Who’s a liar Makavali, maybe it’s you?
Take the time and read Ben Carne’s comments on your cute little cut and paste:
http://www.3conservatives.com/?p=101
Quotes supporting Falwell’s statement are myriad.
Who’s a liar Makavali, maybe it’s you?
Take the time and read Ben Carne’s comments on your cute little cut and paste:
http://www.3conservatives.com/?p=101
Quotes supporting Falwell’s statement are myriad.
[quote]forlife wrote:
What a dumb ass. You are the master of dodging questions and regurgitating the same tripe over and over again…“not listening, LA LA LA!”.[/quote]
It’s always both a little flattering and sad to see someone essentially copy-and-paste my (accurate) criticism of them in order to level it at me.
Pathetic.
Actually, you haven’t - you create strawmen and then argue against them.
Given how poorly you have done, how could you possibly know what “wins points” in the “debate department”?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Makavali I’m just going to ignore everything you said because at some point I already answered everyone of your points. You are also an idiot. [/quote]
In defense of Makavali, I don’t think he is an idiot - I do think he is intellectually lazy, but he isn’t an idiot.
Edit: as to why, look no further than his picture on “Christianity” - George Washington said no such thing. That phrase was a part of the Treaty of Tripoli, and was part of a declaration to keep the understanding that the United States had no religious pretext to start wars as religious conflicts.
One Google search could verify the truth, but Makavali isn’t interested.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Ha ha…that’s why it’s voted down just about every single time it comes to a vote.
As I said earlier, you only support polls that reinforce your agenda. None of those that prove you wrong reflect the will of the people. What a coincidence.
I now share the same frustration that others have expressed in debating this topic with you. You don’t really care about facts do you?
A poll is not an election…GOT IT?
Anyone can run a poll and at any given time it could go either way depending on how the question is framed…GOT IT?
Even so most polls show that most Americans DO NOT want gay marriage…GOT IT?
When there is an election…which is NOT a poll… gay marriage is voted down almost every single time in one form or another…GOT IT?
You really can’t be that stupid, I think you’re allowing your gayness to get in the way of logic. You’ve stopped making sense pages and pages ago.
[/quote]
The main point is that public opinion favoring equal treatment of gays, including gay civil unions/marriage, has steadily increased over the past two decades. We already have gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships in 20% of the states, and that number is going to grow over time as you have already admitted.
My other point was more personal. If you are going to quote polls to support your agenda, don’t be a hypocrite by ignoring polls that prove you wrong. Either polls offer a valid perspective on public opinion, or they do not. You don’t get to cherry pick.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Actually, you haven’t - you create strawmen and then argue against them.
[/quote]
You’re the jack of straw men, not me. You blather about not caring about the effect of gay marriage on current children, but insist that gay marriage hurts future children.
Unfortunately, you offer nothing to back that up. You fail miserably to show that gay marriage results in a net decrease of children raised by their biological parents, who otherwise would have been raised by those parents.
You can continue dodging that point, but don’t worry…I will keep calling you on it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Edit: as to why, look no further than his picture on “Christianity” - George Washington said no such thing. That phrase was a part of the Treaty of Tripoli, and was part of a declaration to keep the understanding that the United States had no religious pretext to start wars as religious conflicts.
[/quote]
I could be mistaken, but I believe George Washington did in fact say:
The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.
This is a separate statement from the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed by John Adams in 1797.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.
The statements are similar, but not identical, and are from different sources.
Regardless, Makavali’s point stands. The United States was NOT founded as a Christian nation, the founding fathers were NOT Christian, and more importantly religion has no place in our laws:
“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?”
James Madison, in “Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.”
Thomas Jefferson
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in ours one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”
The U.S. Supreme Court, 1947
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”
John Adams letter to Charles Cushing, October 19, 1756
“One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner or on any pretext infringed.”
James Madison introducing the Bill of Rights at the First Federal Congress, Congressional Register, June 8, 1789
"Scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself " “…Some books against Deism fell into my hands…It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”
Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”
Ethan Allen, from Religion of the American Enlightenment
[b]“My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself than this thing called Christianity”[/b]
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
“The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.”
Abraham Lincoln, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in a 1924 speech in New York
“My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.”
Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln
[quote]forlife wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Actually, you haven’t - you create strawmen and then argue against them.
You’re the jack of straw men, not me. You blather about not caring about the effect of gay marriage on current children, but insist that gay marriage hurts future children.
Unfortunately, you offer nothing to back that up. You fail miserably to show that gay marriage results in a net decrease of children raised by their biological parents, who otherwise would have been raised by those parents.
