9th Circuit Craps On Arizona Voters...AGAIN!

[Vandalshandle]

Yes, simple, as in silly, stupid, shallow, and illiterate. marriage carried no such verbiage until 1996, when same-sex couples were discovered getting married, and Right-Wing moralists started shitting themselves, and rushed to their state capitols to change the definitions in the laws. Now that the courts have all been ruling that those changes were neither legal, nor valid, same-sex marriages are once again becoming legally accepted much to the chagrin of the Right-Wing moralists. Well, sucks to be you.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. I well recall the debates of the 1970s and 80s wherein the opposition to the acceptance of homosexuals (Shutting down the sodomy laws) were concerned with the Homosexuals asking to be married if such laws were dropped and the advocacy of the normalization of sexual abnormality REELING IN DISGUST AT THE TEMERITY OF THE OPPOSITION TO EVEN SUGGEST SUCH! "No homosexual would ever considering trying to get married. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That goes without saying...' CNN Crossfire... Early 80s.

Prior to that, no one really considered the world devolving to the point where such would need to be openly and specifically defined. That doesn't mean that it was not defined that way before evil advanced to the point where it needed to be EXPRESSED!

Your concession is duly noted, and accepted.

Expression is definition. Hence by adding the expression, you altered the definition. Prior to the meddling by the moralists marriage was not so defined by law. How moralists "always defined" the term is of no relevance.

Expression is: the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.


I hope that helps, while somehow knowing that it will not.

Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.

Oh... that's sweet and I appreciate the flattery. But just stating that someone conceded is not a very effective argument. For it to work you must actually be able to show that your opposition has fled the field of the discussion through some means to deflect, or by pushing an unsustainable defense.

Since I have engaged, directly and without exception you're every point, you have no means to show that I've turn from any point within the numerous corpses that litter this field, known as your dead arguments.
But I appreciate your attempt to mimic my approach, it's very sweet of you.

If I went that way, I'm sure you'd make me very happy. Sadly, I am a well reasoned person whose sexuality is perfectly in step with nature's design. So I must flag you off.

Keys, you fail to understand that there is no argument, nor is there any concession. The war is over, and your side lost. Take a Valium, and find a new cause. Trust me. It might save you from having a heart attack.

 

[Czernobog]

EDIT: And there ya have it folks, it's been well over a half hour and the member is still here, so they're clearly unable to find a way out of this.

But at the end of the day, evil rejects anything that serves to promote the principles of nature that sustain a viable human existence. Standards provide for a viable, sustainable human existence. Therefore evil will attack ALL STANDARDS!

Now ask yourselves, without the means to hold to standards, what are the chances for survival of the United States?

(Those of you that came up with something that looks like THIS: -0- win! Congrats.)

So there's no chance that the Left will speak to that question... now write it down and ask it ... over and over and over again!

To your EDIT, let me ask this. Let us allow you your presumption that moral standards are "necessary" for the continued existence of the United States. I disagree, but we'll go with that, for the sake of argument.

Whose? Whose standards do we use? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? And who gets to decide which standards are...valid? What you are suggesting is a "Morality Committee". Who gets to head that, and from whence does the authority for that come? Because, I'm pretty sure it isn't Constitutional.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why was it impossible for Keys to answer yes or no to a simple question. Methinks he didn't like to be nailed down to a clear answer. Now.....why would THAT be?

Did you , or did you not hide the fact that you were a homosexual from the Navy while serving, knowing full well that being a homosexual was against the UCMJ?

Bet you don't answer that simple yes or no question.

 

[Czernobog]

Expression is: the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.


I hope that helps, while somehow knowing that it will not.

Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.

Oh... that's sweet and I appreciate the flattery. But just stating that someone conceded is not a very effective argument. For it to work you must actually be able to show that your opposition has fled the field of the discussion through some means to deflect, or by pushing an unsustainable defense.

Since I have engaged, directly and without exception you're every point, you have no means to show that I've turn from any point within the numerous corpses that litter this field, known as your dead arguments.
But I appreciate your attempt to mimic my approach, it's very sweet of you.

If I went that way, I'm sure you'd make me very happy. Sadly, I am a well reasoned person whose sexuality is perfectly in step with nature's design. So I must flag you off.

