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

This had better not pass

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 10>
Author
Snake6 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Outranked by guitarguy?

Joined: 11 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Snake6 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 4:55pm
And Brihard moves in for the kill.
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 4:59pm
Ok lets look at this again. As Enos mentioned lets let the religious pyschos decide everything. Lets look at this statement. Historically if we as the human race did not let these "religious pyschos" determine everything in ages past would the human race progressed beyong the base predatory state of ancient man?

These "religious physcos" took a set of values and placed them on thier cultures establishing norms of behavior that were tolerated, and not tolerated and the punishments for violating these norms, policies and edicts of thier church.

Religion is one of the major building blocks that man used to establish his civilization on this world. Before the age of polititians and lawyers, the church of the culture decided the fate of man and mans laws.

Centuries later many great civilizations took religious law and molded into the laws of thier land, ie the US Constitution, yes based on the values of the time, but true to this day in many aspects. Only lawyers and polititians take these laws and mold them to fit thier position and or agendas.

Proabition as an example, was a "great" idea, fostered by a minority of Americans, became the law of the land, over the objections of the majority, became a total fiasco in enforcement, and eventually was repealed, because it did not do away with the problems as intended and promised, just made them greater.

**edited** Marriage in itself and as worded, is not a "great" idea, civil unions, legal bonding, whatever, will accomplish the intended purpose, but to take an established norm, mold it into a political agenda, force the will of the few over the ideals and beliefs of the majority, and yes you will have problems.

If Joey or Annie has two Daddies or Mommies, fine, no social harm if left in the bedroom, but to force the beliefs and teachings of this lifestyle into the classroom, for whatever reason is no better than forcing reading of the Bible. If Joey's two Daddy's need a "Civil Union" to establish Tax and or Survivors rights no problem, If Annies two Mommies need a "Legal Bonding" to establish property rights or insurance premiums, no problem, but do not upset the apple cart of those who, you expect instant acceptance from, over thousands of years of teachings and beliefs.

That is the whole problem in a nutshell, there are those whose total agenda is the destruction of any religious values in our society, yet our society is the result of centuries of religious values molded into our laws and giving them what they have today.

The religion of no religion is no better as a political force than organized religion. The "Church of No Religion" is forcing its values and beliefs on our Government, just as Religion has, so there will never be a total seperation of Church and State, for any belief by definition can be considered a "religion" if enough believe.



Edited by oldsoldier - 07 June 2006 at 5:02pm
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 5:11pm
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


But yet the Government by the Ruling of the Courts is allowed to prohibit the "free exercise thereof" by making individual or group prayer illegal in our schools, violating the individuals righ to "free exercise thereof". That shows that the Government will not seperate its power over religion in this country.

Go to any school and try to form a "Christian Club" and you will be denied, yet form a **edited** and Lesbian Club and you will be allowed and assisted, under the threat of the ACLU, yet to practice and expouse your belief as a Christion in our schools is illegal.

Example, my stepson wore his cross one day where it was visable, and was instructed by the principle to remove it, not cover it, place it in his shirt whatever, and a letter was sent to me stating the "religious views were not tolerated in X High School", yet I drive by and the required Islamic Dress is allowed, even saw a Koran being carried by one of the girls in the hallways as I waited for the meet with the Principle.

Again: The religion of no religion is no better as a political force than organized religion. The "Church of No Religion" is forcing its values and beliefs on our Government, just as Religion has, so there will never be a total seperation of Church and State, for any belief by definition can be considered a "religion" if enough believe.


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 5:14pm
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.

to add, at my last school they had a christian club.


Edited by High Voltage - 07 June 2006 at 5:36pm
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 5:31pm

I fully intend to stay out of this discussion, but I must correct incorrect statements of law when I see them:

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

But yet the Government by the Ruling of the Courts is allowed to prohibit the "free exercise thereof" by making individual or group prayer illegal in our schools, violating the individuals righ to "free exercise thereof".

Incorrect.  It is perfectly constitutional for individual students to pray whenever they choose, and it would be unconstitutional to prohibit that.  What the courts have prohibited is prayer by teachers in public schools in their capacity as teachers.  Teachers are also free to pray privately at any time, but when teachers are "on the job" they are acting as and on behalf of the government.  Therefore teacher-led prayer is unconstitutional (in public school) - student prayer with no teacher involvement is perfectly constitutional.

Quote Go to any school and try to form a "Christian Club" and you will be denied...

As a factual matter that is incorrect - the FCA has chapters all over the country.  As a legal matter this is the correct result, however, if this club is getting school funding.  On the other hand, nothing stops students of any school from forming private religious clubs with students, so long as there is no school funding.

Quote ... yet form a **edited** and Lesbian Club and you will be allowed and assisted, under the threat of the ACLU...

That's a bit overstated, but basically true - GLBS clubs that are non-religious and are therefore fundamentally legal.  Where the ACLU comes in is when school officials attempt to stop GLBS clubs, because the motivation of the school officials is usually religious, and a school official cannot discriminate based on religious motivation.

Quote ... yet to practice and expouse your belief as a Christion in our schools is illegal.

Clearly false.  There are limits, yes - but the right to believe, and express your belief, is constitutionally protected.

Quote Example, my stepson wore his cross one day where it was visable, and was instructed by the principle to remove it, not cover it, place it in his shirt whatever, and a letter was sent to me stating the "religious views were not tolerated in X High School"

And assuming that this is a public school, then that was clearly inappropriate (and unconstitutional) action by the school official.  I am sure the ACLU would love to take your case.

Quote ...any belief by definition can be considered a "religion" if enough believe.

Not a legal matter, but I must say that this statement blatantly false as a linguistic/semantic matter.

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
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
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
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 6:34pm
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 6:35pm
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
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
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
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
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
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 7:37pm
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
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
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 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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.