Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

This had better not pass

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
Author
Savage93fvss View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Savage93fvss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:32pm
Ha, he knows more about your 'merica than you do, and he's a Canuck.
Back to Top
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 10:10pm

Let's all please say "asshole" a little less.  And Brihard, I would take it as a personal favor if you changed your sig.

Thank you.

Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 9:42pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:




Linus: How dare you, of all people on this forum, call me a 'bigoted asshole'?


Wow...

You initial post that I commented on said:
Originally posted by Brihard Brihard wrote:

You can be against homosexual marraige becuase you choose to be, but you cannot claim that you can justify it or ratioanlize it by any moral standards notdependent on a religious blind faith. Morality must have some tangible foundation in the good and harm that it does people, and your views cannot in any way be justified. You simply hold them for whatever ignorant reason you do.



Lets break down my response, most notably "Bigoted asshole"

Bigoted = One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I am pefectly tolerant of those who differ, so long as they articulate considered points that adhgere to conventional moral and ethical stadnards- such as not harming people uncesessarily, or arbitrarily depriving them of rights. My intolerance of your opinion is based on the fact that it is morall reprehensible. I can agree to disagree on things like substance abuse and other 'victimless' issues, but when you would victimize what you yourself admit is fully 5 percent of the population (or 15 million Americans) simply because they do not share the same heterosexual preference you do, I cannot reconcile my views with yours.

Your own definition makes a flat out liar of you.

I am not 'strongly partial to my own group' in this case- I am not **edited**.
You, however, seem 'strongly partial' towards heterosexuals. Religion and race are irrelevant, as neither has any legitimate mroal authority, and this isn't even an issue of politics in my mind- this is simple human and civil rights. Strangely though, you seem unable to tolerate homosexual amrraiges- dare I say, intolerant of those who differ?

You called me and my views ignorant, meaning you're intolerant of my political views that are different then yours.

I am intolerant of your political views for the reasons I have stated over an over again- they are uninformed, ill considered, prejudicial, discriminatory, cruel, and simply unnecessarily restrictive to the rights of others- something that offends me greatly.

Hence bigot. If that isn't bigoted, then they need to redfine it.

I imagine a redefinition of bigot would be a source of comfort to you- I imagine that if youw ere in any way an honest person it would hit very close to home for you.

Asshole because you called me and my views ignorant.

Fine, I'm an asshole because I call a spade a spade. I imagine a lot of religious guys thought Copernicus was an asshole for advancing the heliocentric model fo the solar system. Definitely Martin Luther King was an asshole to a few. I'll gladly wear that label from a eprson such as yourself- I must be doing something right.

Hence, bigoted asshole.

Asshole perhaps. Bigot? Certianly not. I invite any of the very intellectual forum members to intervene as a neutral party and render a verdict on this.

Originally posted by Brihard Brihard wrote:

I have never once argued for anything but utter equality of rights and freedoms here,



Never denied that.

I see. So I am arguing for equal rights and freedoms, and you acknowledge that, so by strict logic the very nature of our conflict is an admission taht you are opposed to these notions. At least you've admitted where you're coming from now.

Quote while you are the one attempting to deny a fundamental human right to an entire significant portion of the population for no rational reason you've yet articulated.


Now, there you go.

"Significant" Since when is 5% significant? 5% is being very LIBERAL too.

15 million Americans is significant. 300,000,000 human beings is significant.

YOU want to deny OTHER peoples right to VOTE on this, are you not? Dont say no because you are.

That's entirely correct. No mob has the right to vote away my human rights, nor yours, nor those of homosexuals. 'Tyrrany of the amsses' is very much the case here. The average person has no tangible stake in the denial of rights to homosexuals. If there is no prospect of them being harmed by liberalization of rights, then they have no place crying for the option to vote against it.

You grossly misunderstand the concept of a 'right'. It is somethign you have by default, withheld legislatively only as a legal sanction or to protect a more highly valued right.

In your obfuscation of the debate you STILL have yet to provide a single good reason as to why homosexuals are NOT entitled to the same rights as anyone else.

I say let the people of the country vote on this. Majority of the US is against **edited** marriage. Get that through your head.

