| Author | Message | ||
     Reepicheep |
If I am on intravenous feeding, and unable to feed myself, but I am healing... can you kill me too? "First do no harm". A pregnancy, left alone, will generally result in a 100% healthy human being. It seems that there should be an extraordinarily compelling reason in order to justify a medical intervention that changes that outcome. | ||
| Cataract2 |
At the moment there are more states that have it banned than endorse it. This will eventually be worked out by the Supreme Court. I honestly have no idea how it will shake out. There are some solid arguments on both sides of it. The thing is, it is government that is stepping on the toes of religion by redefining marriage. Do civil unions and you avoid all that. Try to force churches to do gay marriages (and that has been tried already, I didn't bother to follow what happened to the court case though) and you are in violation of the Constitution. It's not a big hot button issue with me if they can work it within the Constitution. Most people I know are in that same mindset. If you are looking for my approval of that lifestyle, go f*** yourself. If you are looking for tax dollars to flow to you for that lifestyle, go F*** yourself. I think it might be that last part where we disagree most. I think Julie covered the first part well enough for me. Anyways, as for this. Yes. Many have done so, and yet it is being removed slowly by others. As for forcing religious institutions to perform the ceremony, well, I would hope no one is thinking they should be. Personally, I think that should be left up to them. BTW, there are plenty of churches out there that do recognize it and will perform it. (Just in case you didn't know.) I certainly don't recall any discussion about the Constitution and marriage coming up. As for redefining marriage. Well, since the states do issue marriage licenses I think the state should be able to say who gets them and will be issued them. Leave the churches to handle the ceremony and if they want to perform it, but I see no reason to keep gays from marrying and getting a license from the state with the benefits that come with it. Who died and made you God over what consenting adults do? Are they apart of your religion? I know you said that it's against YOUR religion. Is what they do against theirs? Others on this board? etc? I have a saying. What happens behind the bedroom door of two consenting adults is their own damn business. Stay out of their bedrooms. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I could care less what anyone does in their bedroom. Really. I don't care. And I'll say as respectfully and deferentially as I can, since I am not a woman, and not a doctor. My motivation is absolutely to keep laws off of every body, woman and man. The problem is that the obvious scientific conclusion is that a fetus is a life and is entitled to protection under the law. So when you burn it to death with concentrated saline or tear it to pieces, our laws have absolutely been put upon a body, denying it *all* future choice and opportunity. I understand that as a male, it is much easier for me to take the legal high ground here. That doesn't change law and science though. I agree abortion is extremely convenient and expedient. A great many other murders would be as well. | ||
| Blake |
>>> I can state for a fact that an unborn is neither life nor human. Do you want to rethink that statement? >>> I have performed many pregnancy terminations during my career. Easy to see how your opinion on the issue might be biased. Getting paid to terminate human life would be a difficult thing to deal with. Pretending an unborn baby is not a human or alive may be one way to do so, but that doesn't make such delusions true. | ||
| Sifo |
Cataract2, It's a shame that you think Julie covered that well enough for you. IMO, that dialog has just started. I hope Julie will be big enough to continue. I have no problem with churches doing what ever marriages that are permitted by law. Here's where religion and the Constitution get into a bind on gay marriage though. Marriage entitles the spouse to certain government benefits, such as for example, survivor benefits from Social Security. Social Security is of course a tax imposed by our government on almost all income earners to pay for these benefits. When suddenly those tax dollars are going to benefit an institution (that would be the gay marriage) that goes against the religious believes of those being taxed, you have a Constitutional problem. I guess if they would be willing to allow those with a religious issue with gay marriage to opt out of SS, that could be a solution. I'm sure there are other solutions too. Forcing someone to pay for something that they oppose on religious grounds however, is not a viable solution. At least not if you are going to follow the First Amendment. Beyond little details like that I don't think we are really that far apart on the idea of legalizing gay marriage. | ||
| Kenm123t |
The spirit of Mengle lives. Children do have monsters to fear! Julie apply any of the reasons for abortion to a ten year old and think that over. | ||
| Sifo |
