To: russellmz2 and jeblackstar

Sorry – but I was in Vegas. Well I am back so let’s have it.

Russellmz2 you said:

wait a second. how do we know all these "heterosexual" couples walking around are actually heretosexual? what if a pair of lesbians and a pair of gay guys decide to marry.

My reply:

I don’t’ see any problem with that. They can. The law in California and the 37 other states, enacted by their legislatures, states that only a man and a woman can marry.

Here’s what Mrs Everett taught me. By the way Mrs Everett was not a member of the NEA.

Before the constitution was written, there were these guys who decided that King George of England will no longer be the supreme hancho. So they sat down and wrote a few words that said

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Then there was Mr Hagan, a proud Jewish guy, who said he came from Germany because the ruler there was killing Jews. Mr Hagan taught us how to read and understand the above words and we were only in third grade.

Today most liberals don’t even know such words existed.

Russellmz2 and jejblackstar, if you read carefully, those guys capitalized Rights and described it with “unalienable” as a adjective. Furthermore it says, these certain unalienable rights are endowed by their Creator. Please get your markers and highlight “certain” and Creator.

All please note that this document states that “men are created” by a Creator. Men are not created by monkeys. Monkeys can not create.

From this piece of document, it guaranteed, our rights as Americans. A liberal will tell you that your rights are guaranteed by the constitution. Your rights are guaranteed by your Creator.

Simply stated our rights as American came from “their” Creator, but these rights are not absolute. The word “certain” indicates that as Americans we do not have complete rights. If you slowly read those words again, it implies that it also apply “universally” – all men (including women of course).

Those great men believed and most Americans do that we have a Creator named God. Moslems also believed that they have a Creator named Allah. Liberals, as taught by the NEA, do not believe that Americans have a Creator. They teach our children that they came from monkeys. Most children, taught by liberal teachers, can not read – so they do not know that were is such a thing that spelled their unalienable rights given by a Creator. Liberals think that their rights came from the constitution.

Here are a few examples to enlighten your minds.

You can not marry your daughter. If anybody feels that their rights are absolute then why can’t they marry their daughters? This is the same reason why same sex can not marry.

You can not have 3 wives, but Moslems in Saudi Arabia can. Moslems in the United States cannot. Why? Because the constitution in Saudi Arabia and the United States that secure these rights are not the same. The constitution exists to “secure” these rights – your rights came from your Creator who have absolute control over these rights.

Equal protection does not mean absolute rights. Prove to me that I am wrong! Anybody?

Nice to be back?


aconservative

Liberals, as taught by the NEA, do not believe that Americans have a Creator. They teach our children that they came from monkeys. Most children, taught by liberal teachers, can not read – so they do not know that were is such a thing that spelled their unalienable rights given by a Creator. Liberals think that their rights came from the constitution.

1) Most liberals believe in God. 2) We did come from monkeys. 3) Most children can read. 4) The Bible doesn't have a list of rights; the Constitution does, and it makes no mention of a Creator.

You can not marry your daughter. If anybody feels that their rights are absolute then why can’t they marry their daughters? This is the same reason why same sex can not marry.

What reason is that? Inbreeding is genetically undesirable; that is why it is frowned upon by society. What is banning gay marriages preventing?

Equal protection does not mean absolute rights.

Then what does "equal protection" mean to you?

What reason is that? Inbreeding is genetically undesirable; that is why it is frowned upon by society. What is banning gay marriages preventing?

Would it be all right if lesbian sisters or gay brothers married then? They can't get each other pregnant.

Would it be all right if lesbian sisters or gay brothers married then? They can't get each other pregnant.

Sounds okay to me!

Besides, the actual problem with inbreeding, comes not from sharing genetic material with siblings, though that still sounds pretty gross to me, but with relations that are one step further removed, your aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.

Oh, and just because the DECLERATION of INDEPENDENCE, which, though in important document, is not the document upon which our government is founded. Even the Articles of Confederation, which was the government before the current one, does not mention a creator, and even if we do acknowledge a creator, it seems to be just your creator that condemns homosexuality, not mine.

Cheers

Besides, the actual problem with inbreeding, comes not from sharing genetic material with siblings, though that still sounds pretty gross to me, but with relations that are one step further removed, your aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.

Does that mean that it'd be safe for one to mate with a sibling? If so, then it should be legalized as well. After all, who are we to judge what two consenting people do?

Even if not though, I think that it'd be wrong and discriminating to stand in the way of true love, no matter how gross it might be. Besides, screwed up babies can come from drinking, smoking, boxing, etc.

Russellmz2 you said:

wait a second. how do we know all these "heterosexual" couples walking around are actually heretosexual? what if a pair of lesbians and a pair of gay guys decide to marry.