Aren't you running away from Toro?

Are you trolling too? I find your ignorance very amusing, but I will ignore you in a NY minute if you continue to distract this discussion with such irrelevancy.

Petecea IS a troll. Ask her about her "naval career" sometime. her story has her lying about her sexual orientation for at least 10 years to serve as a naval aviator, so either she lied about that, or she's been lying for what I can see is about 10 years online. Either way, she has no integrity and so you owe her nothing of the like in return.

Actually, depending on when she was a naval aviator, it required no such thing. Remember "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? For almost 20 years, gays could serve in the military without having to lie about it, as no one was allowed to ask. They just weren't allowed to comment, either. Not saying, is not the same as lying. That was the whole point of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

EDIT: And there ya have it folks, it's been well over a half hour and the member is still here, so they're clearly unable to find a way out of this.

But at the end of the day, evil rejects anything that serves to promote the principles of nature that sustain a viable human existence. Standards provide for a viable, sustainable human existence. Therefore evil will attack ALL STANDARDS!

Now ask yourselves, without the means to hold to standards, what are the chances for survival of the United States?

(Those of you that came up with something that looks like THIS: -0- win! Congrats.)

So there's no chance that the Left will speak to that question... now write it down and ask it ... over and over and over again!

To your EDIT, let me ask this. Let us allow you your presumption that moral standards are "necessary" for the continued existence of the United States. I disagree, but we'll go with that, for the sake of argument.

Whose? Whose standards do we use? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? And who gets to decide which standards are...valid? What you are suggesting is a "Morality Committee". Who gets to head that, and from whence does the authority for that come? Because, I'm pretty sure it isn't Constitutional.

You would , once again be wrong.

Of course morality is part and parcel of the COTUS. That is why , for example, slavery was outlawed by constitutional amendment. That is why the 18th was orginally passed, that is why the 19th was passed, the 15th, etc etc.

Who's morality you ask? Christians of course. NO matter how much you hate that, our nation was founded on Christian moral principles.

The ONLY question is where to draw the line.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.

Oh... that's sweet and I appreciate the flattery. But just stating that someone conceded is not a very effective argument. For it to work you must actually be able to show that your opposition has fled the field of the discussion through some means to deflect, or by pushing an unsustainable defense.

Since I have engaged, directly and without exception you're every point, you have no means to show that I've turn from any point within the numerous corpses that litter this field, known as your dead arguments.
But I appreciate your attempt to mimic my approach, it's very sweet of you.

If I went that way, I'm sure you'd make me very happy. Sadly, I am a well reasoned person whose sexuality is perfectly in step with nature's design. So I must flag you off.

Aren't you running away from Toro?

Are you trolling too? I find your ignorance very amusing, but I will ignore you in a NY minute if you continue to distract this discussion with such irrelevancy.

Petecea IS a troll. Ask her about her "naval career" sometime. her story has her lying about her sexual orientation for at least 10 years to serve as a naval aviator, so either she lied about that, or she's been lying for what I can see is about 10 years online. Either way, she has no integrity and so you owe her nothing of the like in return.

Actually, depending on when she was a naval aviator, it required no such thing. Remember "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? For almost 20 years, gays could serve in the military without having to lie about it, as no one was allowed to ask. They just weren't allowed to comment, either. Not saying, is not the same as lying. That was the whole point of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Too bad she served from 1979 until sometime in the late 90s I forget which year she claims to have retired.

THe fact is she's been busted as lying about serving anyway. I was just making a point.

 

[bodecea]

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. I well recall the debates of the 1970s and 80s wherein the opposition to the acceptance of homosexuals (Shutting down the sodomy laws) were concerned with the Homosexuals asking to be married if such laws were dropped and the advocacy of the normalization of sexual abnormality REELING IN DISGUST AT THE TEMERITY OF THE OPPOSITION TO EVEN SUGGEST SUCH! "No homosexual would ever considering trying to get married. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That goes without saying...' CNN Crossfire... Early 80s.

Prior to that, no one really considered the world devolving to the point where such would need to be openly and specifically defined. That doesn't mean that it was not defined that way before evil advanced to the point where it needed to be EXPRESSED!

Your concession is duly noted, and accepted.

