Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Huckabee
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 121 of 162 (447640)
01-10-2008 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Buzsaw
01-10-2008 9:57 AM


Re: Another Unsupported Smear Job Against Buzsaw
you have made claims. you've never supported anything. why don't you show us these massive amazing things that you have discovered instead of just talking about them. until you prove it, we'll assume you're lying. in which case, it is you, not jar, who must adjust his behavior to the forum guidelines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2008 9:57 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2008 10:26 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 162 (447642)
01-10-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by arachnophilia
01-05-2008 4:24 PM


Re: Poster Boy for the Religious Right
Arach writes:
yes, obama's father was a muslim, and he went to a muslim school when he was younger. neither of those argument are the same thing as "obama is a muslim." and even if he was... so the fuck what. this is just another one of your standard biases talking points, about the evils of islam. nobody here reads that as anything but ignorance and bigotry.
Since this was the only substantive statement in your long diatribe, I'll address it.
1. You have allegedly quoted me as saying Obama is a Muslim. I believe this is not a quote of mine as you have implied. Please explain who's quote it is.
2. In Islamic school, Muslim children of Muslim parents would be considered to be Muslim, praying 5 times daily, studying the Koran, etc. My contention all along is has not been that Obama is a Muslim today, but that he practiced Islam as a child several years, old enough to study algebra. His mentor pastor has connections with the Nation of Islam with the implication that the church and people Obama has chosen to hang out with have racist and radical Islamic tendencies.
I have contended that this may render Obama as a risky candidate for the highest office in the land and indeed in the world so far as authority goes.
You people need to soundly refute the data I have cited with your own supportive data. Instead all you do is badmouth me personally and whine about the data I've cited.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2008 4:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2008 11:25 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 133 by Vacate, posted 01-13-2008 1:25 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 162 (447643)
01-10-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by macaroniandcheese
01-10-2008 10:20 AM


Re: Another Unsupported Smear Job Against Buzsaw
I have posted supportive data. Refute it.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-10-2008 10:20 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-10-2008 10:27 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 124 of 162 (447644)
01-10-2008 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
01-10-2008 10:26 AM


Re: Another Unsupported Smear Job Against Buzsaw
I have posted supportive data.
no. you've been posting the same unsupported claims since he became a public figure.
blah blah blah nation of islam. fucking prove yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2008 10:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 125 of 162 (447661)
01-10-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Buzsaw
01-10-2008 9:57 AM


Re: Another Unsupported Smear Job Against Buzsaw NOT!
Have you no integrity? All you have done here is offer your personal opinion on what I have supported -- all of it and personally attacked me as a liar.
For you to say that you supported anything is simply another falsehood. And I have never attacked you personally Buz; I only point out the falsehoods you continue to make. You have posted nothing but smear and innuendo and I as well as others have shown exactly where.
You continue to post dishonestly by quoting my statements but not your statements that I was responding to.
So for the audience, here is the content of the post you are replying to:
jar in Message 55 writes:
Obama was indeed a Muslim youth practicing Islam in an Islamic school
Unsupported assertions and innuendo.
son of an Islamic father and step father
Totally irrelevant. Innuendo that you imply that having a Muslim father is some fault.
now a professing Christian
Totally irrelevant.
whose church's professing Christian pastor has close connections with the radical racist Nation of Islam
Unsupported assertion and innuendo. The Pastor of his Church is a Christian. You have never shown the connection with the Nation of Islam.
Nation of Islam which works to establish a black dominated kingdom
Innuendo implying there is some connection between Nation of Islam and Obama.
Have you no honesty Buz?
So I not only pointed out where you were simply using smear tactics, I pointed out exactly which things were involved and why they were innuendo, smear and irrelevant.
But I didn't point out some of you biggest falsehoods, for example the falsehoods about the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam has worked and is working for justice for all people, of any race, any color.
For example, Sister Claudette Marie Muhammad serves on the Illinois Governor’s Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes and has said:
I am proud of my record over the years in working to break down the barriers of hate and discrimination, as well as to bridge the differences between people. I believe in fairness to all people regardless of race, creed, color, national origin or religious beliefs. Further, I do not condemn members of our society who may be gay or lesbian and have always advocated for their human rights. And I believe the work of the Commission is important in reaching out in a spirit of love and understanding to the entire community.
So here is the short list of your smears, innuendo and absolute falsehoods from just your Message 53.
Buz writes:
Obama was indeed a Muslim youth practicing Islam in an Islamic school
Whether true or not, it is irrelevant to whether or not someone is fit to be President of the US and you have never provided any support that it is even true.
son of an Islamic father and step father and now a professing Christian
Again, a smear tactic. Whether or not his father or step father is Muslim is irrelevant, whether or not he is a Christian is irrelevant. You also italicized "professing" which is innuendo and smear to imply that he is not a "Real Christian."
whose church's professing Christian pastor has close connections with the radical racist Nation of Islam which works to establish a black dominated kingdom (remember that Obama discussion?), i.e nation in America.
Again you italicized professing. More smear and innuendo. You have never provided any support that there are any close connections. You then go on to misrepresent Nation of Islam as a radical racist group, more smear, falsehoods and innuendo. Finally you try to tie all of the distortions, smears, innuendo and absolute falsehoods into an indictment of Obama.
Oh yes, one more thing Buz. The topic of the thread was "Huckabee" in case you missed it.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2008 9:57 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Peal, posted 01-11-2008 5:15 PM jar has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 126 of 162 (447693)
01-10-2008 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Buzsaw
01-10-2008 9:36 AM