My reply:

I don’t’ see any problem with that. They can. The law in California and the 37 other states, enacted by their legislatures, states that only a man and a woman can marry.

You just shot down your economic argument against gay marriages. You tried to frame it as a scam to sap money out of the government, and that was one of the reasons it was wrong. Yet it’s OK for people to masquerade as heterosexuals to sap the government for money. In a society where equal rights and protections under the law is considered our strongest selling point, we’re definitely playing a game of “Do as I say, not as I do”

Before the constitution was written, there were these guys who decided that King George of England will no longer be the supreme hancho. So they sat down and wrote a few words that said

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

This is the Declaration of Independence, a great document that outlines some very nice thoughts on how the world should be. However, it is not what determines our rights in this nation. That’s what the Constitution does. But let’s go with your argument here and look at that statement a bit more closely.

While you say certain implies limited, the next few words specifically outline “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” Let’s look at the definition for Liberty here… from m-w.com

Main Entry: lib•er•ty
Pronunciation: 'li-b&r-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free -- more at LIBERAL
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

By denying homosexuals the same rights and protections of heterosexuals, you are denying them liberty. You are taking away their freedoms, removing their ability to make certain choices in their lives…

Now, onto happiness. Many people view marriage as an extremely happy process, so by denying gays this, you are denying them a form of happiness that many heterosexuals enjoy.

Then there was Mr Hagan, a proud Jewish guy, who said he came from Germany because the ruler there was killing Jews. Mr Hagan taught us how to read and understand the above words and we were only in third grade.

I seriously doubt Mr. Hagan would ever support anything like this. By creating separate rules and regulations for homosexuals, we are starting down the path of the Nazis when they started to come up with separate rules and regulations for the Jews. We are making them second class citizens by denying them these rights enjoyed by the "superior" citizens (i.e. heterosexual)

Today most liberals don’t even know such words existed.

I see it more as many extreme conservatives don’t really understand what they mean. Freedom is not conditional upon gender, skin color or sexual preference. Many used God as an argument against the civil rights movement and the abolishment of slavery…

Russellmz2 and jejblackstar, if you read carefully, those guys capitalized Rights and described it with “unalienable” as a adjective. Furthermore it says, these certain unalienable rights are endowed by their Creator. Please get your markers and highlight “certain” and Creator.

All please note that this document states that “men are created” by a Creator. Men are not created by monkeys. Monkeys can not create.

There are really good reasons we are supposed to have separation of church and state… arguments like this show that. You have no undeniable proof that your faith is superior to any other, and as such should NOT presume to make assertions of fact based on nothing but unproven beliefs. How do you know God did not guide the evolutionary process? You don’t, so until you do, please take creationism out of your argument.

this document, it guaranteed, our rights as Americans. A liberal will tell you that your rights are guaranteed by the constitution. Your rights are guaranteed by your Creator.

Our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, that’s the document that gives us our legal framework. If God truly guaranteed our rights, why do we not see these rights everywhere else? Are we the only True Nation in God’s eyes now?

Simply stated our rights as American came from “their” Creator, but these rights are not absolute. The word “certain” indicates that as Americans we do not have complete rights. If you slowly read those words again, it implies that it also apply “universally” – all men (including women of course).

Ok, we don’t have universal freedoms to do anything we like, but what the Declaration of Independence does put forth is that those rights we do have are universal to all citizens. Having a situation where certain citizens have Right A, but others don’t for whatever reason, you start to approach the British Govt of the time of the Revolution. We rebelled because we were not treated the same, there were different rules for us as opposed to those back on the island. And at the time of writing, women were NOT included in those rights. The minds of the authors of the document did not have this image of a truly free society, just one where MEN (white too) were afforded equal rights. Slavery was an issue that almost broke the colonies apart at the time of declaring their independence from England (Jefferson, Adams and others wanted the provision on slavery being unlawful included, but it was cut in the interest of unanimity). If you want to keep things in their original intended context, slavery would still exist, women would not vote, and we would have an absolute policy of non-involvement in foreign disputes

Those great men believed and most Americans do that we have a Creator named God. Moslems also believed that they have a Creator named Allah. Liberals, as taught by the NEA, do not believe that Americans have a Creator. They teach our children that they came from monkeys. Most children, taught by liberal teachers, can not read – so they do not know that were is such a thing that spelled their unalienable rights given by a Creator. Liberals think that their rights came from the constitution.