Rather than try to draw Julie into a longer discussion, I'll just lay it out. She can let me know if she disagrees with anything I've laid out. The DNA from the unborn fetus and the just born baby will be identical. That's fact. Next, can science tell the difference between living tissue and dead tissue. Of course they can. That's fact. Is the tissue from a fetus living? By any definition that would satisfy a scientist, of course it is. That's a fact. So if it's living human DNA, what do we have? Well the only known source for human DNA is humans, so it has to be a living human. That's a fact. To say that it's not a living human, you have to disprove one of the above facts. If you can't then the conclusion is inescapable. | ||
| Cataract2 |
Sifo, last I checked the Constitution/Bill or Rights stated this: "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." Now, you talk about that tax coming from those whose religions say otherwise. Since the government can not establish an official religion then what does that matter? Yours and others religions have no business getting into the business of the government in those regards. Should it? I've seen this brought up enough. Get over it. If using that is how you now go about avoiding paying a tax then you will be in for a very rude awakening. I guess I should clarify. Unless the government is going to establish a religion then recognizing a religion that doesn't agree with gay marriage or some other set of things. And with the recognition saying that since they don't recognize gay marriage then we should do it. Or they don't recognize it and due to this we should use tax dollars to cover their benefits from marriage. Well, seems kind of messed up, no? What about those who don't believe in something you do or whatever? Well, I guess you should get those spousal benefits for marriage is they're religion says otherwise, right? Just an example of the shoe on the other foot. (Message edited by cataract2 on November 08, 2012) | ||
| Aesquire |
On alternative marriage. I'm for it. If a Church or a clergy feels it best not to bless such a union, That's fine. If you don't feel comfortable entering or blessing such a union, don't. The legal reasons for a recognized contractual relationship, for the purposes of privacy, child rearing and property control are many. We have a well tested, ( and imperfect ) system today, and I see no reason not to adapt it to forms of partnership other than the very narrow one of the DOMA. In the past a wider interpretation of marriage, consort, and concubine have existed, does today in other cultures than, perhaps, yours, and will tomorrow. My advice is that making such unions legal should require a Pre-nup agreement to protect any children and settle the basic property rights. OUR legal system does not have such stuff nailed down, and we NEED to have rules. ( and the freedom to work outside of rule structure, but not in violation of others rights. ) We need NOT to simply adapt, for example, Amerind Communal marriage, or Sharia Marriage, without making the equality of all partners legal and understood. In other words, if you want to have a Mormon sub sect style multiple wife setup, they are your legal equals and not property. Ditto You and your spouse, or Barney Frank and his. ( A guy I dislike for political reasons, but could not give a darn who he sleeps with. ) You have an issue with the word marriage, and want to call it a Civil Union or Cthulu's Bond, or what-the-frack-ever?, feel free. It's got to be the same thing at heart or it's a failure. Some will demand the word for ego or other reasons, some good some bad, but ultimately something must be done. BTW "separate but Equal" is classic Democrat Party Racism, and we won't put up with it anymore. The 50's and 60's were bad enough. ( I don't give a hoot your ideology, the slave owning mentality must be opposed, period. or no one is free. ) No second class citizens. Period. That's basic Conservatism. No Class divides. Not legal, not ever. | ||
| Aesquire |
I note in passing that the rate of poverty, crime and violence is much higher in unions deliberately and legally UN-blessed by stupid laws. ( deliberate or accidental?... you be the judge ) Example? The classic "welfare culture" mother who does not marry, partly because of cultural conditioning ( the leftist "you don't need a husband, the State is Mother, the State is Father" ) and partly because it would result in a legal loss of ability to survive. For every grifter out there, there are thousands just hanging on. Their male sperm donors? On the alternative economy, because getting a legit job just gets the Child Support taken out....... Can you work at McD's and support a family on a 20 hr minimum wage? ( Part time is the "new Normal" in Obamacare days ) The cycle of crime, drugs, dependency and a crap life is not a good thing, and it's the result of stupid ( if well meaning, if ) laws. Over all legitimacy rate in America is now less than 40%????? in some American Cultures 70% of the kids got no Dad.... Marriage, as opposed to promiscuity, dependence, poverty and disease... Stability vs Chaos. Gee the conservative side seems obvious to me. | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, last I checked the Constitution/Bill