Sadly, 'the majority' or similar phrasings thereof have long been a rallying cry for the most heinous acts. Whether camouflaged as 'the people' or 'the fatherland', the opinion (often unconsidered and immoral) of the majority is never enough in and of itself to withold a right. To take a human or civil right from someone, it must be demonstrably justified that that is an act of justice that protects others from harm- the burden upon the eprson whose rights are infringed must be commesurate to the potential harm to be caused should they act on that right. The equation in this case clearly favours one side.

We are not Canada, YOU are. You guys are much more liberal on this matter, which is why you passed the **edited** marriage law allowing it.

Irrelevant. Moral is moral, and immoral is immoral, regardless of one's nationality.

Let the Senate pass the admendment, and send it to the people for ratification. If the people vote to uphold it, OBEY THEM and uphold it. If not, then DONT.

And if 'the people' were one day to have a swing of opinion to say that you personally would be held in chains upon their suffrage, merely because you happen to live at your street address, that then would also be justice? The population as a whole seldom has a true understanding of an issue. Each eprson is entitled to their own opinion- however they are NEVER entitled to their own set of facts.

Quote You have attempted and thoroughly failed to shoot down our arguments as to why it should be allowed, yet you have no better reason than you think itshould be so.



I've given a valid counter point to EVERY SINGLE point you have given.

I say it's a choice, so YOU say it's biological, so I say if it IS biological, it isnt meant to be. It's a mental problem, illness if you will.

I do not say it is biological. Neurologists, psychologists, biologists say it's linked to hormonal imbalance. I am relying on expert opinion as communicated to me in my studies of university psychology. Nonetheless, this is again an obfuscation form the fact that you have yet to provide a reason why homosexuals should not be granted the same rights as others. Don't even try the 'it's not natural' argument as you sit there tapping away on a computer, likely digesting processed food. Humanity has moved beyond simple biology.

Quote To attempt to cry bigotry becasue I have the gall to shoot down such an arrogant and ignorant opinion as the one you hold is pathetic.


How is that not bigotry right there?

Bigotry is unconsidered to be negative and irrational prejudice towards a group or people based on an arbitrary distinction. The distinction I make here in rebutting and debunking your opinions is very carefully considered. Rather than bigotry, you may wish to instead use the terms 'aggressive', 'inflammatory', or 'offensive'. On the losing end of anargument, one can quite easily beleive that any of thsoe would apply.

Quote "Social norms" is merely a catchall phrase used to describe thigns the way theya re, without making any effort to quantify the benefit of those norms. You keep trying to dismiss the relevance of it, but the inferiority of women, blacks, natives, and other groups were once 'social norms' as well.



Not once in any of my post did I mention ANYTHING about social norms.

This was a brief reply to Oldsoldier

Quote You claim that because homosexuality has biological causes, that it must be a mental deficiency


You're wrong yet again. I gave a counterpoint to your sides point saying it's biological.

Deficiency: A quality or attribute denoting a certain lacking or failing. That's my working definition, and it does not apply to the case at here. It may be a hormonal (NOT mental) abnormality with reproductive consequences, however it has nothing to do with sovereign legal agents entering into a contract with social and economic ramifications. Before you are tempted to argue that marriage is meant to foster families, I will point out the large number of childless marriages, adn children born out of wedlock.

It was a hypothetical response. I still say that it's a choice, but on the off chance that they are born like that, something in the brain is screwed up, and to deny that is to be naiive.

And you are wrong. Were you at the same level of education that I am you would know this, however this is no excuse for your ignorance- one should seek to educate oneself on a topic before one triesto argue it.


Quote - again you're showing your startling ignorance,


Again youre being an asshole insulting my intelligence. You absolutly refuse to admit that I make good counter-points to all your arguements

I refuse to admit that because I do not admit falsehoods. You have rebutted NOTHING. You have given only abstractions, false analogies, fallacies, and outright <poopy>.


Quote By your logic people with red hair or hemophilia should not be allowed to marry either.


Wow.. you just insulted my intelligence in the field of biology, and yet you come out as a complete idiot on that statement.

