Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
who advocates communism? the boogey man?
::sigh:: What is the point of starting over if you're just going to keep parroting the same mindless talking points without even attempting to comprehend the answers?
We are not talking about "banning" anything, first of all. Homosexual "marriage" has never BEEN legally recognized in this country, so to say that opponents of the idea are trying to "ban" it is blatantly dishonest mischaracterization and emotional propaganda.
Third, I have yet to say that my objection to homosexual "marriage" is because I think it is immoral and disgusting. YOU are the only one who keeps saying that, and I have been immensely patient with your incessant and increasingly offensive attempts to jam me into the box of what you have decided all opponents of homosexual "marriage" must be and what they think and to BY GOD stuff those words down my throat because you desperately want to argue against them so that you don't EVER have to actually listen to someone else's viewpoint, let alone think about it or consider the possibility that they MIGHT have a valid reason for disagreeing with you. I am now at the point where reading the words "because you think it's immoral and disgusting" is just flat-out offensive and I will now be taking it as a direct insult.
There's no such thing as a tyranny of the majority. Tyranny, by definition, is oppression of the people, and the people cannot oppress themselves.
You have three choices. You can either let the people choose their laws and their type of society for themselves, in which case most people will be happy and a small number will be disgruntled, or you can let a small group impose their "wisdom" on everyone else, which really IS a tyranny, or you can have absolutely no system or order whatsoever, in which case you will probably end up with a bunch of small tyrannies.
But to say, "I didn't get my way, so I'm being oppressed and tyrannized!" is just so much childish whining. If you can't convince people to agree with you, you lose. That's life. Deal with it, and wage a better fight next time.
You can, but you would sound stupid, because they DID have the right. Doesn't mean it was a good idea, but that's both the strength and the weakness of a free society: you have the freedom to fail and screw up royally. And you need to learn the difference between "This is a bad idea" and "You don't have the right to do it".
You have the Bill of Rights for a couple of reasons. First of all, the purpose of the Bill of Rights, despite what people seem to think, is NOT to protect the minority from the majority. It's to protect EVERYONE from a government that is temporarily out of touch with the will of the people. Or to look at it another way, it's to protect all of us from the government BECOMING out of touch with the will of the people. This crazy notion people have that the Bill of Rights sets up a blanket protection for minority groups from EVER having to live with any laws or strictures they don't like is just . . . well, crazy.
So your interpretation is what? That absolutely everything is a right, and no laws can EVER be passed limiting ANY behavior, because everyone has a right to do everything, in which case the Founding Fathers shouldn't even have wasted their time writing the Bill of Rights, since EVERYTHING is a protected, sovereign, inviolable right?
Get a grip and read the Tenth Amendment.
Yeah you're keeping an arguably bad status quo and you want things to remain banned, same thing really. The only difference is that it is banned and if wasn't you'd be asking for one.One more time. We aren't "banning" anything. THEY wanted to change the status quo, not us. THEY dragged their personal lives out into the public arena and demanded approval and sanction, and when THEY didn't get it, THEY started shouting that it's "none of our business".
It affects me because it has become a public issue of what the law will be.
Oh, and by the way, "How does it affect you?" is another way of asking why I hold my position while simultaneously making it clear that you have no interest in really hearing the answer
Everyone who does something wrong thinks it should've been legal. Everyone makes excuses. That doesn't mean they have objective reasons as to why it should be legal.Wrong. There are definitions by which those things should not be crimes. Those definitions belong to the people who want to commit those acts.
Yeah they're fringe groups and nuts. They don't use logic and just because certain groups disagree with those laws doesn't mean they have a good reason for doing so.They are a minority, and they are disgruntled that the majority is "tyrannizing" them by not letting them do as they please. You start from the assumption that everyone holds the same moral views you do, and then pretend that they aren't moral views, but simply "objective reality".
As I said, try having an objective debate with NAMBLA on the good, logical reasons that child porn and sex with minors should be crimes, and you'll find out EXACTLY how "objective and widespread" your definition of reality really is.
Also, every single one of those cases, and the more severe ones in other countries, came about because of an attitude in the government of those areas that said that homosexuality is officially the equivalent of heterosexuality and therefore it is proper to use the power of government to impose that attitude onto others.
The slippery slope fallacyIt is a situation that will only become worse if and when legalized homosexual "marriage" becomes widespread, precisely because the underlying purpose of the push for it IS to enable activists to use the power of government to bludgeon their opponents.
