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.
It's official, you know NOTHING about the Constitution or freedom.
Forcing the entire nation to be religious is as far from what the founding fathers intended as possible.
To actually suggest that it would be okay to force people to become religious has got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard in my entire life. Wow.
I only said that I would have no problem according to the constitution. The Constitution only says I have the free excerise of religion not that I free exercise to choose no religion.
Why don't parents all rush their kiddies down to watch...Swinger Couple Parades.... The wife & husband swapping group ....isn't there a WHS group somewhere that needs equality and freedom of speech....whats going on anyway..?
2. Marriage is not a "privilege." It is a fundamental civil right. The US Supreme Court stated that unequivocally in the famous Loving v. Virginia ruling.
based on procreation read the decision and the ones it quotes.
I only said that I would have no problem according to the constitution. The Constitution only says I have the free excerise of religion not that I free exercise to choose no religion.
It says you have freedom of speech too, but that doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to remain silent.
please look up the definition of religion in a late 1700's dictionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
I only said that I would have no problem according to the constitution. The Constitution only says I have the free excerise of religion not that I free exercise to choose no religion.
Please look up the Constitution in the current century. You are in fact free to choose no religion, that's part of the free exercise of religion. You can't have freedom of religion unless you also have the freedom to not be religious. It's a logical fallacy otherwise: To say that one has freedom of religion but must choose a religion then presupposes that one must pick something that qualifies as a religion, which means a list of those religions that qualify as religions must be provided, but if any religions are excluded then it would prevent the free exercise of religion, and you truly don't have freedom of religion (which isn't technically the issue, but prevention of the free exercise of religion in legal and Constitutional terms IS the issue, since that PROVIDES "Freedom of Religion."
So you can't answer my questions. Not surprising since you're 100% dead wrong.
Sexual orientation is as much a choice as one's biological sex, one's handedness, or one's skin color.
Oh, and are you not going to respond to me explaining DOMA to you (posts 513 & 514)? I'd still like for you to explain to me how DOMA infringes on state's rights and violates the 10th Amendment (although I doubt you ever will).
You are using a tactic straight out of the liberal playbook - deny that someone has answered your questions - even when they have - and pass that off as the "truth".
In other words - liberals love to LIE - as you are doing.
You simply didn't like my answers - and the fact that you and I both agree that DOMA is bad law makes your strange insistence on lying about this particular point even more disturbing.
As for choice or not choice - the only reason that you maintain the falseity that sexual attraction is not a choice is so that you can claim the fiction that homosexuals are being denied "rights" - when they do not have a claim to special treatment based on their chosen lifestyle.
In other words - once you admit the fact that you are engaging in a chosen lifestyle - you have nothing left to stand on - and your entire "civil rights" platform collapses like the quicksand that it is.
You become wearisome - take that I dislike DOMA and be happy.
You've already stated only 1% of the population is gay, so clearly the group isn't doing a good job spreading the gay. The fat spreaders are far more insidious and much more successful!!
the disease HIV...thats whats being spread and Ive already posted the figures which support, your going around in circles.
The threat is from the control freaks who think they can run others lives for them and use whatever means necessary to attain their goals.
The entire problem is government being involved in the marriage process. In the early 1900's a majority of the states would not allow whites to marry blacks. I'm sure you would have been okay with that too.
Stay out of my bedroom I didn't give you permission to enter.
a marriage takes place in the public sphere.
pride parades takes place in the public sphere.
school indoctrination takes place in the public sphere.
forcing people to except your lifestyle at work takes place in the public sphere.
I'll stay out of your bedroom if you keep your bedroom to your bedroom.
Another wrong answer and demonstrating very poor judgement.
Now we have an idea here that the gay act is virtuous and upright. Suggesting that the gay encounter is moral. If this is so, the consequence would have the hetro act immoral and against virtue, all alongside the supposed and imagined idea or intent, of God....( Which God would this be I wonder ?
Isn't it interesting how many wrong answers get filed into the discussion..?
Your answers are the only wrong ones. You are narrow minded and biased, you believe that your god and your bible are the only truths, Narrow minded and egotistic. You would rather spread your lies then to listen to any truths. If there is a god, he will send you to the nether world for using his/her words and interpreting them to do your evil. Heterosexuals are immoral all the time, they divorce all the time, cheat all the time, I do not see you having kinip****s on that.
I do not believe in god, any god, why should I be forced to believe in a religion. We have the freedom to not believe too. It is not a must to believe in a god or have religion. You are acting crazy as usual.
I never said that it was a smart policy only that it would be 100% constitutional according to the first amendment. The amendment only guarantees the free exercise of religion not the free exercise of no religion.
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.
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.