Expression is definition. Hence by adding the expression, you altered the definition. Prior to the meddling by the moralists marriage was not so defined by law. How moralists "always defined" the term is of no relevance.

Expression is: the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.


I hope that helps, while somehow knowing that it will not.

Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.

Oh... that's sweet and I appreciate the flattery. But just stating that someone conceded is not a very effective argument. For it to work you must actually be able to show that your opposition has fled the field of the discussion through some means to deflect, or by pushing an unsustainable defense.

Since I have engaged, directly and without exception you're every point, you have no means to show that I've turn from any point within the numerous corpses that litter this field, known as your dead arguments.
But I appreciate your attempt to mimic my approach, it's very sweet of you.

If I went that way, I'm sure you'd make me very happy. Sadly, I am a well reasoned person whose sexuality is perfectly in step with nature's design. So I must flag you off.

Keys, you fail to understand that there is no argument, nor is there any concession. The war is over, and your side lost. Take a Valium, and find a new cause. Trust me. It might save you from having a heart attack.

They feel so helpless now......that's where it comes from.

 

[bodecea]

EDIT: And there ya have it folks, it's been well over a half hour and the member is still here, so they're clearly unable to find a way out of this.

But at the end of the day, evil rejects anything that serves to promote the principles of nature that sustain a viable human existence. Standards provide for a viable, sustainable human existence. Therefore evil will attack ALL STANDARDS!

Now ask yourselves, without the means to hold to standards, what are the chances for survival of the United States?

(Those of you that came up with something that looks like THIS: -0- win! Congrats.)

So there's no chance that the Left will speak to that question... now write it down and ask it ... over and over and over again!

To your EDIT, let me ask this. Let us allow you your presumption that moral standards are "necessary" for the continued existence of the United States. I disagree, but we'll go with that, for the sake of argument.

Whose? Whose standards do we use? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? And who gets to decide which standards are...valid? What you are suggesting is a "Morality Committee". Who gets to head that, and from whence does the authority for that come? Because, I'm pretty sure it isn't Constitutional.

Golden rule works with all religions and without religion. "Do unto others....."

 

[bodecea]

Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.

Oh... that's sweet and I appreciate the flattery. But just stating that someone conceded is not a very effective argument. For it to work you must actually be able to show that your opposition has fled the field of the discussion through some means to deflect, or by pushing an unsustainable defense.

Since I have engaged, directly and without exception you're every point, you have no means to show that I've turn from any point within the numerous corpses that litter this field, known as your dead arguments.
But I appreciate your attempt to mimic my approach, it's very sweet of you.

If I went that way, I'm sure you'd make me very happy. Sadly, I am a well reasoned person whose sexuality is perfectly in step with nature's design. So I must flag you off.

Aren't you running away from Toro?

Are you trolling too? I find your ignorance very amusing, but I will ignore you in a NY minute if you continue to distract this discussion with such irrelevancy.

Petecea IS a troll. Ask her about her "naval career" sometime. her story has her lying about her sexual orientation for at least 10 years to serve as a naval aviator, so either she lied about that, or she's been lying for what I can see is about 10 years online. Either way, she has no integrity and so you owe her nothing of the like in return.

Actually, depending on when she was a naval aviator, it required no such thing. Remember "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? For almost 20 years, gays could serve in the military without having to lie about it, as no one was allowed to ask. They just weren't allowed to comment, either. Not saying, is not the same as lying. That was the whole point of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Someone just can't stop talking about me.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oh... that's sweet and I appreciate the flattery. But just stating that someone conceded is not a very effective argument. For it to work you must actually be able to show that your opposition has fled the field of the discussion through some means to deflect, or by pushing an unsustainable defense.

Since I have engaged, directly and without exception you're every point, you have no means to show that I've turn from any point within the numerous corpses that litter this field, known as your dead arguments.
But I appreciate your attempt to mimic my approach, it's very sweet of you.

If I went that way, I'm sure you'd make me very happy. Sadly, I am a well reasoned person whose sexuality is perfectly in step with nature's design. So I must flag you off.

Aren't you running away from Toro?

Are you trolling too? I find your ignorance very amusing, but I will ignore you in a NY minute if you continue to distract this discussion with such irrelevancy.