Red hair and hemophilia are RECESSIVE genes. NOT mental imbalances, but RECESSIVE genes.

If I have little intelligence in the field of biology, then I feel REAL bad for your biology teachers for wasting their time trying to teach you.

Recessive genes are genes, but are not dominate when compared to other genes. Brown hair is dominate to blonde and red. Get yours facts straight before you insult me.

There has not been any conclusive proof that homosexuality is a naturally occuring gene.

At no point did I bring up the specific biological mechanisms- however the precise biological functionings are irrelevant; the simple intention was to demosntrate that homosexuality is not generally a conscious choice. It is sufficient that in trying to argue this point you concede that there is a biological origin to homosexuality. the purpose of the analogy was to draw a similarity between different biological conditions that a person has no control over.


Quote Withholding rights of marriage to homosexuals simply becuase of who they are is twisted and backwards,


Marriage =/= right.

See the next section of reply...

Quote You have not and CANNOT gien any reason whatsoever - never mind one that can hold up to moral scrutiny - about why homosexuals should be denied any right any other person has.


NOT A GUANTEED RIGHT, get that through your head!

You are wrong.

Originally posted by United Nations Universal Decalration of Human Rights United Nations Universal Decalration of Human Rights wrote:


Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.


Your side ask "What harm does it do to you"

I rebuke, what harm does it do to you if they aren't married? NONE.



Quote You may choose to argue with me, but I will NOT tolerate attacks on my character


So, you can insult me and my intelligence, but I can't you? Hypocrit.

You misspelled hypocrite. And I am not attacking your intelligence- I am rebutting your facts, your logic, your opinions, and your education. You are plainly posessed of the potential to be quite intelligent shoudl you decide to educate yourself sufficiently, however you're out to lunch on just about every single thing you have uttered here.

Quote I, at leas,t am able to be morally and ethically consistent, and am willing to admit when I'm simply wrong.


There is really no right or wrong on this. This is an opinion ONLY matter. Your opinion wants marriage, mine doesnt.

The only right or wrong there can be is if it's nature vs nurture.

Entirely incorrect. It is always 'wrong' to arbitrarily deprive millions of people of a right fully enjoyed by many others for no tangible reason. Rights are an entitlement, not a privilege.

Quote You have repeatedly advocated oppression, unjustified suspension of civil adn human rights, and outright abuse across this and a variety of other debated topics. I think the majority of the forum will agree on this.


Tomato's.

But I disagree with the "majority" comment. A few "popular", albeit very out spoken, members yes, but not the majority. Not like it affects me anyhow.

That's funny. you've been advocating democracy quite often in this thread. I was more thinking of the smarter members, though- perhaps Plato's philosopher kings would be an apt analogy.

Quote Get over your twisted notions of right and wrong, and apply some consequentialist analysis to the idiotic convictions yous eem to hold in such high regard.


To me, the world is black and white, with only a FEW shades of gray.

There's right, wrong, morally reprehensible, illness, etc etc.

In closing I say this---- You're making such a big fuss about the privelges of a VERY SMALL amount of people, but youre denying the RIGHT, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of the people to vote on the matter.

Yet I'm the bad guy....

Really? I didn't realize there was an aritcle in the constitution that guaranteed the right of the majority to trample the rights of the minority. The constitutional rights are inclusive, not exclusive. The legislature may pass laws to suspend a citizen's rights as criminal sanctions or to prevent the infringement of the rights of others, however nowhere does it say 'the people' have the right to vote on individual liberties.

300 million people worldwide, and 15 million Americans is not a small number. I recall a line by Stalin: "When you kill one, it is a tragedy. When you kill ten million, it is a statistic."

I venture to guess that you are lost int he sheer enormity of the numbers of people affected by this?

Originally posted by HV HV wrote:

os, if all laws followed the rules set forth by the constitution, we would not have a need for the supreme court now would we? i say even if this passes, it will not last long at all.


You REALLY need to research Constitutional Law.


If the Senate passes the admendment and passes it on the the states for ratification to be a constitutional admendment, the courts cannot even THINK about touching it in any way shape or form. AT ALL.


