gays VS Gas

bleeding? Just whacha have in mind? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

OK, I have one vague warning -or maybe threat, hard to say- that it's going to somehow leave me bleeding. I still have no actual answers to my question.

Interesting that for all the opposition expressed for the concept, I can't seem to get one clear answer to a simple question.
 
Hey Stu,
I think that you have been given several answers. Just because you don't see em doesn't mean they haven't been posted. You gave one good answer to your own question. "stand up for what's right." Here is a question for you--How do we stop these sick people before they cause more damage to society than they already have?
 
I have been given answers, but not an answer to what I have asked. I'm *looking* for the answer to the question you just asked me, in a constitutional manner.

No one can tell me, in exact terms, how I personally am harmed. No one can tell me, in a constitutional manner, how to oppose them.

Our constitution was written to restrain government and protect individual liberty. The only solution that I have seen proposed is a constitutional ammendment that would restrain individual liberty and empower government, the opposite of the fundamental design of the document.
 
Stu- To answer your question directly, they harm only themselves in their basement. If they would only stay there we would not be writing this thread. They are not staying in their basement. Their political activism seeks to debase our country to the point where that which is evil will be called good and that which is good shall be called evil. That sorta affects me, my family and our great nation
Click to expand...
I tried to give a clear answer. Sorry for being so vague.
Sickos *%#@&$%# Sickos in their basement are only hurting themselves. (Same argument used by those seeking legalization of marijuana)
Suckos (sorry,couldn't resist) seeking the creation of special legal rights for their deviant behavior affects us all.

Example : Let's say I am one of a growing number of activist whose passion is to pick my nose, roll up huge boogers and sling them onto my windshield. I find that gazing through a windshield full of boogers is the only way I can live a satisfied life. I was just born that way. It is my windshield and my booger so what is the big deal. It only affects me and my view and it is my 'right' to express myself with my boogers. Also, I can only feel completed while sharing my life with another booger-flicker. WE booger flickers are tired of being discriminated against. State inspections have forced us to clean off our windshields in an attempt to make us be just like everyone else. Most cars come equipped with wipers and spray nozzles whose sole purpose are to remove our precious boogers. There are today, prejudiced products on the market that make windshields so slick our precious boogers don't even have a chance of sticking. Even glass manufacturers deliberately formulate their glass to have hard smooth finishes that further impede our booger adhesion. The depth of this social travisty just goes on and on. It is difficult to write about it even now.
Please support our organization that will address this injustice : Boogerflickers United Together To Help Everyone Act Decent Someday ( B.U.T.T.H.E.A.D.S. )
Remember, the booger you save could be your own!
Let's Roll! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Sorry to be so silly. The Gay "movement" is activism to endorse, support and condone abberant behavior, not a race or a minority.

The gays are great at destroying values. They seek to redefine language,law, morals and yes our Constitution. Another words, their argument is, "It does not explicity prohibit us so we therefore are Constitutional". However, they KNOW that without special rights , which they must gain through legal activism, they cannot prevail against a Constitutional process. To be successful they must find a way to subvert Constitutional process. Their entire life is based on a subversion so if anything would appear natural to them, this would be it.
It is the deviants who must provide proof that the Constitution (as it is written) affords their deviant behavior the special rights that they are seeking.

By the way, travelling down the highway of life with a bunch of boogerflickers would be hazardous. Their very proudly proclaimed behavior gives them a very narrow and snotty view of the rest of us. :rolleyes:
 
Nice try, but it still doesn't get me where I need to.

On pot, well, if someone gets stoned at home and stays there, then they aren't harming anyone but themselves. It's when they go out stoned in public that they can pose a danger, because they are now impaired. As a side note, I will say that I'm opposed to our so-called "war on drugs", as it 1) isn't working and 2) has lead to the destruction of all manner of constituionally protected rights with regrads to privacy, property, and so on. I don't know what the answer to the problem is, but I am convinced that our current approach is not it.

On your windshield example, It's already illegal in most if not all states to operate a vehicle on public roads if the drivers visibility is impaired. I can get a ticket for a bad crack, or too much mud, anything. On private property, fling to your heart's content /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

The reason being that it impairs the drivers ability to operate the vehicle safely, potentially placing others at risk.