or Rights stated this: "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." Good job on copying the text of the amendment. Now, you talk about that tax coming from those whose religions say otherwise. Since the government can not establish an official religion then what does that matter? I notice you left part out to make your argument though. That's the important part; "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If your religion says no to abortions, what is being done when the government forces you to pay for abortions? Does that not prohibit that person from exercising their belief that they should NOT be paying for abortions as a matter of their faith? Of course it does. It's the exact same argument when the government is going to provide tax payer entitlements to gays when they get married. You are now forcing people to pay government entitlements to people for making choices that go against your faith. I really don't care if it's called marriage, or civil union, or ubunto. It's not the name that is the problem, it's the taxpayer money that gets paid out for people making choices that go against other taxpayer's faith. What they do in their bedroom is their business. When they ask me to pay them for doing it, it becomes my business. I really don't want it to be my business. So you can go on, and on about the government not establishing a religion. It has no bearing on this issue. This is about prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The folks who wrote our founding documents were quite wise people; If you choose to understand what they wrote. | ||
| Cataract2 |
How is the government doing that prohibiting you from going to church and/or practicing your religion. You are trying to make the case that the government should recognize YOUR religion and follow it's principles. The government should NOT do that. It's the simple. Your argument is one setup to where you could open a whole can of worms. Are you folks the same one rallying against Sharia (I think that's the spelling) law. Don't some Muslims want to practice that? Should the government make concessions for them in that regard? What about the government taking tax dollars and giving them to pig farmers? I know there are subsidies going to them. Should the government then not take those tax dollars from that group or let them selectively choose how it's paid out of their share? Actually, I didn't leave our that part. Just missed it by mistake. Meant to catch all of it. Was in a hurry. | ||
| 7873jake |
This must be part of the 47%... It gets painful at 3:10 but the whole thing sorta hurts either way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL-a-r7iJIU (Message edited by 7873jake on November 09, 2012) | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Secret talks with Iran!! Iran shoots at our Drone!! NEAT STUFF!! | ||
| Sifo |
How is the government doing that prohibiting you from going to church and/or practicing your religion. By forcing people to pay for things that go against their beliefs. It's pretty simple. You are trying to make the case that the government should recognize YOUR religion and follow it's principles. Not at all. I'm simply saying that the government shouldn't put taxpayer funds towards something that violates peoples religious beliefs. Remember the part about "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Forcing one to do something that is against their religion IS prohibiting the free exercise of that religion. You however are asking that the government spend other peoples tax dollars to support a morality/religious belief that is different from theirs. You are asking people to follow, by paying taxpayer funds, your religious beliefs. That is a problem. The government should NOT do that. You are right. The government should not do that. Your argument is one setup to where you could open a whole can of worms. Are you folks the same one rallying against Sharia (I think that's the spelling) law. Don't some Muslims want to practice that? Should the government make concessions for them in that regard? What about the government taking tax dollars and giving them to pig farmers? I know there are subsidies going to them. Should the government then not take those tax dollars from that group or let them selectively choose how it's paid out of their share? And this is the problem when government decides to overreach and go beyond the scope of the Constitution that was intended to limit the government. It seems to be core difference between conservative and liberal thought on government. Congratulations on taking a small step toward conservativeism. Feel free to continue and turn it into a walk to the right. It really isn't painful. | ||
| Sifo |
It gets painful at 3:10 but the whole thing sorta hurts either way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL-a-r7iJIU That was painful right out of the box! | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I should have been an experimental musician. wow. | ||
| 7873jake |
He makes ANY funding to public broadcasting seem like a bargain. I know a few public stations that could make $70k go a loooong way. | ||
| Cataract2 |