Re: Another smear against Obama
You need to show precisely how I broke the golden rule - precisely, by copy and paste, explaining howin the rule was broken.
People can read for themselves what you have posted about Obama in this thread. And they can decide for themselves whether what you wrote was a smear. I called it as I see it.
Otherwise all this amounts to is another personal smear job against Buz.
My comments about your posting were made to you, where you can attempt to defend yourself. They were not done behind your back.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2008 9:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Peal
Member (Idle past 4699 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 03-11-2004


Message 127 of 162 (448010)
01-11-2008 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
01-10-2008 11:29 AM


Re: Another Unsupported Smear Job Against Buzsaw NOT!
jar in Message 55 writes:
Obama was indeed a Muslim youth practicing Islam in an Islamic school
Unsupported assertions and innuendo.
son of an Islamic father and step father
Totally irrelevant. Innuendo that you imply that having a Muslim father is some fault.
now a professing Christian
Totally irrelevant.
whose church's professing Christian pastor has close connections with the radical racist Nation of Islam
Unsupported assertion and innuendo. The Pastor of his Church is a Christian. You have never shown the connection with the Nation of Islam.
Nation of Islam which works to establish a black dominated kingdom
Innuendo implying there is some connection between Nation of Islam and Obama.
Have you no honesty Buz?
Jar,
Don’t be too hard on Buz. He is just reading form the Shawn Hannity/Rush Limbaugh play book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 01-10-2008 11:29 AM jar has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 162 (448111)
01-12-2008 12:28 AM


Buz's Supportive Data
So as not to be off topic since this thread is about Huckabee I've cited where to find the supportive data which I have been falsy accused by my antagonists of not providing. You have your work cut out over there. It'll take more than LOL!
http://EvC Forum: the new and improved obama thread -->EvC Forum: the new and improved obama thread

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 129 of 162 (448321)
01-12-2008 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Buzsaw
01-10-2008 10:25 AM


