[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Rainman, you suck in every way possible. Not entertaining, just small and angry.
Small and angry.
Coming from you, hairy ass - that means absolutely nothing.
Maybe if I actually had a shred of respect for you, I could force myself to care about anything you have to say. But that’s not going to happen.
[/quote]
You really are a HARD ASS,rainjack. Where did the bitterness come from? Spend some lonely nights in the texas pen?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
doogie wrote:
Prop. 2, actually.
I’m conservative, my wife is conservative, all of my friends are conservative. We all voted against it.
True conservatives are for freedom. Religous zealots are for a Christian America.
Sure, that is until a gay couple moves in next door to you and your lovely wife and start having gay orgies in their back yard.
Funny how people of “morals” can look the other way and claim “freedom” until they actually have to see and experience the depravity themselves.
Open your eyes man!
[/quote]
closes his eyes and wishes real hard for front row seats to a backyard lesbian orgy
Damn it, am I living in the wrong neighborhood or what?!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
doogie wrote:
Prop. 2, actually.
I’m conservative, my wife is conservative, all of my friends are conservative. We all voted against it.
True conservatives are for freedom. Religous zealots are for a Christian America.
Sure, that is until a gay couple moves in next door to you and your lovely wife and start having gay orgies in their back yard.
Funny how people of “morals” can look the other way and claim “freedom” until they actually have to see and experience the depravity themselves.
Open your eyes man!
closes his eyes and wishes real hard for front row seats to a backyard lesbian orgy
Damn it, am I living in the wrong neighborhood or what?![/quote]
I have to admit, the thought of gay guys is much different than women, if they are hot!
So the thought of a lesbian orgy causes me significant cognitive dissonance, if you know what I mean!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
doogie wrote:
Prop. 2, actually.
I’m conservative, my wife is conservative, all of my friends are conservative. We all voted against it.
True conservatives are for freedom. Religous zealots are for a Christian America.
Sure, that is until a gay couple moves in next door to you and your lovely wife and start having gay orgies in their back yard.
Funny how people of “morals” can look the other way and claim “freedom” until they actually have to see and experience the depravity themselves.
Open your eyes man!
[/quote]
What the fuck does that have to do with gay marriage? I wouldn’t want a straight couple having orgies in their backyard, either.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
~Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt - Dec. 6, 1813
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper - February 10, 1814
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”
~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
“Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the ‘remaking’ of the Reich as they call it.”
~Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)[/quote]
“I am much indebted to the good Christian people of the country for their constant prayers and consolations; and to no one of them, more than to yourself.”
–From the September 4, 1864 Letter to Eliza Gurney
“That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular.”
–From the July 31, 1846 Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity
“I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion.”
–From the July 31, 1846 Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity
I know there is a God - I see the storm coming and I see his hand in it - if he has a place then I am ready - we see the hand.
John F. Kennedy
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
doogie wrote:
Prop. 2, actually.
I’m conservative, my wife is conservative, all of my friends are conservative. We all voted against it.
True conservatives are for freedom. Religous zealots are for a Christian America.
Sure, that is until a gay couple moves in next door to you and your lovely wife and start having gay orgies in their back yard.
Funny how people of “morals” can look the other way and claim “freedom” until they actually have to see and experience the depravity themselves.
Open your eyes man!
[/quote]
Hey Lorisco, did you know the new idea for putting on muscle is drinking bleach? Any kind will do, you just have to ingest the full gallon a half hour after you work out.
I hear its even better than Grow! Tastes better too! I believe you need to try this immediately, and report back to us on its effects.
3 general observations on this, now that I’ve looked at it a little bit more:
It was probably unnecessary for Texas to protect itself against activist state judges, given all the state judges in Texas are elected and thus already accountable – there is an outside chance a Federal judge could rule on a TX constitutional issue, but it would be subject to being overturned on that point by the TX Supreme Court.
It seems it was poorly written - read literally, it would seem to ban marriage, though I highly doubt the judges will construe it that way.