Go break it to Abraham Lincoln, pal. "Of the people, by the people, and for the people . . ." Ring any bells?
Yes, the government DOES serve the people, because that is the reason why we the people invest our power in it. And I see a very good reason why it shouldn't serve homosexual couples in this instance: because it is not proper for the government to serve a small group's special interests over and in opposition to the interests of the majority. Once again, that is the definition of "tyranny". Real tyranny, not the whiny spoiled child kind.
It was overturned by the Supreme Court, citing the first amendment, not by a popular vote.The only reason flag-burning, while distasteful to many and possibly most people, remains illegal: because the people themselves do not find allowing it as distasteful as they find the idea of making it illegal.
The government has to allow that because the people want them to. Once again, the people have the power to make that behavior illegal if they decide it is necessary. You confuse "has not criminalized" with "cannot criminalize". The Bill of Rights, and the rest of the US Constitution, are printed on sheepskin, not carved in stone.
You get the warm, fuzzy feeling of saying, "See what a good person I am, minding my own business and letting people live their lives just as they please", and you don't have to deal with the consequences of your attitudes, because YOU have taken YOUR family and moved away from those consequences. What do you care if it hurts the people who can't make that choice? It doesn't affect YOU, so you don't care.
Your attitude is that a small, vocal minority should be allowed to run roughshod over everyone else and force their desires, attitudes, and beliefs on people against their will, and I not only find that sickening, I find it sickening that you DON'T find that sickening, or see how incredibly contrary to the founding principles of this country it is.
ALL liberty is limited. It's limited by the boundaries of the guy next to you and HIS liberties.
No one is stopping homosexuals from pursuing what will make them happy, but the pursuit in this case takes the form of convincing people to vote in the laws they want. Don't blame me if MY pursuit of happiness has been more successful than theirs.
What liberties am I denying, your right to have the world be personally fine tuned for your desires? And once again I'm not arguing unlimited liberties.I also find it laughably hypocritical that you're solemnly preaching the virtues of untrammeled liberty and the pursuit of happiness as an argument for limiting the liberties of most of the country, and flat-out denying them the right to pursue THEIR happiness at all.
When all else fails insult your opponent with baseless accusations. I don't want to dismantle anything. I'm only arguing that everyone has rights the majority can't take away. They're called inalienable rights.Yes, and yes. Opposing someone else's legal attempt to do something in no way invalidates the fact that it IS legal for them to attempt to do it. Unlike some people, I don't find it necessary to dismantle the entire system of a free society and impose a dictatorship merely because I don't always get my own way.
Once again, you might be better served by actually shutting your flapping gob long enough to FIND OUT what my answer is, rather than asking with the assumption already in your head that you KNOW. Why are you so afraid to let people express their own opinions instead of trying to be both sides of the debate at once?
Jesus I think this is the 5th time you set up a straw man to make me look like an anarchist. Is that all you have? I never said that every time I don't get my way it's time to limit the masses. Never. And if you really think you can tell that those are my true desires without ever actually meeting me you're nuts.Well, obviously, YOU decide that the freedom of the masses should be limited at the point that you don't get your own way.
I think it's guys like Father time, that if they could, would take away your vote, and switch the country to communism if it meant their political agenda would be met.
Because to them, our arguments are worthless and therefore shouldn't count.
I'm afraid I can't disagree. That last line of his - "At what point do you decide that the freedom of the people should be limited?" - just makes my blood run cold. How in God's name do you live in the United States and develop that sort of attitude?
Our founders father thought we had God given rights. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that bill of rights wasn't intended to be near absolute and that the founding fathers would agree with the philosophy of 51% dictating every last right and acceptable behavior to 49%.Here's the constitution on changing the err constitution.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths thereof, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...,Provided...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
You'll see nowhere in there are the words slight majority or 51%. It's a really difficult process and it was intended to be that way.
If the Bill of Rights were really intended for the majority to take away at every whim then it would be essentially worthless. In a democracy you don't need a piece of paper guaranteeing rights the majority agrees we should have anyway.
or acts. God has been clear on this issue.
Father time, you are allowed your weird opinion because of God given rights. But don't try to pretend you believe in God and say he would approve of homosexual "marriage"
You know dude....you REALLY ought to expand your horizons. Matter of fact, here's a link........
