A historic Day for Liberty and Freedom

[BangOut]

As frosty and prohpet noted, I really don't have an opinion on this subject, but some people's points are weak and I'm attacking that.

e.g.

Cat: "This is my faith, this is what it says, and according to my faith I am sticking by it."
Others: "Your religion is stupid because I didn't like church as a kid!"

or

Others: "There's nothing wrong with buttsex."
Cat/Beam: "Yes there is; it is sinful."
Others: "The government can't tell me not to buttsex!!!"

You all actually agree on most points and are really just bashing each other for your inherent beliefs.

 

[diddlysquat]

As frosty and prohpet noted, I really don't have an opinion on this subject, but some people's points are weak and I'm attacking that.

e.g.

Cat: "This is my faith, this is what it says, and according to my faith I am sticking by it."
Others: "Your religion is stupid because I didn't like church as a kid!"

or

Others: "There's nothing wrong with buttsex."
Cat/Beam: "Yes there is; it is sinful."
Others: "The government can't tell me not to buttsex!!!"

You all actually agree on most points and are really just bashing each other for your inherent beliefs.

and all this changes Your being Ghey, how?

 

[BangOut]

and your reply changes you being beaten against a fence, how?

 

[Mister_Prophet]

in my opinion, you are all ghey and I am awesome and sly.

 

[SaintBeam]

You all actually agree on most points and are really just bashing each other for your inherent beliefs.

My main issue with this discussion is and for the most part has been the misinformation some people from the other side of the issue seem to be saddled with. As a result, it seems that they deliberatily half read, misread and all together not read what has actually been stated when they make up a counter argument. We then spend most of our time correcting their preconceptions about what seem to be "trigger words" for them, as opposed to responding to legit replies based on what was actually said. It's kinda like shadow boxing...something I have grow tired of.

Cat: "This is my faith, this is what it says, and according to my faith I am sticking by it."
Others: "Your religion is stupid because I didn't like church as a kid!"

or

Others: "There's nothing wrong with buttsex."
Cat/Beam: "Yes there is; it is sinful."
Others: "The government can't tell me not to buttsex!!!"

That pretty much sums up what the discussion has turned into.

In the light of that fact, this topic doesn't seem to have much discussion value left in it. I was origionally going to waste my time filtering through and refuting the latest batch of phantom arguments once again but I do not revel in futile excercises. All the relevant info is there if people bother reading it this time...they can do with it what they will. It has been said that "reading is fundamental, comprehension is apparently optional". After this thread, I feel I must concur.

Senator SaintBeam from New York, yields the floor.

 

[oosyxxx]

Typical example of how disagreement gets you labeled as a Bible waving, homophobic, radical right wing, gun toting, fascist, bigoted, wife beating, tobacco spitting, beer swilling, gun rack widdling, monster truck driving, cousin loving, backwoods-noshirt-wearin' hayseed.

You forgot Nabisco-shilling, Father Third Eye Shut.

 

[diddlysquat]

and your reply changes you being beaten against a fence, how?

You beating me?

The only thing you can beat is off,

Get Over yourself, macho man!

 

[BangOut]

Pull your Depends up from your ankles, old man, nobody wants to see a TS in a pissing contest.

 

[diddlysquat]

Ah did I hurt the 'little' man's feelings?

Whats a matter Bangy, 'fraid some genderfreak going to get your shoes wet?

All I can say is what contest?

 

[BangOut]

Now you're just making stuff up, you old coot. And if you get any of your vile TS urine near my feet we're going to have to tie you up and give you another whuppin'

 

[JTRipper]

Actually, it is the government's job to tell us what we can and can't do. We elect people to think and act on our behalf. This is why I love the Republican party. They want to make sure we don't go to hell because they are compassionate and us burning in hell would make them feel bad. We should be thankful people prayed on the steps outside the Supreme Court after the decision to help one day overturn this abomination against Our Father. Don't we know by now that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve? Jesus Christ! WHAT GOD MADE GOES! What the **** is wrong with you people?!?!?!?

The only socio-fascists I can find come snarling out of the liberal camp to punish speechcrime, thoughtcrime, and enforce the most important ideals of all: COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY. Want to know what to think, when to march in lockstep? Sorry, the conservatives don't seem to have those answers for you - but as you've found, liberals are dying to provide them.

