 13,822,458 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
Do you feel the Constitution should be revised to recognize people based on lifestyle or sexual orientation?

.... I'm certain the intent of the Costitution be that it apply equally to all citizens of the nation, but I rather doubt they were considering that special consideration be granted any specific group because of lifestyle. By "special consideration" I mean specifically adressing that group by name.
It seems a small thing to just realize that the Constitution DOES apply equally to all citizens....
Answer to 1st question: No, it shouldn't have to if people see a citizen as a citizen. It's when people decide a black man is 5/8ths of a vote, and that a woman is 0 or isn't permitted to own property when 51% of our country is female... the constitution was not realized from day 1, but we've been progressing along toward full realization over the course of 2 centuries.

9th amendment bill of rights
Quote:
Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The use of term 'lifestyle' implies there is a choice about being gay or not being gay. Orientation of hetero or homo is most honest, and the truth is all that concerns me. More truth- the entire population of gays were created by a hetero sexual couple. No party involved made the 'choice' to create or raise a child to be homosexual. No amount of leading by example, punishment, social ostracism, surgical butchery, psychological torture or draconian law has ever changed the fact that a certain % of the world population of human beings is, has always been, and will always be... gay. Somewhere between 10-20%, but no honest #'s can be had because of 2,000 +yrs of retribution from heteros. It didn't work 2,000 yrs ago, and it's never worked. Judeo christian ethics have had a flawed policy on the subject, antithetical to the true spirit of christendom.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 05:36 PM
 
Location: The Woods
17,897 posts, read 24,349,509 times
Reputation: 10672
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
Answer to 1st question: No, it shouldn't have to if people see a citizen as a citizen. It's when people decide a black man is 5/8ths of a vote, and that a woman is 0 or isn't permitted to own property when 51% of our country is female... the constitution was not realized from day 1, but we've been progressing along toward full realization over the course of 2 centuries.

9th amendment bill of rights


The use of term 'lifestyle' implies there is a choice about being gay or not being gay. Orientation of hetero or homo is most honest, and the truth is all that concerns me. More truth- the entire population of gays were created by a hetero sexual couple. No party involved made the 'choice' to create or raise a child to be homosexual. No amount of leading by example, punishment, social ostracism, surgical butchery, psychological torture or draconian law has ever changed the fact that a certain % of the world population of human beings is, has always been, and will always be... gay. Somewhere between 10-20%, but no honest #'s can be had because of 2,000 +yrs of retribution from heteros. It didn't work 2,000 yrs ago, and it's never worked. Judeo christian ethics have had a flawed policy on the subject, antithetical to the true spirit of christendom.
The homosexuals contradict themselves. They say they want the "right" to marry but in fact they want a privilege. Licenses (such as marriage licenses) grant privileges, not rights.

And BTW: homosexuality is quite explicitly condemned in Christianity, just read the Bible...though it does say also to "love the sinner" (not the sin) and many "Christians" forget that...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 05:38 PM
 
11,943 posts, read 13,822,458 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
The question that pops into my head is do you think that the framers were governed by any morals? If the answer to that is yes (which is my belief btw) then wouldn't it also make sense that they also had the idea that their document would be interpreted with those same morals in mind? I would also suppose that those morals were directly contrived from a religeous belief since the whole shooting match (like how I linked to the gun theme of the thread?) is based on a Christian faith.
So to me the bottom line is when this document was written it was written with morals in mind and those morals or beliefs if you will specifically preclude gay marrage, marrage to animals, etc. just like morals would preculde murder,bankrobbery etc because heck if I have the right to unabridged or unfettered pursuit of happyness then money makes me happy and the quickest way to get it is to take it from others hence I'd have the right to rob people.

As things stand the arguments against gays are they're 'immoral' (by heterosexual & religious standard). They simultaneously accuse gays of being hedonistic, and punish them relentlessly by obstructing meaningfully committed relationships. A same sex couple commited to one another for 20yrs isn't hedonism. When they're prohibited from making healthcare decisions in an emergency room because a hospital wants to impose it's 'morality'- that's wrong. When they can't adopt a gay child, that's wrong. When they can't get insurance policy or enjoy the normal arrangements anyone else could reasonably expect because of discrimination rooted in a religious law passing itself off as secular... wrong.