is obama a muslim, or isn't he?
1. You have allegedly quoted me as saying Obama is a Muslim. I believe this is not a quote of mine as you have implied. Please explain who's quote it is.
quote:
Main Entry:
in·nu·en·do Listen to the pronunciation of innuendo
Pronunciation:
\‘in-y-wen-(‘)d, -y-en-\
Function:
noun
1 a: an oblique allusion : hint insinuation; especially : a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation b: the use of such allusions
see that's the thing about innuendo. you can always retreat to the "well i didn't actually say that" position. what i'm more concerned about is the point your innuendo is trying to make. even if he is a muslim, as your innuendo is intending to imply... so what? what would be the big deal about a muslim in the office of the president?
2. In Islamic school, Muslim children of Muslim parents would be considered to be Muslim,
and yet, you've never said obama is a mulsim. just that he was a muslim.
His mentor pastor has connections with the Nation of Islam
why do you always use the phrase "mentor pastor?" is there some special meaning i'm missing? and nevermind that you haven't shown a real connection here... so what if it were the case that his pastor had a connection to the nation of islam?
I have contended that this may render Obama as a risky candidate for the highest office in the land and indeed in the world so far as authority goes.
again, why? why would having an islamic president be a bad thing?
You people need to soundly refute the data I have cited with your own supportive data. Instead all you do is badmouth me personally and whine about the data I've cited.
when you cite more than allegations, let me know. and again, so what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2008 10:25 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-13-2008 12:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 130 of 162 (448336)
01-13-2008 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by arachnophilia
01-12-2008 11:25 PM


Re: is obama a muslim, or isn't he?
and yet, you've never said obama is a mulsim. just that he was a muslim.
he has, just not in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2008 11:25 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by arachnophilia, posted 01-13-2008 12:28 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 131 of 162 (448338)
01-13-2008 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by macaroniandcheese
01-13-2008 12:25 AM


Re: is obama a muslim, or isn't he?
if there isn't a thread for it by tomorrow, i'm starting a "what exactly is wrong with having an islamic president?" thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-13-2008 12:25 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by DrJones*, posted 01-13-2008 12:47 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 132 of 162 (448342)
01-13-2008 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by arachnophilia
01-13-2008 12:28 AM


Re: is obama a muslim, or isn't he?
i'm starting a "what exactly is wrong with having an islamic president?" thread. if there isn't a thread for it by tomorrow, i'm starting a "what exactly is wrong with having an islamic president?" thread.
All you'll get is Buz repeating his lies about Muslims and Islam, if he even bothers to join it.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by arachnophilia, posted 01-13-2008 12:28 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 133 of 162 (448344)
01-13-2008 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Buzsaw
01-10-2008 10:25 AM


Obama Concerns
Obama was indeed a Muslim youth practicing Islam in an Islamic school
I used to be a Christian, though I attended a public school most of my friends attended the catholic school down the street.
son of an Islamic father and step father
Son of a Christian father and mother... grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, distant relatives.
now a professing Christian
Now I am a 'professing agnostic'.
whose church's professing Christian pastor has close connections with the radical racist Nation of Islam
Co-workers with a few pastors/preachers/christians that likely have AIG as a homepage.
Nation of Islam which works to establish a black dominated kingdom
Several of my 'associates' hate gays, muslims, athiests, etc.
I have contended that this may render Obama as a risky candidate for the highest office in the land and indeed in the world so far as authority goes.
I really don't understand why you find these things to be of concern. How does a person decide the motives or even beliefs of another based upon his past? Using the criterea you have posted for your concerns it would seem that I would never be welcome at the next athiest convention. Admittedly I am not running for any political office, but if I where to run would you suggest that I call myself a Creationist Christian based upon my past and the people I associate with?
I am not attempting to refute your supporting evidence, I am simply questioning the logic of your stance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2008 10:25 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 162 (448354)
01-13-2008 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rahvin
01-07-2008 1:30 AM