There is absolutely nothing either Constitutionally incorrect nor even untoward for having a religious motivation for passing a law. The separation of church and state does not mean that a person cannot vote according to his religious beliefs, to the extent he wishes to do so. It means that the government cannot establish an official religion (and has come to mean, under USSC precedent, that the government cannot favor a religion over another, or over no religion, in that it cannot devote resources to religion, or endorse the religion – though this goes far beyond the original intent).
I don’t think anyone would question whether it was OK for Christians to rally for the abolition of slavery or for the establishment of equal rights because they had a religious motivation to do so. Or for new age people who worship “mother gaiea” to vote for environmental protections. The principle is the same.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t think anyone would question whether it was OK for Christians to rally for the abolition of slavery or for the establishment of equal rights because they had a religious motivation to do so. Or for new age people who worship “mother gaiea” to vote for environmental protections. The principle is the same.[/quote]
At some point, it does become impossibe to seperate the man from his religion. I think many people act morally because of the yoke of religion, and worrying about what God will think. They will vote accordingly so.This I think is just human nature. Religion is going to have something to do with an individuals morals, and therefore what cause they go to.
However, I think that the religious right is no longer a harbringer of freedom as it once was, such as the lobbying against slavery that Boston mentions. Now, (to me) it seems that the more religious the people are, the more oppressive they have become. No gays, no sex on TV, etc. Your religions are fine. let them governm your life. But why should they govern mine?
Because God says you are living your life wrong.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Your religions are fine. let them governm your life. But why should they govern mine?
Because God says you are living your life wrong.[/quote]
No, that was the rev Pat. God doesn’t really give a shit what you do.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
…
Your religions are fine. let them governm your life. But why should they govern mine?[/quote]
For the same reason any moral reason has any sway in laws. Why should laws exist that don’t allow people to discriminate based on race when selling their own personal property? That is a strictly moral question.
Most laws are based in morals. The fact you can link ones you do not like to religion doesn’t make a religiously inspired moral reason any less valid than a non-religiously inspired moral reason.
In essence, the “it’s religion” argument is really an ad hominem. We should be debating the policies themselves.
[quote]
Boston wrote:
3) There is absolutely nothing either Constitutionally incorrect nor even untoward for having a religious motivation for passing a law. The separation of church and state does not mean that a person cannot vote according to his religious beliefs, to the extent he wishes to do so. It means that the government cannot establish an official religion (and has come to mean, under USSC precedent, that the government cannot favor a religion over another, or over no religion, in that it cannot devote resources to religion, or endorse the religion – though this goes far beyond the original intent).[/quote]
I hope that people read this and can comprehend it! Well stated Boston!
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
At some point, it does become impossibe to seperate the man from his religion. I think many people act morally because of the yoke of religion, and worrying about what God will think. [/quote]
Explain to me why exactly what you wrote above is purely a bad thing?
[quote]
Now, (to me) it seems that the more religious the people are, the more oppressive they have become. No gays, no sex on TV, etc. Your religions are fine. let them governm your life. But why should they govern mine?[/quote]
Your view on “religious people” is a sterotype. However, it is allowed because you only insulting those of faith. I wonder how welcome a sterotype of gays would be? Odd huh?
I could not agree more on your other views! I think anothers “hedonistic” instincts are fine, but I don’t want them governing my life either.
Why should I have to sit down for perhaps one hour of television viewing and be treated to “R” rated programming?
“Grrr… turn the channel Zeb. Parents need to do a better job and turn off that sort of thing, not that it would harm your children relax.”
There I saved some the trouble…
How would you feel if over half the channels there was religious broadcasting every night? (You can pick whichever one you hate the most).
Sure we can change the channels. But wouldn’t it be nice if they saved all the “R” rated type material for a later time each night? You know just for those of us who don’t want to expose our children to this stuff.
Asking a lot? Not really.
As to the gay issue, I have many Christians friends (as you might expect) and not one of them has ever professed any hatred toward gays. Darn I know that doesn’t fit some sterotypes. Then again gay people don’t really fit sterotypes either do they?
There is a need for the opening of some minds on both sides of this issue!
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
doogie wrote:
Prop. 2, actually.