Dang Sifo, you go down the road you're talking about we might as well not have any government. Because I can be certain there is something that each person could find that they do that goes against their beliefs. Where do you draw the line? | ||
| Sifo |
Where do you draw the line? How about at what the Constitution limited the government to do? What the hell though, I'm just a crazy old white guy in his 50's clinging to my gun and bible. | ||
| Xb9er |
All laws pasted are not against the constitution. Sifo, if you have a problem with how our system works it may be time to think long and hard on what your issues are and what the cure should be. But keep in mind this is the land of the free. The founding fathers gave use simple rules. Simple roles to allow freedoms. Oh and "under God" wasn't written in until the 40's or 50's. I'm sure if you watches a biography on Benjamin Franklin you would think he was the devil | ||
| Cataract2 |
Xb9, I was waiting to go to the under God part. Ah hell. Let it flow now. | ||
| Xb9er |
It's hard to argue with people who can't be told they are wrong or don't want to hear the truth because they are stubborn due to being uneducated and get information from one tv news station | ||
| Hootowl |
MSNBC? | ||
| Sifo |
All laws pasted are not against the constitution. Sifo, if you have a problem with how our system works it may be time to think long and hard on what your issues are and what the cure should be. But keep in mind this is the land of the free. The founding fathers gave use simple rules. Simple roles to allow freedoms. Oh and "under God" wasn't written in until the 40's or 50's. I'm sure if you watches a biography on Benjamin Franklin you would think he was the devil No they are not all against the Constitution. They can tax us. They can structure tax policy to promote certain behavior, such as marriage. They can provide benefits to us. They can provide benefits to promote certain behavior, such as marriage. So far so good, right? Well legal anyway. The problem is that now marriage is being redefined to include a group that has never been allowed. A group that certain people have religious objection to. That in itself isn't a problem either, except that now you are including the previously mentioned benefits that will now be PROMOTING a behavior that goes against the religious beliefs of some of the people paying for it. That's when it gets to be a problem. The solution is pretty simple though. Eliminate the benefits to married people. At that point you have a clear Constitutional path to make gay marriage legal. Is that really so hard to understand? I feel bad having to spell it out for you. Yes, the founding fathers gave us simple rules to follow. We have made them VERY complicated by slicing our country into little niche voting groups that we can curry favor to for pure political greed. I have no idea why "under God" is being brought into this conversation. Care to explain that one? Never mind, you just want to piss on peoples religious beliefs. That's fine, you have that right. You don't have the right to take their money and spend it to promote behavior in society that goes against their beliefs though. This is clearly spelled out in the first amendment for anyone with basic comprehension of the English language. It's laughable that those who can't comprehend this are attacking my education. Thanks for the ad hominem attacks. It clearly demonstrates that you are at a complete loss for further rational discussion. | ||
| Sifo |
Hootowl, from his statement it's clear that he thinks you should get news from multiple TV news stations. I'm guessing MSNBC and NBC. | ||
| Strokizator |
But keep in mind this is the land of the free. I think you mean "This is the land of the free stuff". | ||
| Davegess |
Get over the whole gay marriage will you. It is coming nationwide and you guys can't stop it. At one time in the very recent past marriage between different races was illegal in many states. It was considered an abomination against God's will. Thankfully that is gone; hopefully the whole gay marriage thing will quickly become the law of the land. If the Republicans want to get back into power they need to move toward the mainstream on these social issues. The population is getting more diverse and more tolerant of diversity. Fight the small government battle and stay away from imposing government on the bedroom or inside a woman's body and you have a chance. Hell I'd vote a fiscally conservative, small government guy, I have in the past. I just will not, short of some truly wacko liberal, vote for these reactionary social issues. Those days are thankfully fading away. Not gone yet but at least moving in the right direction. | ||
| Sifo |
Good grief. I feel like I should be arguing with rocks. It's not about gay marriage. It's about following the Constitution. I even spelled out how to do gay marriage within the Constitution. How freaking obvious can I be? | ||
| Xb9er |
So you mean gay you don't want gay people to married for the tax break? I don't see how you are paying into that. If this is the case, you think it is ok for gay people to pay for your marriage? I hope someday I meet a gay couple, and when they get married I'm going to make shirts the say "paid for by Sifo" |
