[Despondent]

In the same regard that many loathe a conservative leadership; Some things are better left unseen.

[civilian_number_two]

Can I marry my Dog? who's to say that I can't? sure, it's not a "traditional" male/female relationship, but so what? I say the laws are against me because I want to marry my dog. We love each other so who has the right to stand in our way?

By that argument, your dog is being discriminated against when the state doesn't allow him to apply for a driver's license. And your dog should also be allowed to apply for a firearm, if he can show no criminal record, etc.

These are HUMAN rights we're talking about.

Back to Nate's point: the conservatives can't come up with an argument that doesn't lean heavily on "tradition", and that doesn't ultimately involve Jesus (or some dumb analogy). In fact, I don't know one atheist who is in favour of a ban on gay marriages.

[Jon Gutner]

[B][I]I][I][FONT=Arial][SIZE=7][COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue][COLOR=red][COLOR=red]BAR
ENDDDD !!!!! evELL :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck:
BLAHMBABAGO!!!!!

This post has been edited by Jon Gutner: 03 March 2004 - 01:03 AM

[Heccubus]

Hey, a dog was once nominated for an Academy Award for a director's credit, I think dogs should be allowed to apply for guns too.

[Despondent]

I know a lab that would rather trade places, use the gun and make his bad owner dive in the cold water instead.

HUMAN rights as defined by what, the constitution? So doesn't it make sense resolving the issue would involve the constitution? The only problem with Bush raising the issue is with people who disagree.

Naturally Athiests don't give a damn regarding a reward in the afterlife for "wholesome" values. That's their lot.




{I hope I haven't offended anyone's lack of faith}

[barend]

see, organised religion is evil. to solve the worlds problems I think any given religion should be limmited to 10 members. think about it... jihads/holy wars could not calim more then 20 lives, any act of violence commited on behalf of any particular religion would be narrowed down instantly to 10 suspects...

but I think religion is good for keeping people in line, an afterlife of metakarmic proportions instills people with a reason to do good.
which, as desp "doglover" ondent mentioned, makes athiests dangerous people. BUT this also makes catholics more dangerous because they can commit any atrocity and their maximum punishment will be in this life in the form of a confession and 3 'hail marys' and 2 'our fathers'

sorry, if I offended anyone but - wait who am I kidding, I'm not!! I have pleanty of catholic friends and they all agree with me!!! IN FACT they use it as a threat!!!

This post has been edited by barend: 03 March 2004 - 06:22 PM

[Supes]

sorry, if I offended anyone but - wait who am I kidding, I'm not!! I have pleanty of catholic friends and they all agree with me!!! IN FACT they use it as a threat!!!

Cut off their access to a confessional and watch 'em cry barend. Their threat is only as good as their ability to run to a priest and say I'm sorry after the act.

[jyd]

see, organised religion is evil. to solve the worlds problems I think any given religion should be limmited to 10 members. think about it... jihads/holy wars could not calim more then 20 lives, any act of violence commited on behalf of any particular religion would be narrowed down instantly to 10 suspects...

but I think religion is good for keeping people in line, an afterlife of metakarmic proportions instills people with a reason to do good.
which, as desp "doglover" ondent mentioned, makes athiests dangerous people. BUT this also makes catholics more dangerous because they can commit any atrocity and their maximum punishment will be in this life in the form of a confession and 3 'hail marys' and 2 'our fathers'

sorry, if I offended anyone but - wait who am I kidding, I'm not!! I have pleanty of catholic friends and they all agree with me!!! IN FACT they use it as a threat!!!

not a bad idea karl marx, i mean barend...

[Despondent]

which, as desp "doglover" ondent mentioned,

de-spon-dent


and yes, I do love dogs, kind of like I love God.
care to make a sexual inference there?

[civilian_number_two]

HUMAN rights as defined by what, the constitution? So doesn't it make sense resolving the issue would involve the constitution? The only problem with Bush raising the issue is with people who disagree.

Sure, I guess. And since Bush only wants to alter the part of the Constitution that refers to Marriage, aomeone ought to tell him that the constitution doesn't refer to Marriage in any way. And with good reason: the courts, and the individual States, have power over the law.

Bush wants to wrest the control from the States, and centralize it, over such a small issue as Marriage Rights. And essentially in the name of Jesus, no less. What might be next? Whoever said this is a Pandora's box is right.

Sorry if I offended you, God-fucker (there's that "love God" sexual inference you wanted). But if only the Jesus people want this ban on marriage, then it's a matter of Church and State.

I just don't get what the big deal is. Can't the Jesus crowd just do what they always did, bitterly divorce themselves from the issue and secretly wish hell and torment on everyone they don't like? This business of trying to change the law to meet the needs of the dumbest President in history is like Salem all over again (only scaled up to the national level). That he's trying this in an election year shows not only how desperately he wants people to forget his warmongering but also how terrifying and mean-spirited the conservatives in America really are.

[jyd]

What might be next? Whoever said this is a Pandora's box is right.

ahh thank you....besides (but not excluding) that i am right you make very good points and i reiterate..seperation of church and state gonna go down the crapper

[Despondent]

Sorry if I offended you, God-f

Nate, love your forum.

However, I'm sure I can find better ways to spend my time.

[Chefelf]

Nate, love your forum.

However, I'm sure I can find better ways to spend my time.

Now, c'mon. We both know that's not true. This is the pinnacle of online entertainment.

[barend]

jvd: why, what did karl marx say on the issue?

civ#2: maybe aomeone will.

de-spon-dent: $10 says you don't. (oh and $20 on that life on mars thing while we're at it...)

[Heccubus]

Like I said before, someone should really start up a "Needlessly Long-Running Religious Debate" forum. Seems to be something that comes up quite regularily around these here parts.