Petecea IS a troll. Ask her about her "naval career" sometime. her story has her lying about her sexual orientation for at least 10 years to serve as a naval aviator, so either she lied about that, or she's been lying for what I can see is about 10 years online. Either way, she has no integrity and so you owe her nothing of the like in return.

Actually, depending on when she was a naval aviator, it required no such thing. Remember "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? For almost 20 years, gays could serve in the military without having to lie about it, as no one was allowed to ask. They just weren't allowed to comment, either. Not saying, is not the same as lying. That was the whole point of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Someone just can't stop talking about me.

Can't answer a simple yes or no question eh?

Your hypocrisy and dishonesty knows no bounds.

 

[Czernobog]

EDIT: And there ya have it folks, it's been well over a half hour and the member is still here, so they're clearly unable to find a way out of this.

But at the end of the day, evil rejects anything that serves to promote the principles of nature that sustain a viable human existence. Standards provide for a viable, sustainable human existence. Therefore evil will attack ALL STANDARDS!

Now ask yourselves, without the means to hold to standards, what are the chances for survival of the United States?

(Those of you that came up with something that looks like THIS: -0- win! Congrats.)

So there's no chance that the Left will speak to that question... now write it down and ask it ... over and over and over again!

To your EDIT, let me ask this. Let us allow you your presumption that moral standards are "necessary" for the continued existence of the United States. I disagree, but we'll go with that, for the sake of argument.

Whose? Whose standards do we use? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? And who gets to decide which standards are...valid? What you are suggesting is a "Morality Committee". Who gets to head that, and from whence does the authority for that come? Because, I'm pretty sure it isn't Constitutional.

You would , once again be wrong.

Of course morality is part and parcel of the COTUS. That is why , for example, slavery was outlawed by constitutional amendment. That is why the 18th was orginally passed, that is why the 19th was passed, the 15th, etc etc.

Actually, the 18th was a mistake. That is why the 19th was passed; to correct the mistake of injecting morality into the Law. The Law is not about morality, no matter how much you want it to be.

Who's morality you ask? Christians of course. NO matter how much you hate that, our nation was founded on Christian moral principles.

Wrong again. You really should consider changing your name; it doesn't really fit. The Constitution was founded on principles that happen to be found among Christian doctrine. Guess what? The same can be said of Islam, Hindu, even Buddhism. The majority of the framers of the Constition were not even Christian - they were theists.

So, I ask again, who gets to decide who heads your "Morality Committee", and under what authority, because, as much as you would like it otherwise, we are not, and have never been a "Christian" nation, and the Constitution specifically prohibits religion from dictating law (1st amendment); thus the authority is not Constitutional.

 

[bodecea]

EDIT: And there ya have it folks, it's been well over a half hour and the member is still here, so they're clearly unable to find a way out of this.

But at the end of the day, evil rejects anything that serves to promote the principles of nature that sustain a viable human existence. Standards provide for a viable, sustainable human existence. Therefore evil will attack ALL STANDARDS!

Now ask yourselves, without the means to hold to standards, what are the chances for survival of the United States?

(Those of you that came up with something that looks like THIS: -0- win! Congrats.)

So there's no chance that the Left will speak to that question... now write it down and ask it ... over and over and over again!

To your EDIT, let me ask this. Let us allow you your presumption that moral standards are "necessary" for the continued existence of the United States. I disagree, but we'll go with that, for the sake of argument.

Whose? Whose standards do we use? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? And who gets to decide which standards are...valid? What you are suggesting is a "Morality Committee". Who gets to head that, and from whence does the authority for that come? Because, I'm pretty sure it isn't Constitutional.

You would , once again be wrong.

Of course morality is part and parcel of the COTUS. That is why , for example, slavery was outlawed by constitutional amendment. That is why the 18th was orginally passed, that is why the 19th was passed, the 15th, etc etc.

Actually, the 18th was a mistake. That is why the 19th was passed; to correct the mistake of injecting morality into the Law. The Law is not about morality, no matter how much you want it to be.

Who's morality you ask? Christians of course. NO matter how much you hate that, our nation was founded on Christian moral principles.

Wrong again. You really should consider changing your name; it doesn't really fit. The Constitution was founded on principles that happen to be found among Christian doctrine. Guess what? The same can be said of Islam, Hindu, even Buddhism. The majority of the framers of the Constition were not even Christian - they were theists.

