100,000 Americans murdered since 9/11 (and not by terr'ists)
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
as a group they have no more nor any less than any other group.
As a consequence of federal and state laws granting married couples certain legal rights, yes, they have fewer rights. If the state and federal governments offered no benefits based on marriage, you'd have an argument. If someone's significant other happens to be male, that should not prevent them from standing next to that person on their deathbed. As state and federal law stands now, it does. Personally, I'm shaky on the idea of gay marriage myself. But as long as that disparity in legal rights exists, I'm forced to say they should be allowed to be considered legally married. You'll note how frequently I use the word 'legal' because that's all this is. All of the morality, ethics of it, has been usurped by the use of legal power as a means of control.
Patrick Sears wrote:
As a consequence of federal and state laws granting married couples certain legal rights, yes, they have fewer rights.
valid but not in the context of the question, which was, "what rights have been eroded?" Gays have never had these rights, point in fact homosexual activity has been illegal in many quarters ujtil fairly recently - the end result is not an erosion but increased rights, just not on a par with married hetrosexuals. If anything, hetrosexuals are losing rights through an adversion to marriage, which then puts them on a par with homosexuals.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
As a consequence of federal and state laws granting married couples certain legal rights, yes, they have fewer rights.
valid but not in the context of the question, which was, "what rights have been eroded?" Gays have never had these rights, point in fact homosexual activity has been illegal in many quarters ujtil fairly recently - the end result is not an erosion but increased rights, just not on a par with married hetrosexuals. If anything, hetrosexuals are losing rights through an adversion to marriage, which then puts them on a par with homosexuals.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
valid but not in the context of the question, which was, "what rights have been eroded?" Gays have never had these rights
Ah you're right. Thanks.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
If anything, hetrosexuals are losing rights through an adversion to marriage, which then puts them on a par with homosexuals.
Good point. Hmm that's actually an interesting point.
-
led mike wrote:
the erosion of individual freedom of homosexuals
what rights have been eroded? as a group they have no more nor any less than any other group.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
as a group they have no more nor any less than any other group.
Only, as Shog pointed out, when you run the facts through the (D)espeir logic prism
led mike wrote:
Only, as Shog pointed out, when you run the facts through the (D)espeir logic prism
facts? you still haven't answered the question regardless of the prisim - what gay rights have been eroded?
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
led mike wrote:
No you're a bigot, that desires the majority have the right to legislate the erosion of individual freedom of homosexuals because you don't like them.
No true at all. I happen to believe that sex between consenting adults in private is no ones business but their own. I would happily vote in favor of such a law - if free to do so. I would happily use my freedom of speech to argue in favor of it - if I had any meaningful freedom of speech.
led mike wrote:
We fought a civil war because states wanted the right to enslave people. They had the majority to support it in those states.
But the CIvil war did not end slavery - the 13th amendment did. The concept of State's Rights is central to Jeffersonian federalism. The Civil War was not fought to end it - but modern interpretations of the 14th amendment threaten to.
led mike wrote:
Live your own freaking life and stop worrying about what those gays next door to you are doing in the privacy of their own home. How f****ing hard is that to do? If one of them breaks down your door and sticks his dick in your ass, call me and I will come over and blow his head off with my 12 gauge, until then stop bothering me with your whiny cry-face sissy nonsense.
That is a libertarian philosophy, Mike, not a conservative one. As a conservative, I merely claim that my right to free speech is more fundamental to the constitution than is someone else's right to stick his dick in someone's ass. Freedom of speech is there, freedom of ass fucking isn't. Sorry. That view is not based on my moral principles but on my Jeffersonian ones.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is a libertarian philosophy
Excuse me if I refuse to accept your philosophical interpretations. You are the guy who simultaneously claims to support Jeffersonian principles and that critics of the Bush administration should be considered traitors.
-
Are you freakin' serious? The president doesn't have the type of power you imagine him to have.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Did you click on that link I posted? One of the purposes of the Department of Homeland Security is to guard our nation's infrastructure. How can they do that if it falls apart on its own? As far as executive powers, have you been asleep for 8 years?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
The linear progression of time is a liberal conspiracy
It certainly is.
Rob Graham wrote:
It certainly is.
Reality does have a pretty strong liberal bias :)
-
led mike wrote:
Only, as Shog pointed out, when you run the facts through the (D)espeir logic prism
facts? you still haven't answered the question regardless of the prisim - what gay rights have been eroded?
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Way to go off-topic you guys. Can we get back to one national problem at a time?
-
led mike wrote:
Only, as Shog pointed out, when you run the facts through the (D)espeir logic prism
facts? you still haven't answered the question regardless of the prisim - what gay rights have been eroded?
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Sorry I am not going to get dragged into another retarded discussion about how they never had the right to marry where the (D)espeir logic prism is used to render conclusions *bored now*. It's just as boring as talking about abortion with someone that refuses to consider, as part of the issue, THE FACT, that the life that is being "murdered" is INSIDE THE WOMB OF ANOTHER LIVING PERSON.
-
Did you click on that link I posted? One of the purposes of the Department of Homeland Security is to guard our nation's infrastructure. How can they do that if it falls apart on its own? As far as executive powers, have you been asleep for 8 years?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
One of the purposes of the Department of Homeland Security is to guard our nation's infrastructure. How can they do that if it falls apart on its own?
