Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 126 of 298 (315990)
05-29-2006 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by truthlover
05-29-2006 9:36 AM


Re: On choosing to use the term hatred.
Sir
Well, you can call it intolerance, hatred, and fear, but we've had a lot of homosexuals visit this community, and one that stayed for over a year just to visit. I don't think they've felt hated or feared.
Obviously, love for us does not include allowing any and all behavior that might be practiced. Homosexuals are not the only ones that have limits on their behavior when they stay here; everyone does. That's so in every society, and because ours happens to include limits on sexual
behavior, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, doesn't mean that those particular limits are motivated by hatred and fear.
has your village ever banned any heterosexual for their sexual
choice?
Also:
1) you should not be using negative examples to support a bias.
2) Did you asked said people if they felt hatred by the people
of your village,or that they feared anything from anyone there?
Edited by randy feagley, : abe wrong past tense forgot one word left n out of anyone sorry.RAF

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by truthlover, posted 05-29-2006 9:36 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by truthlover, posted 05-30-2006 9:53 AM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 127 of 298 (316078)
05-29-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by truthlover
05-29-2006 9:36 AM


Re: On choosing to use the term hatred.
that's so in every society, and because ours happens to include limits on sexual behavior, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, doesn't mean that those particular limits are motivated by hatred and fear.
truthlover I have some more questions.
1) What forms sexual behaviour do you restrict for heterosexuals?
2) How do you police and punish violators?
3) Do you really want this to be the first time, in the history of the
US, that an ammendment that restricts a group(a small group) of
americans freedom is added to the constitution( Try to remember what
happened to sodomy laws because texas pulled this one).
4) Lets say it happens will this stop people from being
homosexual, practicing their sexual desires.
Edited by randy feagley, : abe two words reversed sorry. raf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by truthlover, posted 05-29-2006 9:36 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by truthlover, posted 05-30-2006 10:08 AM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 129 of 298 (316100)
05-29-2006 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
05-29-2006 7:33 PM


should anyone field questions
Faith;
Well, TL, I'm very tempted to answer your opponents for you, but
I'd really rather see your answer. I certainly agree with you on this
one, though I'm hardly on your side on many things you've said.
Yes it would be nice ,let the person who lives there answer the
question.The answer from you would be uninformed and hyperbolic and
would probably be off topic, since the questions relates to the rights
that ALL Americans granted under the constitution share and no matter
what!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 05-29-2006 7:33 PM Faith has not replied

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 130 of 298 (316107)
05-29-2006 10:04 PM


There seems to be some confusion ,by some, on the ability of said
marriage ammendment could pass.
It has to pass by 2/3+ in both house and senate
Thats 67+ senators, 291+ reps, a presidential sig.
Then you need 3/4+ of the states or 38+ states
there is a seven year limit to be ratified because of the 27th
amendment. for more go too
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
There are 55 rep. , 44 dem., 1 ind., in the senate
232rep., 202 dem., 1 ind., in the house
22 dem. governed states 28 rep. governed states
to see the breakdown better go to
2006 Political Party Breakdown by State - re: Traditional Sections and Regions
so far this does not look good for bush. To add too this; with such
low poll numbers the house dems are already planning what they are
going to do after the election; for more on that please see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../06/AR2006050601336_pf.html
Personal bias,hatred should not even be allowed near the constitution!

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-29-2006 11:37 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 132 of 298 (316150)
05-30-2006 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by macaroniandcheese
05-29-2006 11:37 PM


Hi
That was Tampa and bubba the love sponge.St. Pete was terry Schiavo.
Two things
1)the US constitution and the Fla constitution are two different
subjects
2) I would never use florida as good blue print
Still I'm trying to figure how same-sex marriages can make people
want to restrict freedom for a group they disagree with. Maybe you can
explain it to me? Does not using the constitution to inhibit the
pursuit of happiness and liberty violate the constitution? Then has
that not desecrated that same said document? Does this then allow the
next move to be an ammendment making homosexuality illegal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-29-2006 11:37 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-30-2006 10:31 AM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 185 of 298 (316371)
05-30-2006 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by truthlover
05-30-2006 9:53 AM


maybe you should learn to ask
Thank you for answering me:
I don't mean to be obtuse, but I don't know what you're referring to here.
you said
That's so in every society, and because ours happens to include
limits on sexual behavior, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals,
doesn't mean that those particular limits are motivated by hatred and
fear.
'IN EVERY SOCIETY' that is what I refer to as a negative.You are
using the wrongs of others to justify your wrongs
No, didn't have to. One stayed here for longer than a year, and I
knew her pretty well. Another thanked us for the way we welcomed and
treated her.
So, the answer is no you just assume that they felt that way and that makes you feel good

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by truthlover, posted 05-30-2006 9:53 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by truthlover, posted 05-31-2006 8:45 AM alacrity fitzhugh has not replied

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 186 of 298 (316381)
05-30-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by truthlover
05-30-2006 10:08 AM


Re: On choosing to use the term hatred.
Again thanks for the reply
Then I have no disagreement with you on the first part
f this matters, we believe what Christians have taught for
centuries, that God wants sex restricted to marriage between one man
and one wife. We treat violations the same way we treat all
violations. We talk to people. Those who will not repent have to live
elsewhere.
This part i have a problem with. You want a traditional christian
marriage to be the norm in the US .You say this is from god a few
things
4hat.
1)Marriage pre dates yours or the hebrews tradition
2) Which tradition exodus or how about before 1970.
3) Yes it matters. But my questiion was what sexual behaviour do you
restrict for heterosexuals?
40 Your in Tn. right maybe You should read the constitution of the
state you reside in . there a clause just for that.
Other that that thanks for letting me see your perspective. You seem
to be happy with the path you choose.Since ,to me, it seems that I
mostly agree with you that ther should be no marriage ammendment!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by truthlover, posted 05-30-2006 10:08 AM truthlover has not replied

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 187 of 298 (316388)
05-30-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by macaroniandcheese
05-30-2006 10:31 AM


Hi brennakimi:
Sorry for that, republican controlled housesenategovernor,
democraticlycontrolled state supreme court.This is what you get!
They have this crazy idea that somehow other people being gay
affects them. they thing they have a right to not be offended. they
think the presence of gay people with make their children gay (it
won't). some think that the presence of people who don't follow god's
laws in their country means that they aren't doing their job and will
be sent to hell for not having enough jesus in their
constitution.
Does christianity cause paranoia!
technically i believe that you can amend the constitution with
anything. we could, theoretically, amend the constitution to strike
For your last point I do not know enough about that.
down the first amendment.
Now we were taught that the first ten are called the bill of rights and
could not be touched( I went to school in Urbana Ill about a mile from UI)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The peambl.Gee it says We the people . Are not homosexuals people
of the US

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-30-2006 10:31 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-30-2006 10:41 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 193 of 298 (316463)
05-31-2006 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by macaroniandcheese
05-30-2006 10:41 PM


just a ploy
hi:
Haven't been to Urbana since 1977.
Your probably right on the bill of rights that was the "60, and with
all the problems from vietnam...?
Okay I'm going out on a limb here. There will be no ammendment it is a
another ploy by bush co. to get attention from Iraq. The support among
fundies is know slipping at an alarming( to bush) rate.
You know this is still hard. 2 years ago I tried but try doing this
with only 30 minutes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-30-2006 10:41 PM macaroniandcheese 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