So, I ask again, who gets to decide who heads your "Morality Committee", and under what authority, because, as much as you would like it otherwise, we are not, and have never been a "Christian" nation, and the Constitution specifically prohibits religion from dictating law (1st amendment); thus the authority is not Constitutional.

The Constitution is the child of the Enlightenment....people like John Locke...Montesquieu...Freemasonry. When going to Philadelphia, James Madison brought a ton of books written by Enlightenment authors to help with the framing of the Constitution.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

EDIT: And there ya have it folks, it's been well over a half hour and the member is still here, so they're clearly unable to find a way out of this.

But at the end of the day, evil rejects anything that serves to promote the principles of nature that sustain a viable human existence. Standards provide for a viable, sustainable human existence. Therefore evil will attack ALL STANDARDS!

Now ask yourselves, without the means to hold to standards, what are the chances for survival of the United States?

(Those of you that came up with something that looks like THIS: -0- win! Congrats.)

So there's no chance that the Left will speak to that question... now write it down and ask it ... over and over and over again!

To your EDIT, let me ask this. Let us allow you your presumption that moral standards are "necessary" for the continued existence of the United States. I disagree, but we'll go with that, for the sake of argument.

Whose? Whose standards do we use? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? And who gets to decide which standards are...valid? What you are suggesting is a "Morality Committee". Who gets to head that, and from whence does the authority for that come? Because, I'm pretty sure it isn't Constitutional.

You would , once again be wrong.

Of course morality is part and parcel of the COTUS. That is why , for example, slavery was outlawed by constitutional amendment. That is why the 18th was orginally passed, that is why the 19th was passed, the 15th, etc etc.

Actually, the 18th was a mistake. That is why the 19th was passed; to correct the mistake of injecting morality into the Law. The Law is not about morality, no matter how much you want it to be.

Who's morality you ask? Christians of course. NO matter how much you hate that, our nation was founded on Christian moral principles.

Wrong again. You really should consider changing your name; it doesn't really fit. The Constitution was founded on principles that happen to be found among Christian doctrine. Guess what? The same can be said of Islam, Hindu, even Buddhism. The majority of the framers of the Constition were not even Christian - they were theists.

So, I ask again, who gets to decide who heads your "Morality Committee", and under what authority, because, as much as you would like it otherwise, we are not, and have never been a "Christian" nation, and the Constitution specifically prohibits religion from dictating law (1st amendment); thus the authority is not Constitutional.

I didn't say we were a christian nation. I said our morals were based on Christian morals, and they certainly were.

Why you would even argue that point is beyond comprehension. It's just stupid, do you not understand that beign a Christian nation is not the same as having Christian morals? Hell , I know a lot of people who are not Christians who share the same moral code as I do, and they admit that yes they believe in Christian morals, they just don't believe in a Christian God.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

EDIT: And there ya have it folks, it's been well over a half hour and the member is still here, so they're clearly unable to find a way out of this.

But at the end of the day, evil rejects anything that serves to promote the principles of nature that sustain a viable human existence. Standards provide for a viable, sustainable human existence. Therefore evil will attack ALL STANDARDS!

Now ask yourselves, without the means to hold to standards, what are the chances for survival of the United States?

(Those of you that came up with something that looks like THIS: -0- win! Congrats.)

So there's no chance that the Left will speak to that question... now write it down and ask it ... over and over and over again!

To your EDIT, let me ask this. Let us allow you your presumption that moral standards are "necessary" for the continued existence of the United States. I disagree, but we'll go with that, for the sake of argument.

Whose? Whose standards do we use? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? And who gets to decide which standards are...valid? What you are suggesting is a "Morality Committee". Who gets to head that, and from whence does the authority for that come? Because, I'm pretty sure it isn't Constitutional.

You would , once again be wrong.

Of course morality is part and parcel of the COTUS. That is why , for example, slavery was outlawed by constitutional amendment. That is why the 18th was orginally passed, that is why the 19th was passed, the 15th, etc etc.

Actually, the 18th was a mistake. That is why the 19th was passed; to correct the mistake of injecting morality into the Law. The Law is not about morality, no matter how much you want it to be.