When conservatives point out that the constitution mandates equal protection, they're cited as racists. When they point out that it doesn't provide the right to legislate sodomy, they're called homophobes. When they point out that rape is neither interstate nor commerce, and therefore not federally legislated interstate commerce, they're called misogynists. Just like when they point out that the Constitution doesn't reserve the federal right to legislate the murder of the unborn. When they point out that nowhere does it say that religion and politics have to exist on opposite sides of a wall, they're called fundamentalist wackos. And yes, when Rick Santorum pointed out that the Constitution not only doesn't give the federal government the right to legislate sodomy, but forbids the states to legislate it, we had 3 days of feature stories on what a homophobe he was. Except, as usual, it turns out that what he meant by "unconstitutional" was the conservative definition (e.g., it isn't anywhere in the Constitution) and not the liberal definition (whatever I hallucinated the last time I read it).

C'mon - can't today's liberal come up with a better argument for their ideology than "conservatives are mean?" Can't they even pretend they know where to find a copy of the Bill of Rights? ****, you people embarass me. Thank God you'll not be practicing law. And thank God not all liberals went insane in the last 10-15 years.

You never did edumacate me on this whole religious oppression thing you're suffering under, though. I mean, what with the G-word being on your money and everything. Expound, brother. Inspire us all with tales of your repression. Detail the plight of persecuted, tell us all you endure at the hands of these unnamed Christians. I know it can't be a paranoid hallucination, because only people who... wait, nevermind. Hell, tell us about it anyway. I'm in a fiction mood.

 

[JTRipper]

While I'm fairly sure Ossy is just kidding around, religous point of view on this subject mean nothing in the U.S. Freedom of religion is true, chose whatever religion suits YOUR life, but you shouldn't force your religious view through government control, that is oppression. That is why we started this country in the first place, so any religious views on the subject are null. You wanna pray in church and chat with your priest about why gayness is a sin, that is fine, but keep your religion out of government, damn it.

But the religious right have their counterparts on the left who will froth at the mouth and tell you that Christian morality is forced on us by outlawing murder, just because "thou shalt not kill" is a biblical value. I'm not sure which is worse.

 

[JTRipper]

I'm so thankful for the separation of Church and State.

What separation of church and state?

 

[JTRipper]

Yes, yes they are.
I think now would be a good time to agree to disagree. I wouldn't want to unleash SaintBeam version 5.0(Holier than thou edition) on your Godless souls.

Bring 'im on! I've whupped that punk before. Let's see if the new one's got game.

 

[JTRipper]

But, while I can respect another person's faith, I can't stand when people in that "faith" pull stuff like discrimination. Discrimination is wrong, nomatter who you are.

Unless you're discriminating against whites, men, or white men. So sayeth Michael Moore.

 

[JTRipper]

Ahhhhhhh! Hahaaaaaaahaaaaa! Happy happy, joy joy..........

YOU SICK LITTLE MONKEY! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE??

 

[JTRipper]

Guess you won't mind if we do the same with Germans (or "Krauts" as we should call them now)

Call me traditional, but I like "Huns".

 

[oosyxxx]

The only socio-fascists I can find come snarling out of the liberal camp to punish speechcrime, thoughtcrime, and enforce the most important ideals of all: COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY. Want to know what to think, when to march in lockstep? Sorry, the conservatives don't seem to have those answers for you - but as you've found, liberals are dying to provide them.

This is the slippery rhetoric I've come to expect from you, JT, as your ambiguous and easily misinterpreted contentions remain as insulting as they are fallacious ... oh wait, they can't really be fallacious if I misinterpret them, right? The notion that American conservatives--white Christians, basically--don't want to tell us how to think is, well, come on. One of the fundamentals of Christianity is to spread Christian influence so others adopt the basic Christian tenets of morality.

When conservatives point out that the constitution mandates equal protection, they're cited as racists. When they point out that it doesn't provide the right to legislate sodomy, they're called homophobes. When they point out that rape is neither interstate nor commerce, and therefore not federally legislated interstate commerce, they're called misogynists. Just like when they point out that the Constitution doesn't reserve the federal right to legislate the murder of the unborn. When they point out that nowhere does it say that religion and politics have to exist on opposite sides of a wall, they're called fundamentalist wackos. And yes, when Rick Santorum pointed out that the Constitution not only doesn't give the federal government the right to legislate sodomy, but forbids the states to legislate it, we had 3 days of feature stories on what a homophobe he was. Except, as usual, it turns out that what he meant by "unconstitutional" was the conservative definition (e.g., it isn't anywhere in the Constitution) and not the liberal definition (whatever I hallucinated the last time I read it).

Learn about common law as well as the Constitutionally granted right of Constitutional interpretation into formation of new law.

C'mon - can't today's liberal come up with a better argument for their ideology than "conservatives are mean?" Can't they even pretend they know where to find a copy of the Bill of Rights? ****, you people embarass me. Thank God you'll not be practicing law. And thank God not all liberals went insane in the last 10-15 years.