Even if gays go to the courthouse and get married in public -something I really don't agree with- I don't see how that inflicts harm to me, or places me in danger. My marriage certificate still hangs on the wall, my relationship with my wife is not effected in any way that I can perceive, etc.

The Brady bunch thinks it's wrong for me to own a gun. But they can't show that my lawful ownership harms them in any way. And there are laws restricting what I may legally do with the gun, with punishments should I do something not allowed.

The PETA member thinks it's wrong for me to eat or otherwise use an animal. Yet my doing so does not harm them, so it's pretty hard for them to stop me, even though it goes against everything they believe.

I'm in the same situation regarding this: I think it's wrong. It goes against my moral beliefs. However, I do not want my liberties trampled by others simply because they believe something. What goes around comes around. If I want my rights and liberties protected, then the same rules need to apply in reverse.

Saudi Arabia is an Islam nation. All it's laws are based on the Koran. They even have "moral police" who roam around with whips, who are instant judge & jury. If they see someone violating a moral, they get whipped on the spot. Not sure if it's SA or another, but in some nations homosexuals are executed.

Think about that for a minute: In some nations, homosexuals are executed when caught, yet that doesn't stop them. That may be a good reason to think about the notion that it's "just a choice" they make. I know that sometimes it is, but I don't think it's always so.

I prefer the notion of the rule of law, based on our contitution and bill of rights, with the goal of restricting govt and freeing individuals. That means people are going to do stuff I don't approve of. It also means that I'm going to do stuff that others don't approve of.

And it means that I have a framework within which to operate.
 
Stu – I think you have a very good point – Although we are against this behavior, should we enact a law to prevent it – even though this is another restriction put on us by the federal government.

There are a few questions to be asked.

1. Is this behavior causing enough harm on society to pass a law to forbid it?
2. Is this something the federal government should legislate on?

When answering these questions, you must remember that there are many laws by the federal government prohibiting behaviors that society does not approve of. These laws may also be left up to the states. But you must also remember that if a gay marriage case goes to the Supreme Court – the Supreme Court will most likely determine that they should be able to marry legally. Do you want the Supreme Court deciding this? Because as you all know, once the Supreme Court makes a decision, it becomes the law and can only be overturned by an amendment to the Constitution. For all you pro-lifers, you know how bad the Supreme Court can strip our society of our basic morals.

I think it comes down to the opinion on whether or not granting marriages to gays damages our society. So the answer to your question, it affects you because it damages the fibers of our society.
 
if a gay marriage case goes to the Supreme Court – the Supreme Court will most likely determine that they should be able to marry legally.

Exactly. That is the root of my questions.

Why do you think teh USSC would rule this way? So far as we know, none of the justices are gay, and if any are, I'd lay long odds that they're in the minority on the court.

Could it be because they would need a constitutional basis to rule the other way?

My guess is that at some point in time, this will be a case before that court. The opposition lawyers, which will be defending the govt position of keeping such marraiges illegal, will quite possibly have to win on constitutional grounds.

They won't be able to simply hold up a Bible and quote scripture to show that it's wrong. Well, they can try that, but it seems to me a sure way to lose a legal battle based on a constitutional claim. They're going to need a better approach.

I've thought this over for quite a while, and so far I haven't come up with one.
 
Stu, The comment you made regarding homos being executed.And this isnt the exact quote,but I still havent figured out how the quote thing works, anyway,What I got from that was its hard to believe that homosexuality is just a choice thing,because in some countries your executed for it.If you look at the alcoholic or drug addict,they make a choice,and some choose to keeping doing what there doing no matter what is destroyed in there path ,whether it be countless divorces,car accidents,OWI's,jail,bad health ,even killing someone while intoxicated,I know of one individual I went to school with who hit and killed someone while driving drunk,did 5years for it,got out 2years later did the same thing,now he's gone I believe for good.Or the cracked addicted pregnant mothers who wont stop for there unborn child.And some countries even execute or imprison you for life if you are caught doing drugs,and what about the pediphiles in this country who murder there victims knowing full well they'll fry in the chair in some states if there caught.I feel homosexuality can be an addiction just like any other immoral addiction that a person chooses to take part in,some people are addicted to just plain old sex.Man is sinful by nature and what he chooses to do about it will affect him and others around him,good or bad.As far as your answer your looking for,your right there isnt anything that prevents it or speaks of it in the constitution ,what next legalize drugs,drunk driving after all your not hurting anyone unless you hit someone,homosexuality isnt directly hurting anyone unless you infect someone with aids.Just one more thing I have a few police officers in my family and we talk about stuff likr this,one of the things they have to deal with is aids infected queers,and when they break up a domestic or book one of these people who choose to be combative it puts the officers life in jeopardy because of the possibility of bodily fluids ie. blood & spit being transfered to the officer,these people(gays)can kill you without even a gun or knife.It just seems like there trying(liberals)to take away God,Guns & guts that made this country free,and good morals and replacing it with,homosexuality,drugs,abortion,no guns so criminals can run rampant,and turn victims into the criminal because he violated the crimanals rights by shooting him in the act as if a criminal has a right to commit crimes without having to worry about himself being harmed.It seems like everything is getting twisted around and warped out of shape,like yes means no and right means wrong. :rolleyes:
 