Who's morality you ask? Christians of course. NO matter how much you hate that, our nation was founded on Christian moral principles.

Wrong again. You really should consider changing your name; it doesn't really fit. The Constitution was founded on principles that happen to be found among Christian doctrine. Guess what? The same can be said of Islam, Hindu, even Buddhism. The majority of the framers of the Constition were not even Christian - they were theists.

So, I ask again, who gets to decide who heads your "Morality Committee", and under what authority, because, as much as you would like it otherwise, we are not, and have never been a "Christian" nation, and the Constitution specifically prohibits religion from dictating law (1st amendment); thus the authority is not Constitutional.

The Constitution is the child of the Enlightenment....people like John Locke...Montesquieu...Freemasonry. When going to Philadelphia, James Madison brought a ton of books written by Enlightenment authors to help with the framing of the Constitution.

Oh certainly, the Continental Congress wanted NOTHING to do with Christianity.

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress

Damn you are dumb Petecea.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

While the concept of two males gnawing on each others nether regions is nauseating, what they do behind closed doors is their business and if the person cares so much for his partner that he wishes for him to be a part of his life and that he should be entitled to similar benefits that married couples are, then I don't see a problem with it. They aren't interferring with men and women getting married and thus marriage isn't in jeopardy. As for comments like breaking from the US and having a separate republic, that won't stop homosexuals from being born within your borders. They're born homosexual, not made homosexual.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

While the concept of two males gnawing on each others nether regions is nauseating, what they do behind closed doors is their business and if the person cares so much for his partner that he wishes for him to be a part of his life and that he should be entitled to similar benefits that married couples are, then I don't see a problem with it. They aren't interferring with men and women getting married and thus marriage isn't in jeopardy. As for comments like breaking from the US and having a separate republic, that won't stop homosexuals from being born within your borders. They're born homosexual, not made homosexual.[/QUOTE]

At best there are both.

 

[Czernobog]

EDIT: And there ya have it folks, it's been well over a half hour and the member is still here, so they're clearly unable to find a way out of this.

But at the end of the day, evil rejects anything that serves to promote the principles of nature that sustain a viable human existence. Standards provide for a viable, sustainable human existence. Therefore evil will attack ALL STANDARDS!

Now ask yourselves, without the means to hold to standards, what are the chances for survival of the United States?

(Those of you that came up with something that looks like THIS: -0- win! Congrats.)

So there's no chance that the Left will speak to that question... now write it down and ask it ... over and over and over again!

To your EDIT, let me ask this. Let us allow you your presumption that moral standards are "necessary" for the continued existence of the United States. I disagree, but we'll go with that, for the sake of argument.

Whose? Whose standards do we use? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? And who gets to decide which standards are...valid? What you are suggesting is a "Morality Committee". Who gets to head that, and from whence does the authority for that come? Because, I'm pretty sure it isn't Constitutional.

You would , once again be wrong.

Of course morality is part and parcel of the COTUS. That is why , for example, slavery was outlawed by constitutional amendment. That is why the 18th was orginally passed, that is why the 19th was passed, the 15th, etc etc.

Actually, the 18th was a mistake. That is why the 19th was passed; to correct the mistake of injecting morality into the Law. The Law is not about morality, no matter how much you want it to be.

Who's morality you ask? Christians of course. NO matter how much you hate that, our nation was founded on Christian moral principles.

Wrong again. You really should consider changing your name; it doesn't really fit. The Constitution was founded on principles that happen to be found among Christian doctrine. Guess what? The same can be said of Islam, Hindu, even Buddhism. The majority of the framers of the Constition were not even Christian - they were theists.

So, I ask again, who gets to decide who heads your "Morality Committee", and under what authority, because, as much as you would like it otherwise, we are not, and have never been a "Christian" nation, and the Constitution specifically prohibits religion from dictating law (1st amendment); thus the authority is not Constitutional.

I didn't say we were a christian nation. I said our morals were based on Christian morals, and they certainly were.

Why you would even argue that point is beyond comprehension. It's just stupid, do you not understand that beign a Christian nation is not the same as having Christian morals? Hell , I know a lot of people who are not Christians who share the same moral code as I do, and they admit that yes they believe in Christian morals, they just don't believe in a Christian God.