The question is a legal one, and belongs in supreme court without prejudice. While states may create as many laws as they like, they may not create laws that defy the constitution. Marriage is not mutually exclusive to religion when aetheists get married. The church isn't being forced to recognize or do anything differently than they've been doing for centuries. Only the legal/ social arrangements that are the structure of our civilization are in question. Force gays into legal reassignment of gender or sex change operations so they might be in compliance with the 'law'... I think folks just seriously need to grow up and quit trying to control gays. Failing to quit the habit of imposing control over others is going to have many serious consequences for everyone.

freedom from religion is in the first amendment.
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I'm catholic. I don't eat meat on friday. I don't protest the steak house on friday or insist secular law accomodate me. I practice my religious observance directly in my own life, with my own family and my own tradition. Traditions are meaningless when waved around by hypocrites. That empties out the church pretty quickly, and children coming of age scrutinizing what passes off as 'christian' behavior will reject the bible as a result. They will follow if you will but when contradictions between how a church/ parish conduct themselves and the bible arise, they will not follow. As religious, I refuse to participate in the persecution of gays. Jesus coming back to earth as gay, or black, or chinese eskimo, will not be stoned to death by me.

My bible tells me that it doesn't matter what the whole world thinks is right. I must abide my conscience as dictated to me in the teachings of Jesus. He would not conduct himself as people calling themselves christian do today. He would not chase people down wagging a finger or use the bible as a rock to harm a human being in gods name. He would invite them into communion with our maker. He would encourage them to be responsible for themselves directly. Religion cannot be force fed to anyone if you understand that freewill is a gift god himself provided to ALL.

Separation of church and state is a deliberate decision, not one made in an attempt to diminish the worth of either. It preserves the worth of both when abided. The laws of our nation are not in service to administer morality through legislation.
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
They're designed to maintain rights & serve the general welfare of ALL. Being gay is not criminal anymore than being hetero is. Any law excluding gays, or written to ONLY pertain to gays, is unconstitutional. The speed limit is the same no matter who you are. Your taxes are not the same as gays because they can't file a joint return when it would be appropriate to do so. Neither can a whole host of other hetero couples who fail to be recognized by judeo-christian secular law. Shall we abolish all joint returns as unconstitutional if it's only serving a few pet groups?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 05:50 PM
 
11,943 posts, read 13,822,458 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
The homosexuals contradict themselves. They say they want the "right" to marry but in fact they want a privilege. Licenses (such as marriage licenses) grant privileges, not rights.

And BTW: homosexuality is quite explicitly condemned in Christianity, just read the Bible...though it does say also to "love the sinner" (not the sin) and many "Christians" forget that...
They want the rights and privileges any citizen would enjoy. Semantics.

Whatever condemnation existing in religious laws of old testament or new... that is religious law, not to be administered through secular law. Marriage is a legal status swapping spit with religion. People need to realize the difference between illusion and reality.

Where in the bible does it instruct me to mete out justice in service to gods law? The entire bible points me inward, not outward, to correct MYSELF. I believe this accurately reflects someone's very wise grandmother.

Bible- splinters? Beams? Where?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 05:55 PM
 
Location: The Woods
17,897 posts, read 24,349,509 times
Reputation: 10672
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
They want the rights and privileges any citizen would enjoy. Semantics.

Whatever condemnation existing in religious laws of old testament or new... that is religious law, not to be administered through secular law. Marriage is a legal status swapping spit with religion. People need to realize the difference between illusion and reality.

Where in the bible does it instruct me to mete out justice in service to gods law? The entire bible points me inward, not outward, to correct MYSELF. I believe this accurately reflects someone's very wise grandmother.

Bible- splinters? Beams? Where?
Actually it's very significant that the government has turned marriage into a privilege when it's supposed to be a right. You don't want the government involved in it...

And I wasn't saying religious laws should govern the country, just commenting on your comment about Christianity versus homosexuals.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 08:14 PM
 
11,943 posts, read 13,822,458 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Actually it's very significant that the government has turned marriage into a privilege when it's supposed to be a right. You don't want the government involved in it...

And I wasn't saying religious laws should govern the country, just commenting on your comment about Christianity versus homosexuals.
Then we are in agreement? I think. I don't think it's appropriate to abolish marriage, but the line in the sand that separates church and state ought to be quite clear, and right now it isn't because... they're swapping spit. LOL

Christianity isn't alone. Jews & Islamic faith have similar religious laws. I'm unaware of buddhist or hindu's prohibiting because I'm no scholar on their faiths. I believe there are sects of christianity that do not agree with vatican policy regarding gays, and this last prop in california... my fellow nasty catholics put mormons up to financing it. I've got a serious problem with my Pope dictating american secular law through smarmy politics. Sneaky backroom deals... that's christian? How about y'all-- did you elect a pope of america?

Here are other facts to consider-- no matter how you personally feel about gays, or if it's not specifically prohibited in the constitution. Sponsored by our government directly at gays: They've been shunned, had to lie for centuries for fear of their lives, married women wrongfully to hold up an image of what christians wanted to see. They've been tortured physically by the medical proffession, psychiatric institutions abused/ killed them, raped(weird huh?), jailed, executed by legal system, and torn apart by angry mobs. These are far worse offenses by any legal or religious standard perpetrated by heteros than the act of being gay.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:23 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top