Guarding != Fixing/Maintaining George W. Bush does not decide where and how federal money is spent. That is the responsibility of the Congress and of the many States. The federal gas tax is supposed to fund infrastructure improvements, but it seems that Congress can't keep their hands out of the money. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-ex-bush9aug10,1,4026812.story?track=rss[^] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm451.cfm[^] Executive powers have not expanded that much in the past 8 years. Somebody is feeding you a line of bull.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
Sorry I am not going to get dragged into another retarded discussion about how they never had the right to marry where the (D)espeir logic prism is used to render conclusions *bored now*. It's just as boring as talking about abortion with someone that refuses to consider, as part of the issue, THE FACT, that the life that is being "murdered" is INSIDE THE WOMB OF ANOTHER LIVING PERSON.
OK, abortion? How much more off-topic are you planning on getting here. The topic, by the way is a 10% increase in violent crime over the last few years. Meanwhile, we're supposed to be afraid of terrorists.
-
Actually, automobile safety is a favorite topic of mine. It's just not Germain to the thread we're posting in. Post your own thread if you want to talk about something different.
-
OK, abortion? How much more off-topic are you planning on getting here. The topic, by the way is a 10% increase in violent crime over the last few years. Meanwhile, we're supposed to be afraid of terrorists.
-
OK, abortion? How much more off-topic are you planning on getting here. The topic, by the way is a 10% increase in violent crime over the last few years. Meanwhile, we're supposed to be afraid of terrorists.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Meanwhile, we're supposed to be afraid of terrorists.
nope - we should be araid of autos[^] However, with 12,000,000 to 20,000,00 million illegals in the country neither statistic is a surprise.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
I'm not talking about abortion. I used it to provide yet another example of how some Soapbox visitors refuse to limit the discussion to rational logical thoughts.
led mike wrote:
I'm not talking about abortion
do gays do this???
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is a libertarian philosophy
Excuse me if I refuse to accept your philosophical interpretations. You are the guy who simultaneously claims to support Jeffersonian principles and that critics of the Bush administration should be considered traitors.
led mike wrote:
Excuse me if I refuse to accept your philosophical interpretations.
You can refuse anything you like, but your views are clearly libertarian, not Jeffersonian.
led mike wrote:
You are the guy who simultaneously claims to support Jeffersonian principles and that critics of the Bush administration should be considered traitors.
When you overtly attempt to subvert the president's execution of his constitutional responsibilities to defend the nation, yes, you are a traitor. Sorry.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
as a group they have no more nor any less than any other group.
As a consequence of federal and state laws granting married couples certain legal rights, yes, they have fewer rights. If the state and federal governments offered no benefits based on marriage, you'd have an argument. If someone's significant other happens to be male, that should not prevent them from standing next to that person on their deathbed. As state and federal law stands now, it does. Personally, I'm shaky on the idea of gay marriage myself. But as long as that disparity in legal rights exists, I'm forced to say they should be allowed to be considered legally married. You'll note how frequently I use the word 'legal' because that's all this is. All of the morality, ethics of it, has been usurped by the use of legal power as a means of control.
Patrick Sears wrote:
as a means of control. OPPRESION
It's been around (documented) for thousands of years, it's not going away anytime soon, it's just in some peoples nature I guess. At least ages ago there was no attempt to hide it, oppression was held through power and might, right out in the open by those that were man enough to wield the power. Today these cowards attempt to hide behind all sorts of educated rhetoric as a means to induct the innocent and unsuspecting so as to gain their unwitting support at the "polls"... how manly.
-
led mike wrote:
I'm not talking about abortion
do gays do this???
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Actually, automobile safety is a favorite topic of mine. It's just not Germain to the thread we're posting in. Post your own thread if you want to talk about something different.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Post your own thread if you want to talk about something different.
no
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
led mike wrote:
Excuse me if I refuse to accept your philosophical interpretations.
You can refuse anything you like, but your views are clearly libertarian, not Jeffersonian.
led mike wrote:
You are the guy who simultaneously claims to support Jeffersonian principles and that critics of the Bush administration should be considered traitors.
When you overtly attempt to subvert the president's execution of his constitutional responsibilities to defend the nation, yes, you are a traitor. Sorry.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When you overtly attempt to subvert the president's execution of his constitutional responsibilities to defend the nation, yes, you are a traitor. Sorry.
Not according to Jefferson
The Alien and Sedition Acts were four laws passed by the Federalists in the United States Congress in 1798 during the administration of President John Adams, which was waging an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War. Proponents claimed they were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers and to stop seditious attacks from weakening the government. The Democratic-Republicans, like later historians, attacked them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration, and as infringing on the right of the states to act in these areas. They became a major political issue in the elections of 1798 and 1800. One act (the Alien Enemies Act) is still the law in 2007, and has frequently been enforced in wartime. The others expired or were repealed by 1802. Thomas Jefferson held them all to be unconstitutional and void, and pardoned and ordered the release of all who had been convicted of violating them.Stan Shannon wrote:
but your views are clearly libertarian, not Jeffersonian.
Sorry, it's your views that are clearly NOT Jeffersonian Jeffersonian democracy
In its core ideals it is characterized by the following elements, which the Jeffersonians expressed in their speeches and legislation:
....
Republicanism, also known as representative Democracy, is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny by the majority