You do know what a weak analogy is, right? you can't claim that simply because the Constitution happens to have principles that can be found in Christian Doctrine that the Constitution must be founded on Christian principles. Well, I mean, you can, but it is a logical fallacy; especially when considered along side the fact that those same principles can be found in several other religious doctrines. So, how do you decide that it was specifically Christianity that formed the basis?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

EDIT: And there ya have it folks, it's been well over a half hour and the member is still here, so they're clearly unable to find a way out of this.

But at the end of the day, evil rejects anything that serves to promote the principles of nature that sustain a viable human existence. Standards provide for a viable, sustainable human existence. Therefore evil will attack ALL STANDARDS!

Now ask yourselves, without the means to hold to standards, what are the chances for survival of the United States?

(Those of you that came up with something that looks like THIS: -0- win! Congrats.)

So there's no chance that the Left will speak to that question... now write it down and ask it ... over and over and over again!

To your EDIT, let me ask this. Let us allow you your presumption that moral standards are "necessary" for the continued existence of the United States. I disagree, but we'll go with that, for the sake of argument.

Whose? Whose standards do we use? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? And who gets to decide which standards are...valid? What you are suggesting is a "Morality Committee". Who gets to head that, and from whence does the authority for that come? Because, I'm pretty sure it isn't Constitutional.

You would , once again be wrong.

Of course morality is part and parcel of the COTUS. That is why , for example, slavery was outlawed by constitutional amendment. That is why the 18th was orginally passed, that is why the 19th was passed, the 15th, etc etc.

Actually, the 18th was a mistake. That is why the 19th was passed; to correct the mistake of injecting morality into the Law. The Law is not about morality, no matter how much you want it to be.

Who's morality you ask? Christians of course. NO matter how much you hate that, our nation was founded on Christian moral principles.

Wrong again. You really should consider changing your name; it doesn't really fit. The Constitution was founded on principles that happen to be found among Christian doctrine. Guess what? The same can be said of Islam, Hindu, even Buddhism. The majority of the framers of the Constition were not even Christian - they were theists.

So, I ask again, who gets to decide who heads your "Morality Committee", and under what authority, because, as much as you would like it otherwise, we are not, and have never been a "Christian" nation, and the Constitution specifically prohibits religion from dictating law (1st amendment); thus the authority is not Constitutional.

I didn't say we were a christian nation. I said our morals were based on Christian morals, and they certainly were.

Why you would even argue that point is beyond comprehension. It's just stupid, do you not understand that beign a Christian nation is not the same as having Christian morals? Hell , I know a lot of people who are not Christians who share the same moral code as I do, and they admit that yes they believe in Christian morals, they just don't believe in a Christian God.

You do know what a weak analogy is, right? you can't claim that simply because the Constitution happens to have principles that can be found in Christian Doctrine that the Constitution must be founded on Christian principles. Well, I mean, you can, but it is a logical fallacy; especially when considered along side the fact that those same principles can be found in several other religious doctrines. So, how do you decide that it was specifically Christianity that formed the basis?

Because Christians wrote the damn thing. Duh. It's stupid to think that maybe they were using Jewish doctrine or something

LOL you guys will go to ANY lengths to deny simple facts won't you.

Look, I'm okay with saying that Christianity shares many moral principles with other religions. But you can't deny that Christians probably based their document on CHRISTIAN principles.

In fact, this why many people started questioning slavery, as an example. They begin to question, would Christ really support slavery??? And the answer they came up with was no He wouldn't, so the abolitionist movement sprang up.

Talk about a logical fallacy LOL"Yes , okay the Christians who wrote our COTUS did use reliogous morals when doing so, but it wasn't Christian morals" LOL

 

[Czernobog]

Because Christians wrote the damn thing. Duh.

Except they didn't! Duh! Theists, are not the same as Christian, no matter how much you would like it to be so.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Because Christians wrote the damn thing. Duh.

Except they didn't! Duh! Theists, are not the same as Christian, no matter how much you would like it to be so.

Bullshit. They were mostly CHRISTIANS

There were 55 delegates in the Constitutional Congress in 1787 and 49 of them were Protestants.

Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you can't acknowledge known facts then I am done with this conversation.