Re: Poster Boy for the Religious Right
You said "The Left." These individuals hardly comprise "The Left." Completely ignoring the details of the case, two individuals do not warrant painting an entire political leaning as traitors.
Give me a break, Rahvin. You asked me to substantiate my claim and I have clearly done so. When people speak in generalities, they aren't necessarily inclusive of every SINGLE person that identifies with it -- but then, you know that already. You are frantically trying to back out of this because you now realize how foolish you are being.
When I mention people of the Left harboring their crimes, that much should be very obvious. Why? Because in leftist ideology, a conservative's idea of a terrorist is a leftists freedom fighter. In essence, they are simply lashing out from the injustice done to them.
Isn't that how its framed? Isn't that how they've justified the homicidal trappings of Che Guevara?
This is like holding up a KKK member and saying "whites are racist,"
And isn't that the very case!?!?! I implore you to read some of the commentary on this very issue in EvC. That is exactly the kind of guilt-laden non-sense that is spewed forth on EvC.
Now retract your disgusting slander of an entire group of people, and give us an apology.
Prove to me that the Truth® is in fact slander, and I will gladly do so.
Which is funny, because by letting him continue to live free, bin Laden is the boogeyman that Bush and the Repiblicans trot forward every other day to scare us with memories of9/11.
Al Qaeda is a crafty bunch, savvy in the ways striking maximum fear on a popoluace -- which is their stated aim. Bin Laden could be dead for all we know, and some sources allege that he is. Keeping him alive, whether he is or not, proves to be a strategy on their part.
You specifically said "The problem for me comes when someone tries to redefine what a marriage is and to try and amend the Constitution." There is no definition of marriage in the Constitution to amend. No amendment is necessary to allow equal treatment under the law. Matter of fact, who keeps proposing amendments to the Constitution? That's right, the people who want to keep gays from getting married.
I'll give you Justice Scalia's dissent on the issue. It is an illustration of how the word "freedom" for many is obscured to mean that nothing should be prohibited.
" Texas Penal Code Ann. 21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery. But there is no right to “liberty” under the Due Process Clause, though today’s opinion repeatedly makes that claim. Ante, at 6 (“The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice”); ante, at 13 (“ ” These matters... are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’ ”); ante, at 17 (“Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government”). The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of “liberty,” so long as “due process of law” is provided:
“No state shall . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Amdt. 14 (emphasis added).
It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots. Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is ”deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ or ”implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best, facetious.”
He goes on to say in other dissenting opinions that by granting homosexuals the right to "marry," which has always been a union between a man and woman, there is no rational basis to disallow anything under the sun the same "freedom," and to pass it off as legitimate pursuit of inalienable rights.
In my infinite wisdom, I can also understand why the founders never wrote anything like "free the slaves" into the Constitution, either. You know, because they would have thought that was absurd, too. The Constitution as written, however, affords equal protection under the law, period.
Yes, protection under the law... Homosexuals have the exact same protections under the law as anyone else. What they don't have the right to do is to get married. They are protected against criminal action without regard of their sexuality. You are totally conflating issues about protection and then redefining what both protection under the law and marriage even means.
quote:
I mean, look at the historical facts here, why don't you. Nowhere on the planet was the marriage of same sex partners an acceptable practice. At most, places like Greece allowed for men to molest little boys.
Irrelevant (and sneaking in a suggestion that all homosexuals are pedophiles is pretty low, NJ).
I'm making an historically accurate comment about just how much or how little homosexuality is viewed from all over the world, at different periods of time, under different religions, different beliefs, etc, yet they all come to an inescapable conclusion that is an aberration. Don't you find that amazingly coincidental? You can't just haphazardly erase history because it inconveniences your position.
If we're talking about consenting adults, I don't see a logical, rational reason to disallow it. Pointing out another leftover of an irrational legal system doesn;t help your case, NJ. The only rational reason to disallow incest between consenting adults is the possibility of genetic disorders - the chances of which are in reality only a tiny fraction more likely than in "normal" couples.
Then if you are for equality, you would reasonably fight for the rights of Mom and son to have incestuous relations the world over. You would also fight for polygamy and bigamy.
To counter: why are interracial marriages legal?
Because there is no legal basis to disallow a man and a woman of a different color to marry. None. Marriage is a religious institution that, since the dawn of time, has defined it as a union between a man and a woman. Maybe the ACLU should be crying over the affront of the State which has interfered with religion.
Marriage licenses are contracts which give certain rights and privileges under the law to the married couple. How could the State not be the one to issue them, unless all of those rights and privileges are eliminated for all married couples?
The State should have nothing to do with it other than to recognize it, and that's it.
could not a gay couple simply go to a homosexuality-friendly church and get married there? What about non-religious folk who want to make a lifelong commitment to each other? Am I not allowed to get married because I'm an Atheist, NJ?
If a pledge of devotion is what a marriage essentially is, then you can do whatever you want. You can go to Burger King and in the name of holy matrimony, dedicate yourself to french fries if you wanted. And if homosexuals simply want legal recognition for their union, I say, so be it. Just don't call it a marriage when it isn't.
Marriage isn't a religious matter any more. Not solely. Nobody requires your church to recognize a gay marriage. All we demand is that gays be afforded the same exact legal rights heterosexuals receive
You do realize that it won't stop here, don't you? NAMbLA is already crying about they aren't recognized for their love of boys. This will continue to devolve in to a three-ring circus. Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. If keep flouting what is sensible, you are going to find the complete collapse of Western civilization, which is well on its way in the making. Now that's Progressive!
"Relativism" doesn't mean that everyone's "opinion" is valid. A bigoted asshole who supports slavery or thinks beating his wife is a fine thing is still a bigoted asshole and his "opinions" are immoral.
LOL! On what basis?!?!? You have nothing to hang it on. Nothing. Does naturalism provide with any rights? This is what you are doing without even realizing it: You are borrowing a Judeo-Christian ethic in order to debunk Judeo-Christian ethics.
In denying a worldview, you inextricably support another. When someone denies the existence of God and/or morals deriving from such, what are you affirming in its place? If total secularism is a truism, you have no actual value for anything, nor do you have a point of reference from which to logically derive a moral framework! You end up reducing your own worth to material causes. You also make moral judgments in the absolute, only to deny that there is an absolute judgment. in an amoral universe, how do you invoke a moral judgment beyond mere opinion? Its a completely bankrupt ideology, fraught with contradiction.
Sometimes, NJ, the majority is just plain wrong. Constitutionally, that's the case now.
When you say they are wrong, do you mean that absolutely?
Incidentally, I'm not gay, NJ. I'm jsut a rational, moral person who beleives gay couples should have the same rights as everyone else.
So rational that your test for rationality fails its own test? You have no basis to decry injustice, for by doing so, you invoke a moral absolute.