There can be NO judicial review. Thats why they aren't making it a law, but an admendment instead.


Hell of an abuse of the constitution, on that note. I presume they will hold a proper constitutional convention to amend it, as is supposed to happen? Or will they just hijack it legislatively like they have in the past hundred years? See article V of your constitution if you're not familiar with the amendment process. the amendment itself could be ruled unconstitutional if it is not carried out properly.


Edited by Rambino - 07 June 2006 at 10:07pm
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 9:22pm
You must be looking at different polls than me, Linus...   The ones I see say that a majority of Americans are opposed to **edited** marriage, but are also opposed to the constitutional amendment.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 9:16pm
Thats the thing I dont like though.

The senators were too worried about re-election while all polls point to the fact that if given to the people, the majority of the people want an admendment banning **edited** marriage.

Oh well.. it will come back in due time. But until then, there are like 10 states banning it since Alabama joined today.




Now lets let this thread die.. it turned into a flamefest.

Edited by Linus - 07 June 2006 at 9:16pm

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 9:11pm

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

... the vote in November and in 08 will give the true picture of what America wants based on the positions that our polititians project.

I think you meant to say "the vote will give the true picture of which hairstyle Americans prefer."

Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 8:59pm
I really do not think that those behind the bill thought it had any chance of passing. But it did make their position perfectly clear on the issue. Americans are predictable, as the vote in November and in 08 will give the true picture of what America wants based on the positions that our polititians project.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 8:52pm
Well, unsurprisingly, it failed.  Too bad, so sad.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 7:37pm
I never denied the fact that an orgasm is pleasureful.

An orgasm is the by-product of sex. Sex is naturally meant for reporduction.


Eating food. We have taste-buds, but tastebuds are not needed to sustain nurishment. They are there for flavor and pleasure in a sense. (Pun not intended)

Edited by Linus - 07 June 2006 at 7:37pm

Back to Top
Hades View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2003
Location: Virgin Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 12983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 7:21pm
If something is the purpose of something else then there has to have the same outcome everything.

Eating might be nessisary to sustain life but everytime something is eaten, nurishment is absorbed by the body. Also the purpose of breathing is to supply oxegen to the body and it happens with every breath.
Pregnancy does not occur every time sex is committed nor in some cases will it ever occur. Therefore the purpose of sex is not always reproduction, and just because not everyone has an orgasm everytime they have sex doesnt mean it still isnt pleasureful for them.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 7:08pm
Originally posted by God God wrote:



Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

It's your brain, for lack of a better word, screwing up, correct? It isnt 'natural' because the purpose of sex is to reproduce.

This is a moral judgement. Defining the purpose of sex from the view
point of your religion make it a moral judgment. The purpose, for
everyone not a
misguided religious nut or completely lacking in any modern day sex
education, including animals species such as penguins,
dolphins, and others is pleasure. Its purpose is only sometimes for
reproduction. Hence the invention of contraceptive and family planning.


Originally posted by linus linus wrote:

Not once did I say anything about morals in my post. Not once did I say anything about religion in my post.
Please.. show me where I said I hold my values on this from a moral
or religious standpoint in any of my post in this thread.


See above...


I want to clarify again that "mental illness" is for want of a better word. If the brain isnt acting the normal way, it's considered an illness, and I know how ignorant I sound by calling them "mentally ill" but it proves a point.


Now, God, I never said ONCE about religion or morals, no matter how it's spun.

Purpose of sex is reproduction, with pleasure a pretty darn good by-product of it.


Eating is meant for life, but food can taste real good.


If sex was a ho-hum ordeal, it wouldnt be done nearly as much, so not as much reproduction would happen.

Edited by Linus - 07 June 2006 at 7:10pm

Back to Top
Savage93fvss View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Savage93fvss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 6:50pm

Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

Originally posted by Savage93fvss Savage93fvss wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

People bring up "People were for slavery at one time" arguement.. but think about it like this.

Slavery was wrong because it forced people to hard labor for nothing but a minimum amount of food and harsh physical punishment for petty things.

