|
Debate
Feb 7, 2005 13:47:07 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 7, 2005 13:47:07 GMT -5
And in Coventry its illegal to drive a taxi without a bail of hay in the boot.
Those laws make about as much sense as that one today
Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 8, 2005 0:34:17 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 8, 2005 0:34:17 GMT -5
Welcome to the theocracy of the United States of America. I truly hope you stay on the right side of religion. No one's going to help you if you get on the wrong. It's truly sad that this was made into law.
Wonder how it will stand up to Constitutional challenge?
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 8, 2005 2:16:22 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 8, 2005 2:16:22 GMT -5
A little while later: No, it's not out of context. The EXACT same arguements were used to support miscengenation laws as are being used to support anti-gay marriage laws. They're identical. Note the references to the Bible. Note the tone and the arguements. If we allow mixed marriages, we will destroy the moral fabric of the nation. Take Virginia: Sound familiar? Sounds an awful lot like the arguements against gay adoption. Change the word racial to moral and you've got the same arguement. It continues: Note, this is not some wing nut Neo-Nazi, this is the TRIAL JUDGE. But, the tone is still the same. He separated the races (sexes) because he didn't intend the races (sexes) to mix. By allowing gay marriage, oops, sorry, mixed marriage, we interfere with God's work. See how easy it is to just add and subtract words? They slide right in. Perfect fit. It's like the anti-Gay crowd took a template from these guys and just filled in the blanks. It is my fervent hope that a generation or two from now, people will look back on this with the same disdain that we look back on miscengenation laws. That decent people will be able to get past the whole thing and do what's right instead of what certain groups say is right. BTW, my quotes are from here
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 8, 2005 10:07:27 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 8, 2005 10:07:27 GMT -5
Good GOD!!! All that for nothing!! You are aurguing about interacial relationships!! I have nothign against that what so ever. And here we have people in other contries telling me whats best in this country.... OH WAIT!! Now im going here about the big bad mean US . WATCH OUT!!
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 8, 2005 16:06:21 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 8, 2005 16:06:21 GMT -5
he's comparing your arguements to the arguements used against interracial marraged in the 50's
There fore he's putting it to you that as the arguements are the same if one is invalid so is the other
Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 8, 2005 20:36:52 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 8, 2005 20:36:52 GMT -5
You are using a aurgument that is over 50 years old and virtually forgotten. Why, because back then inter-racial couples had the courage to stand up to BIGATORY and hate! they proved that the UNION between a MAN & a WOMAN, regardless of color, could produce a healthy child. The inter-racial isssue is more or less forgotten now,(thank God) and we slowly move on.
But dont forget, it is simply not natual for those of the same sex. The Bible cleary thats that:
[glow=blue,2,300]Romans 1: 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
God says homosexuality is not natural. [/glow]
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 8, 2005 21:51:56 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 8, 2005 21:51:56 GMT -5
Didn't know there are so many of them darn english tea'hers in here. Fir us grammer inpared peo'ples. I try ta be mure wishy washy in the fu'ture. Not stick to what I thinn'n. (mus be a pop'lar poll going on hear)
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 9, 2005 0:46:52 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 9, 2005 0:46:52 GMT -5
Thank you for proving my point. Quoting scripture to create laws. Exactly in the same manner that those in the 1950's quoted scripture to prevent mixed marriage. Oh, and look, gay couples have the courage to stand up to the BIGOTRY and Hate.
YOUR God says homosexuality is unnatural. Not mine. And, again, YOU CANNOT MAKE LAWS BASED ON SCRIPTURE! Laws in America ARE NOT TO BE MADE BASED ON THE BIBLE.
Until you start making laws for selling your sister, stoning your mother for wearing two types of cloth and promoting genocide, please don't point to the Bible as a source of legal precidence.
You've repeatedly stated that marriage is for the production of children. IF that's true, then why are sterile men and women allowed to marry. They cannot produce children. Why are they allowed to marry if gay couples cannot?
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 9, 2005 11:04:18 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 9, 2005 11:04:18 GMT -5
So you decided to drop the contitutional part of the argument. Good idea Hussar.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 9, 2005 12:19:45 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 9, 2005 12:19:45 GMT -5
I don't think so Galadon. I think he's trying to point out that your consitution forbits the creation of religious laws.
Elros just a warning but starting to quote scripture in here is going to start prevocking religious arguements with the likes of me who get real pissed, real easy with the whole idea.
I dislike religious debates because I dislike offending peoples religious beliefs but I can and will poke holes in any religious texts and the beliefs behind them if people start quoting them like I should follow them. Do us all a favor and leave god at the door please.
Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 9, 2005 12:45:42 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 9, 2005 12:45:42 GMT -5
"Congress shall make no laws repecting an establishment of religion."
This was put in to prevent having another Church of England. To prevent a government religion. You see you have to read ALL the words. Not just the ones you like.
But I'm sure the left will find a way to twist this around. I have another for you. The Contitution was designed to protect us FROM the federal government.
The myth is still out there but it is not true. There is no such thing in this country as a seperation of church and state. The states are independent, unless IN DETAIL, refer to in the Contitution.
I know it burns the left, but there is nothing stopping states from making religious based laws. If the people in that state don't mind then the law stays. You see we have something in this country called FREEDOM.
People decide what goes on here. Not the ranting of less than 1% of the population who what every done there way. If the people in certain states don't want people of the same sex to get married legally, then it won't happen. No matter how you scream, it's not fair.
There are laws in this country. You live here, you follow the laws of this country. Don't like the laws then try and change them the proper way. Ignore the laws, I would be glad to toss you in prison for 20 years. Don't like it here leave. Don't like America don't ever come here.
It's just that simple.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 9, 2005 12:48:39 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 9, 2005 12:48:39 GMT -5
I was rather under the impression the consitution said different but if thats the quote thats the quote.
the lovely thing about these old style documents is just how easy they are to twist and bend due to the language used.
Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 9, 2005 15:28:51 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 9, 2005 15:28:51 GMT -5
OK Challenger, Ill leave out "quotiing" the Bible since it offends you so.....
Also I have another problem with homosexuals in general. You can call it Gay bashing all you want, but the stats are there. Just to let you all know, yes I do have a gay friend,Jim, who plays D&D every 2 weeks with the group Im in. he knows about my views and respects them as I do his. Now onto the info:
Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on current surveys. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as “homosexual” or “bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.
Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.
For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.
Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”
This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:
The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)
In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)
In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)
Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)
From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts. While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 9, 2005 20:13:42 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 9, 2005 20:13:42 GMT -5
Not only did I read the Constitution but from out from the founding fathers, why they put things in there.
You can find alot of that in the federalist papers.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 10, 2005 2:59:10 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 10, 2005 2:59:10 GMT -5
People who want to discuss the meaning of the Constitution should keep up with Supreme Court rulings on the matter. The Constitution is not a static document. It is changed constantly by precedent and that precedent is set by the Supreme Court. Now, if you think there is no precedent for the seperation of church and state, take a little look at Constitutional case history.
Hey, why not start with the Mormons? What was the main reason for the federal government to make laws in regards to the church of Mormon? ((Hint, it has to do with religion))
As far as Elros' feelings about gays, again, IT DOESN'T MATTER. You can hate gays all you like. That is 100% your right, just as it's your right to hate anyone. Again, what you can't do is write that hate into law.
I look at it this way. On one hand, I can allow gays to get married, which in no way impacts on anyone else and makes an admittedly small, minority happy. On the other hand, I can side with the KKK and other bigot groups and craft laws to ensure that minorities are not granted the same rights as everyone else.
Guess which side I come down on.
|
|