LGBT Texts
Now, if you're not the close minded moron that you appear to be, maybe you ought to look at that.
BTW........if you're a fucking Mormon, maybe you really ought to re-read the Old Testament again. I wanna know what some idiot like YOU is doing quoting Leviticus, which is a manual written specifically for JEWISH priests.
You ain't a Jew, and you're pretty f-ing deluded.
I am done trying to convince an angry and uninformed person like you of things that I know through study and prayer. You are not on my plane. You haven't seen or read the old testament yourself because you don't know anything about history or context of scripture. I have studied the scriptures from cover to cover for my whole life. All you can do is get angry and spew rectal matter from your mouth. 
Spoken like a true sailor
Listen 'tard.....I'd be willing to bet that I'm quite more well informed than you, because, unlike you, I've got an open mind.
You should also realize that the OT was WRITTEN BY HEBREWS! Therefore, it's THEIR book, and, you should realize as well, that things get lost in the translation from Hebrew to English. Don't believe me? Watch God's Learning Channel sometime, and catch a show by Uri Harrell called "Hidden in the Hebrew". All you've got to go on is what some nutcase said that God had given to him, and hate to tell ya also, remember in the 10 Commandments when they said "Thou shalt have no gods before Me"? I've got news for you asshole, Moroni is an idol that the Mormon church has used to replace God. Kind of what a lot of Christians do with Yeshua.
And.....reading the scriptures cover to cover all your life doesn't prove shit if you can't interpret it properly. Muslims (which I hold in the same contempt as Mormons), do the same thing in their madrassas. The only thing that they read is the Q'uaran, and their thought processes are pretty fucked up also.
Nope.....you're an idolator, get thee behind me SaTan.
I guess when you opened your mind, your brain fell out. Your words are so illogical and wrong that we can't have an intelligent conversation.
with you. I guess now that I am SaTan as you describe I am behind you all the way supporting everything you say.
So I am not going to catfight
Ok quickly browsed the site. I don't know what your point is. I and everyone knows that the Bible was written by the Jews. I already know the old testament contained the law of moses which was a specific set of rules for the children of Israel to follow leading up to the atonement of Christ. I know there are many things lost in translation, which is why christianity has splintered into a million churches with different interpretations.
The Book of Mormon helps clarify those misinterpretations which to me would make logical sense. but you are not about discussion, you are about insults and getting your way. so we are not going to get anywhere.
ABikerSailor thinks everyone's world veiw should be centered around whether or not you support the right for two sodomites to pack each others fudge!!!Ok quickly browsed the site. I don't know what your point is. I and everyone knows that the Bible was written by the Jews. I already know the old testament contained the law of moses which was a specific set of rules for the children of Israel to follow leading up to the atonement of Christ. I know there are many things lost in translation, which is why christianity has splintered into a million churches with different interpretations.
The Book of Mormon helps clarify those misinterpretations which to me would make logical sense. but you are not about discussion, you are about insults and getting your way. so we are not going to get anywhere.
ABikerSailor thinks everyone's world veiw should be centered around whether or not you support the right for two sodomites to pack each others fudge!!!
Bullshit........the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a bunch of lies told by one man to enrich his own sense of power.
If you really want to understand what is there, you've gotta learn from the Rabbis and Torah Scholars......it's THEIR book!
And......like I said, there is a lot of stuff that gets lost in translation. Ever been outside of the US? I've been overseas for 10 years during my career in the Navy, and I can assure you.........unless you have someone that can help you translate from a foreign language into English, and make you aware of all the nuances, you're gonna get lost.
You may have perused it, and read a thing or two, but did you actually watch any of the programs? No........how do I know? Most of the programs are 30 min each, and you've not been gone long enough to check.
And.......very fucking few Mormons that I've known (and I grew up in Montana where there was a large population of them), speak Hebrew.
Try again dirtbag.
You seem to know so much about me with your crystal ball. I lived in South africa for two years surrounded by muslims in some of the communities I lived in. I know about idioms and nuances in translation. You don't know very many mormons like me who have done their research. It doesn't matter what I say. You are just going to insult me and claim you are God and know everything. You can't be taught. because you don't want to listen. As soon as you take a civil tone with me I could begin to educate you on the scriptures and history. Good luck with your little anger management problem
ABikerSailor thinks everyone's world veiw should be centered around whether or not you support the right for two sodomites to pack each others fudge!!!