You can continue dodging that point, but don’t worry…I will keep calling you on it.
[/quote]
Oh give it up. Your lifestyle doesn’t warrant a government incentive. You can’t even raise your own children in a biological two parent home. And if there is any justification for state recognized marriage, it’s for just that reason. To incentivize the conception and raising of children in intact homes, with both biological parents present. Noone is interested in throwing you and your boyfriend in prison if you decide to exchange rings and play house. So go for it, get your next door neighbor to say some words and presto your married by whatever definition you like.
My children would be better off if my partner and I could marry or be civilly joined. And gay marriage would have zero effect on the likelihood of my children being raised by both biological parents. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Beyond that, it is a matter of equal protection under the Constitution. People argued that mixed race couples chose a “lifestyle that doesn’t warrant a government incentive”, but that logic was as flawed back then as it is now.
[quote]forlife wrote:
My children would be better off if my partner and I could marry or be civilly joined. And gay marriage would have zero effect on the likelihood of my children being raised by both biological parents. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Beyond that, it is a matter of equal protection under the Constitution. People argued that mixed race couples chose a “lifestyle that doesn’t warrant a government incentive”, but that logic was as flawed back then as it is now.[/quote]
Your children would be better off if you were married to their mother.
[quote]forlife wrote:
My children would be better off if my partner and I could marry or be civilly joined. And gay marriage would have zero effect on the likelihood of my children being raised by both biological parents. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Beyond that, it is a matter of equal protection under the Constitution. People argued that mixed race couples chose a “lifestyle that doesn’t warrant a government incentive”, but that logic was as flawed back then as it is now.[/quote]
Marriages shouldn’t be based on government incentives.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Your children would be better off if you were married to their mother.[/quote]
That’s a pretty cheeky statement for someone that knows nothing about our situation, or the effects of a mixed orientation marriage on children.
It is also a smokescreen. You ignored my point, which was that gay marriage would have ZERO effect on the likelihood of my kids being raised by their biological parents.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Marriages shouldn’t be based on government incentives. [/quote]
Don’t you think government incentives improve (not guarantee) the stability of the relationship?
[quote]forlife wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Marriages shouldn’t be based on government incentives.
Don’t you think government incentives improve (not guarantee) the stability of the relationship?
[/quote]
No I don’t think government incentives improve anything generally speaking. Look at any government program. How many people are on welfare their entire life vs. how many people start on welfare and then improve to the point of not needing it anymore. I doubt many.
I also do not think it stabilizes a relationship. If your relationship is stabilized by a government incentive I doubt you will have that relationship for long because the foundation of the relationship is not strong enough.
[quote]forlife wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Marriages shouldn’t be based on government incentives.
Don’t you think government incentives improve (not guarantee) the stability of the relationship?
[/quote]
No I don’t think government incentives improve anything generally speaking. Look at any government program. How many people are on welfare their entire life vs. how many people start on welfare and then improve to the point of not needing it anymore. I doubt many.
I also do not think it stabilizes a relationship. If your relationship is stabilized by a government incentive I doubt you will have that relationship for long because the foundation of the relationship is not strong enough.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Your children would be better off if you were married to their mother.
That’s a pretty cheeky statement for someone that knows nothing about our situation, or the effects of a mixed orientation marriage on children.
It is also a smokescreen. You ignored my point, which was that gay marriage would have ZERO effect on the likelihood of my kids being raised by their biological parents.[/quote]
You gay marriage by nature means your children aren’t being raised by their biological parents.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
forlife wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Marriages shouldn’t be based on government incentives.
Don’t you think government incentives improve (not guarantee) the stability of the relationship?
No I don’t think government incentives improve anything generally speaking. Look at any government program. How many people are on welfare their entire life vs. how many people start on welfare and then improve to the point of not needing it anymore. I doubt many.
[/quote]
That’s because welfare encourages bad behavior.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If your relationship is stabilized by a government incentive I doubt you will have that relationship for long because the foundation of the relationship is not strong enough.
[/quote]
You don’t think a couple is more likely to stay together when there are financial incentives to do so, and when breaking up would mean financial penalties?
Obviously, the rights/responsibilities of marriage play a role in the stability of the relationship. Fully half of marriages end in divorce, but the number would be even higher if the civil consequences of marriage didn’t exist.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You gay marriage by nature means your children aren’t being raised by their biological parents.[/quote]
So if gay marriage didn’t exist, my children would be raised by their biological parents? Are you even thinking any more?