I’m conservative, my wife is conservative, all of my friends are conservative. We all voted against it.
True conservatives are for freedom. Religous zealots are for a Christian America.
Sure, that is until a gay couple moves in next door to you and your lovely wife and start having gay orgies in their back yard.
Funny how people of “morals” can look the other way and claim “freedom” until they actually have to see and experience the depravity themselves.
Open your eyes man!
Hey Lorisco, did you know the new idea for putting on muscle is drinking bleach? Any kind will do, you just have to ingest the full gallon a half hour after you work out.
I hear its even better than Grow! Tastes better too! I believe you need to try this immediately, and report back to us on its effects.[/quote]
You know I’m just so proud of you for having an original thought. It almost makes me teary-eyed to think I had a hand in you using your brain and not just following the leftist crowd.
Oh, oh, I can’t go on …
Sorry, I’m just a little emotional right now…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
For the same reason any moral reason has any sway in laws. Why should laws exist that don’t allow people to discriminate based on race when selling their own personal property? That is a strictly moral question.
Most laws are based in morals. The fact you can link ones you do not like to religion doesn’t make a religiously inspired moral reason any less valid than a non-religiously inspired moral reason.
In essence, the “it’s religion” argument is really an ad hominem. We should be debating the policies themselves.[/quote]
Well said!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I know there is a God - I see the storm coming and I see his hand in it - if he has a place then I am ready - we see the hand.
John F. Kennedy[/quote]
Wait! STOP THE TRAFFIC!
ZEB – yes, ZEB – just quoted JFK, one of the foremost members of Democratic Royalty.
My whole belief system is shattered… The sky is falling, the sky is falling…
(sorry, couldn’t resist!)
[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I know there is a God - I see the storm coming and I see his hand in it - if he has a place then I am ready - we see the hand.
John F. Kennedy
Wait! STOP THE TRAFFIC!
ZEB – yes, ZEB – just quoted JFK, one of the foremost members of Democratic Royalty.
My whole belief system is shattered… The sky is falling, the sky is falling…
(sorry, couldn’t resist!)[/quote]
LOL…
Actually, if John Kennedy were alive today he would be considered a moderate. And in fact quite conservative in some of his views.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Actually, if John Kennedy were alive today he would be considered a moderate. And in fact quite conservative in some of his views.[/quote]
You realize you’ve just described about 70% of the US population… 
Actually, allegedly, Arnold has now asked his wife – which, as you know, is a member of the Kennedy clan – to help him pull him back to the center, where he belongs.
I do believe that the best leaders for the US are precisely moderates.
What has been worrying me with all this is the fact that most moderate people in this country don’t really care anymore about the democratic process – and let the extremists vote for them. Both the election campaigns and the results seem to point that way. Basically CA has more left-wing extremists than right-wing extremists, while TX has more right-wing extremists than left-wing extremists, but if you really spend some time on either State, you’ll notice that the bulk of the people are much like everywhere else: moderates that don’t vote – or rarely do.
Maybe we need a Moderate Party, one that is void of the extremists on both sides of the fence… 
(I know, I know, that’s never gonna happen, for more reasons than one)
The people who think gay marriage, and gay behavior in general, is wrong, really need to open up a little bit and learn about other cultures.
As an example, take the Etoro of Papau New Guinea. When they want sex for pleasure, they have sex with men. When they want to feed a growing fetus, they have sex with their wife (they don’t believe sex causes pregnancy). And they don’t believe a man can produce semen unless, as a child, he ingests semen from other males (meaning from age 12-17 all males suck off the older males, and yes, they swallow).
If you were born into that culture, you’d be performing oral sex on older males for about 6 years of your life, after which, any time you were horny you’d go bone one of your pals.
I wouldn’t take sexual advice from a culture that doesn’t understand that sex causes pregnancy.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Prop. 2, actually.
I’m conservative, my wife is conservative, all of my friends are conservative. We all voted against it.
True conservatives are for freedom. Religous zealots are for a Christian America.[/quote]
Another amen. There aren’t many true conservatives left, unforunately. Certainly not in office.