You never did edumacate me on this whole religious oppression thing you're suffering under, though. I mean, what with the G-word being on your money and everything. Expound, brother. Inspire us all with tales of your repression. Detail the plight of persecuted, tell us all you endure at the hands of these unnamed Christians. I know it can't be a paranoid hallucination, because only people who... wait, nevermind. Hell, tell us about it anyway. I'm in a fiction mood.

Thank God I'll not be practicing law? Do you think something bad would happen? Pardon me, but explaining why religious infusion into government is harmful isn't possible tonight. What brought out the ire regarding the hallucination insult? You have a tremendous understanding of how the analytical mind works, JT, and like any good attorney, public speaker, preacher or salesperson, your rhetoric seems far from being akin to a chain link fence ... emphasis on "seems." You don't know everything, although at times it certainly seems you do. In fact, I'm quite sure you'll be able to tear my entire post from limb to limb, making me look quite the imbecile to most people. Actually, I can't wait to see how you do it.

 

[JTRipper]

Oh look. How cute!!!! We have a Troll in our midst.

He doesn't get fed much.

No. The reasons for objecting to legal recognition is because of bigots and redneck in this world that have notyhing but hate for those that are different.

Then your understanding of the objection is so narrow and shallow as to be one-dimensional. I don't know you well, but that doesn't sound like my impression of you.

And Gays should be allowed the same legal force under the law as heteros. Just as Blacks were given the right to vote as full citizens of the US. Gay people are just as much a citizen as any other minority group or person with either naturalized or by being born here.

1) They should, but they don't. Gays have more force under the law than heteros, 14th amendment be damned. I, as a hetero, am denied protection under the law equal to a homosexual (or TS, black, woman - whatever constitutes a minority these days).
2) The right to elect representation and having the legal rights of marriage bestowed on gay couples is an intellectually dishonest comparison at best.

Dude, you're so full of sh!t your eyes are brown. You come off with this sactimonious holier than thou attitude and you say you're 'tolerant' in one sentence and spout vitriol in the next by using insults like 'filthy sexual practices' and garbage like that. You're no better than the clerics and mullahs in the middle east that preach their brand of hatred.
You're the person that would have been walking around in white sheets in the 60's when the civil rights movement was starting to get somewhere, lamenting on the downfall of civilization because "*******Them ******* are gettin uppity, wantin the same rights as us white folk."*********

NOTE: I'm using this as an example. To any persons of color reading this, I don't mean insult.

Yeah, I see how yours and those of your ilk 'tolerate' someone that doesn't kowtow to your ideals. Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather live in a world where we strive to have equality and respect for each other than in an oppressed, dark and dreary world where if you don't follow the dictates of what one person deems right they can steal your life.

Do you actually live in such a world? You're compelled to bow and scrape and apologize just for mentioning commonly known history - and you call that tolerance. Remarkable. What's so tolerant about requiring you to deny reality in order to avoid being branded "unclean"? On the other hand, what you call intolerant is someone who recognizes a point of view which differs from their own and explains the reasoning behind theirs. Your automatic response is to ignore the substance of their message (re-read the acceptance/tolerance bit, you totally missed it), and lable them (and their "ilk" - though you can't have any clear idea who their ilk are) as oppressors just because this person explained their view of God and His will. Think about it. That's what you call tolerance? I think I can manage without any of that brand of vitriol, thanks. By the way - are you pot or kettle? You know y'all look alike to me.

Laws should be on the books as guides and protection only. We all know murder is wrong. We know stealing is wrong. Both of those acts deprive another of life or property. Anit Sodomy laws are also wrong in it allows the state to literally steal another persons life by sending them to prison for an act of love. The only laws I know of in the Criminal Code that punishes people for being a loving caring person.

Euthenasia, statutory rape, bigamy - I'm sure that with motivation I can think of a few more. Now, if you're finished trying to garner emotional impact, maybe we get back to discussing the topic you started with - gay marriage and the law. Let's start with "Why do we even have marriage laws in the first place?"

Tell you what. Why don't you do everyone a favor and move to the Middle East and join up with the Clerics and Mullahs that show the same kind of tolerence you show. You'd fit right in.

Should he save you a parking spot?

 

[JTRipper]

Sure you do BJ, infact that's all you seem to be capable of duing these days. As a person if color, you look to me like nothing more than a foul mouthed, "would be" reformed racist who's falling back on his old red neck references in a feeble attempt to make a point. I forgive you though, seeing as how all of your troll bait comments are in fact, based on your ignorance.

Dammit, I wish I would have known that way back in an old "racism" thread. You'd said something I was going to respond to, but I didn't see the point in it so I skipped it. Looks like there would have been a point after all.