Umm… talk about unfounded bullshit… Give me some stats proving students under liberal teachers don’t know how to read… please, I’d love to see some hard numbers from a credible study. I come from a liberal family, and I knew how to read before I started school. Many of my social studies teachers were liberal too, yet I didn’t get revisionist history taught to me… Your theory on liberal teachers doesn’t even hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny

Here are a few examples to enlighten your minds.

You can not marry your daughter. If anybody feels that their rights are absolute then why can’t they marry their daughters? This is the same reason why same sex can not marry.

You can not have 3 wives, but Moslems in Saudi Arabia can. Moslems in the United States cannot. Why? Because the constitution in Saudi Arabia and the United States that secure these rights are not the same. The constitution exists to “secure” these rights – your rights came from your Creator who have absolute control over these rights.

Equal protection does not mean absolute rights. Prove to me that I am wrong! Anybody?

These are moral concepts, ones that may vary from culture to culture. In the first instance, it hurts society by producing a higher rate of humans that can not function properly in our culture. This is a health issue as these people often have more medical and mental issues that requires an increase in care. The societal rule there is meant to maintain the relative purity of our gene pool (as in removing those which threaten the long-term viability of us as a race). Gay couples are not generally capable of contributing to the gene pool (save through artificial insemination), they may adopt and contribute to society through values and ideas, but they pose little threat to our survival as a race.

In terms of polygamy, I think it’s a ridiculous rule, if you want 3 wives and managed to find 3 women willing to put up with it… go for it. You are not hurting society generally, so knock yourself out.

Equal protection means that rights that are afforded to one group are afforded to every group. If heterosexuals can marry, then so can homosexuals, denying that invalidates the ideals we fought a revolution over, and destroys our claims that we are a nation that does not discriminate.

-Z

To my liberal friends –

Let’s play a game based on our knowledge and interpretation of the U, S, Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Please answer the following:

In the eyes of the world, which is more important the Declaration of Independence or the U. S, Constitution? Both of them are important, but in your core beliefs, which do you think is more important in the eyes of the world?

Explain “why” if you chose one of either. (Limit to1 sentence)

Explain “why not” for the one you did not choose. (Limit to1 sentence).

(After I read your replies, then I will surely post my explanation and let the readers evaluate our answers)

May the Best One Wins!

aconservative

In the eyes of the world, which is more important the Declaration of Independence or the U. S, Constitution? Both of them are important, but in your core beliefs, which do you think is more important in the eyes of the world?

The U.S. constitution, without it we would still be a bunch of squabbling states. As a radical statement the Decleration is very important, but despite what you believe, the Decleration makes absolutely no sense as a government document, because that's not what it's intended as. It's intended as a manifesto.

So, in the eyes of the governance of the United States, the Constitution is more important.

Cheers

Thanks Jeblackstar!

What about Zoomba, Messy Buu, BalbousHead? No opinion?

aconservative

I don't think I could say it any better than jeb; the Declaration is an inspirational document and all, but all it was was our way of shouting to the world, "We deserve to exist!" It has virtually no bearing on how the actual business of operating the United States goes about. To me, the Constitution has always seemed much more representative of the real genius of the Founding Fathers.

Of course, I find it ironic that you should worry about how anything looks to the rest of the world since the current President's disregard for global opinion has cost him every friend that September 11 made us, but that's another issue.

BulbousHead my friend:

That global opinion that you heard is coming from the press or from leaders who wants to hold their power. I was in the middle east for 5 years (1971 thru 1976). If you ask the common middle eastern citizen, if s/he would like to come and live in the United States, their reply would be "When". The same is true with the Far East.

Aconservative

I kinda wish we were separate. I so long to fence you liberal, civilization destroying, mind warping, self-destructionists in, I would gladly spend the rest of my days pounding fenceposts so as to not hear your rhetoric.

Sorry for the delay in posting, I've been out most of the afternoon/evening...

aconservative:
The US Constitution is the more important document IMO. The Declaration is an ideal, a concept we wish to strive for (equality and freedom) while the Constitution is the document that builds the legal framework to follow-up on those ideals. The declaration is a wonderful document stating the value of man and how the world should be, but it does not go to explain HOW it should be done, it was the seed from which we grew the US Constitution, the document that actually tries to define what those unalienable rights are.

voodoostation:
And I long for the day where you and your bible thumping, gun-toting, imperialistic, hateful hick kind are all gathered up in your own little fenced in area. I've tried to keep my arguments civil and rational, and all you can come back with is this drivel? aconservative at least puts his comments together using some thought and reason. In my experience, people like Brad and aconservative are in the minority, most hard right-wingers sadly seem to follow your lead and resort to statements like the above when faced with an argument.

-Z

If you ask the common middle eastern citizen

I was thinking more of our ex-buddies in Europe, the ones we alienated when we cast the UN to the dogs.