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rahvin, posted 01-07-2008 1:30 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 7:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 143 by nator, posted 01-14-2008 7:04 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 135 of 162 (448371)
01-13-2008 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Hyroglyphx
01-13-2008 3:13 AM


Re: Poster Boy for the Religious Right
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
Homosexuals have the exact same protections under the law as anyone else. What they don't have the right to do is to get married.
You do realize that the second sentence contradicts the first, yes? If they don't have the right to get married, then they don't have the "exact same protections under the law as anyone else."
quote:
They are protected against criminal action without regard of their sexuality.
Only because Lawrence v. Texas said so. And remember, you're quoting Scalia's dissent of that. Ergo, you must feel that it was wrong to decriminalize it.
quote:
You are totally conflating issues
Ha! This coming from one who conflates sexual orientation with pedophilia, murder, bestiality, coprophagia, incest, etc. Take a look at later in your post:
quote:
Then if you are for equality, you would reasonably fight for the rights of Mom and son to have incestuous relations the world over.
What on earth does sexual orientation have to do with incest? You do understand that the sex of the participants is independent of their familial relationship, yes? Why is it you never seem to wonder about incest when discussing heterosexuality? Why is it only when the subject is gay people does your mind wander into having sex with your children, NJ? Are you trying to tell us something?
And you wonder why people think you're a bigot?
quote:
Because there is no legal basis to disallow a man and a woman of a different color to marry.
Only because Loving v. Virginia said so. So since Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health did the exact same thing, then your logic dictates you claim that there is "no legal basis to disallow two people of the same sex to marry."
quote:
The State should have nothing to do with it other than to recognize it, and that's it.
Indeed. And the term used for the contract is "marriage." If you want to have your special religious ceremony to be distinct from the civil contract of marriage, you are free to come up with another word for it. How about "sanctified"? You an your partner can "undergo sanctification." The rest of the world will get "married."
quote:
If total secularism is a truism, you have no actual value for anything
And yet, the mere existence of secularists proves this statement to be false. Or are you saying that no secularists exist?
We've been through this before, NJ. Just because morality isn't absolute (for there are no absolutists) doesn't mean morality doesn't exist.
But what does any of this have to do with Huckabee?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-13-2008 3:13 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024