Allowing **edited** marriage, what does it do? Nothing. No one gets physical pain. No one loses money. No one is kept down (though your definition will vary from mine on that).

Only "bad" thing is.....nothing


So why do you care so much that they not be allowed to do it?

I dont care, I'm all for **edited** marriage. I ment to put fixed.

Back to Top
God View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Pull My Finger

Joined: 09 May 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1348
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote God Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 6:49pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:


It's your brain, for lack of a better word, screwing up, correct? It isnt 'natural' because the purpose of sex is to reproduce.

This is a moral judgement. Defining the purpose of sex from the view point of your religion make it a moral judgment. The purpose, for everyone not a misguided religious nut or completely lacking in any modern day sex education, including animals species such as penguins, dolphins, and others is pleasure. Its purpose is only sometimes for reproduction. Hence the invention of contraceptive and family planning.


Originally posted by linus linus wrote:


Not once did I say anything about morals in my post. Not once did I say anything about religion in my post.

Please.. show me where I said I hold my values on this from a moral or religious standpoint in any of my post in this thread.

See above...

Edited by God - 07 June 2006 at 6:58pm
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 6:40pm
guess your  wasn't funny..
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 6:35pm
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

The ACLU represents the christian right on a regular basis.


Guess you missed the little " " denoting a joke.

Back to Top
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 6:34pm
The ACLU represents the christian right on a regular basis.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 6:33pm
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

And assuming that those are public schools, OS, then you have described several constitutional violations.  I encourage you to call the ACLU.


 




Youre joking right?

OS = Conservative Republican

SO the ACLU is our sworn enemies.   

Back to Top
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 6:26pm

And assuming that those are public schools, OS, then you have described several constitutional violations.  I encourage you to call the ACLU.

 

Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 6:10pm
Let me rephrase: Establishment of a "Christian" Club was not allowed in X High School. Reasoning is that school was not the proper place for religion, as stated by the school staff representitive. Yet there are two defined Islamic groups with organized activities religious and non religious, at X High School, was challenged in the courts, and lost.

A student during his "moment of glory" did vocally "pray" in his homerome at X High School, student was sent home as disruptive, and under review left X High School, for a Catholic School. Students case went to court 2003 and lost. Yet the afternoon Islamic prayer, Islamic students are allowed to pray on school grounds. (BTW the Iman is a member of School Staff)

I am not picking on Islam, just a readily plain and visable example of religion and school, here in Lincoln,NE.

As for "any belief by definition can be considered a "religion" if enough believe", any organized "religion" began with an individuals belief, passed on to the next, to the next, became a group belief, and eventually a mass "religion". From Christian to Scientoligist, thats the way religions begin.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 6:02pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:




Linus: How dare you, of all people on this forum, call me a 'bigoted asshole'?


Wow...

You initial post that I commented on said:
Originally posted by Brihard Brihard wrote:

You can be against homosexual marraige becuase you choose to be, but you cannot claim that you can justify it or ratioanlize it by any moral standards notdependent on a religious blind faith. Morality must have some tangible foundation in the good and harm that it does people, and your views cannot in any way be justified. You simply hold them for whatever ignorant reason you do.



Lets break down my response, most notably "Bigoted asshole"

Bigoted = One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


You called me and my views ignorant, meaning you're intolerant of my political views that are different then yours.

Hence bigot. If that isn't bigoted, then they need to redfine it.


Asshole because you called me and my views ignorant.


Hence, bigoted asshole.




Originally posted by Brihard Brihard wrote:

I have never once argued for anything but utter equality of rights and freedoms here,



Never denied that.





Quote while you are the one attempting to deny a fundamental human right to an entire significant portion of the population for no rational reason you've yet articulated.


Now, there you go.

"Significant" Since when is 5% significant? 5% is being very LIBERAL too.

YOU want to deny OTHER peoples right to VOTE on this, are you not? Dont say no because you are.

I say let the people of the country vote on this. Majority of the US is against **edited** marriage. Get that through your head.

We are not Canada, YOU are. You guys are much more liberal on this matter, which is why you passed the **edited** marriage law allowing it.


Let the Senate pass the admendment, and send it to the people for ratification. If the people vote to uphold it, OBEY THEM and uphold it. If not, then DONT.





Quote You have attempted and thoroughly failed to shoot down our arguments as to why it should be allowed, yet you have no better reason than you think itshould be so.



I've given a valid counter point to EVERY SINGLE point you have given.

I say it's a choice, so YOU say it's biological, so I say if it IS biological, it isnt meant to be. It's a mental problem, illness if you will.





Quote To attempt to cry bigotry becasue I have the gall to shoot down such an arrogant and ignorant opinion as the one you hold is pathetic.



How is that not bigotry right there?




Quote "Social norms" is merely a catchall phrase used to describe thigns the way theya re, without making any effort to quantify the benefit of those norms. You keep trying to dismiss the relevance of it, but the inferiority of women, blacks, natives, and other groups were once 'social norms' as well.



Not once in any of my post did I mention ANYTHING about social norms.



Quote You claim that because homosexuality has biological causes, that it must be a mental deficiency


You're wrong yet again. I gave a counterpoint to your sides point saying it's biological.

It was a hypothetical response. I still say that it's a choice, but on the off chance that they are born like that, something in the brain is screwed up, and to deny that is to be naiive.




Quote - again you're showing your startling ignorance,


Again youre being an asshole insulting my intelligence. You absolutly refuse to admit that I make good counter-points to all your arguements




Quote By your logic people with red hair or hemophilia should not be allowed to marry either.


Wow.. you just insulted my intelligence in the field of biology, and yet you come out as a complete idiot on that statement.

Red hair and hemophilia are RECESSIVE genes. NOT mental imbalances, but RECESSIVE genes.

If I have little intelligence in the field of biology, then I feel REAL bad for your biology teachers for wasting their time trying to teach you.

Recessive genes are genes, but are not dominate when compared to other genes. Brown hair is dominate to blonde and red. Get yours facts straight before you insult me.


There has not been any conclusive proof that homosexuality is a naturally occuring gene.




Quote Withholding rights of marriage to homosexuals simply becuase of who they are is twisted and backwards,



Marriage =/= right.

Quote You have not and CANNOT gien any reason whatsoever - never mind one that can hold up to moral scrutiny - about why homosexuals should be denied any right any other person has.



NOT A GUANTEED RIGHT, get that through your head!

Your side ask "What harm does it do to you"

I rebuke, what harm does it do to you if they aren't married? NONE.



Quote You may choose to argue with me, but I will NOT tolerate attacks on my character


So, you can insult me and my intelligence, but I can't you? Hypocrit.



Quote I, at leas,t am able to be morally and ethically consistent, and am willing to admit when I'm simply wrong.


There is really no right or wrong on this. This is an opinion ONLY matter. Your opinion wants marriage, mine doesnt.

The only right or wrong there can be is if it's nature vs nurture.


Quote You have repeatedly advocated oppression, unjustified suspension of civil adn human rights, and outright abuse across this and a variety of other debated topics. I think the majority of the forum will agree on this.


Tomato's.

But I disagree with the "majority" comment. A few "popular", albeit very out spoken, members yes, but not the majority. Not like it affects me anyhow.




Quote Get over your twisted notions of right and wrong, and apply some consequentialist analysis to the idiotic convictions yous eem to hold in such high regard.


To me, the world is black and white, with only a FEW shades of gray.

There's right, wrong, morally reprehensible, illness, etc etc.



In closing I say this---- You're making such a big fuss about the privelges of a VERY SMALL amount of people, but youre denying the RIGHT, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of the people to vote on the matter.

Yet I'm the bad guy....






Originally posted by HV HV wrote:

os, if all laws followed the rules set forth by the constitution, we would not have a need for the supreme court now would we? i say even if this passes, it will not last long at all.


You REALLY need to research Constitutional Law.


If the Senate passes the admendment and passes it on the the states for ratification to be a constitutional admendment, the courts cannot even THINK about touching it in any way shape or form. AT ALL.


There can be NO judicial review. Thats why they aren't making it a law, but an admendment instead.


Edited by Linus - 07 June 2006 at 6:05pm

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.