The Supreme Court will rule this way because there is nothing in the Constitution that says it is illegal to grant marriages to gays, just like they did with abortion. There is nothing in the Constitution that says it is illegal to have an abortion – so until there is further legislation on the matter – it is legal. But to use your reasoning, you must be against every law, state or federal, that restricts individual rights.

I don’t think that this is the key component of the debate. I agree with blak coyote, the morals of this country are going down the drain. Everybody wants more rights without accepting that with more rights comes more responsibility.

Stu, do you think that the United States government should condone (or support) immoral behavior if this behavior damages the society? If the federal government does not make this illegal, it will most positively be legal everywhere – no matter what the state legislatures decide.
 
How, specifically, does it damage the society?

AIDS/HIV isn't a good argument for this. Gay sex does not in and of itself create AIDS from nothing. It can be the means by which the virus is transmitted, but so is hetero sex, blood transufions and other. Two gays, who are not infected, can have sex 100 times a day with each other and neither will develop AIDS.

Actually, the AIDS argument may end up working against you: By entering into a commited, monogamous relationship, 2 people will remove themselves from the risk pool. Can't get it or spread it if you're not involved with multiple partners which could expose you.
 
I haven’t used the HIV/AIDS argument. I believe that immoral acts condoned by the government damage the society. For example, abortion has placed a huge burden on the conscious and soul of this nation. Am I able to give specific ways that gay marriage will damage the nation – the answer to this is no. But, immoral behavior breads more immoral behavior. If it is alright to have gay marriages in 2004, will it be alright for two brothers to marry in 2014? This may sound ridiculous, but what do you think our Founders would think about gay marriage? And who are we to say incest, pedophilia, or polygamy is wrong.
 
Rich,

For the record, I'm against "poofters" marrying each other on moral/religous grounds.

My views although unstated are very similar to Q-Wagoner. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
AIDS/HIV isn't a good argument for this. Gay sex does not in and of itself create AIDS from nothing. It can be the means by which the virus is transmitted, but so is hetero sex, blood transufions and other. Two gays, who are not infected, can have sex 100 times a day with each other and neither will develop AIDS.

Wrong again Stu old buddy. There are documented studies which show that AIDS was in fact caused by folks who subjected themselves repeatedly to countless disease germs via oral sex or sodomy. This is what caused the new virus to come about, the HIV virus that is. It is also a known fact that folks who have contracted the HIV virus can come down with full blown AIDS even if they refrain from sex altogether. (fat chance of them obstaining) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Another thing I find very strange and very wrong, is how our Government has refrained from adding aids to the communicable disease list. People with HIV can work in hospitals and cafe's, kids with HIV can attend school and the officials at these establishments can not even report the infected person to the health department. Holy Toledo, what is going on here anyway?
 
Sorry to be so silly. The Gay "movement" is activism to endorse, support and condone abberant behavior, not a race or a minority.
Click to expand...
This one of the best statements I have read so far. You do not have a "right" to commit abberant or deviant behavior.

Stu said:

On pot, well, if someone gets stoned at home and stays there, then they aren't harming anyone but themselves
Click to expand...
This is similar to smoking. Smokers say it is legal is only hurting me, so what is the problem? Yet the associated health costs incurred by smokers causes my insurance to go up, my taxes to go up (resulting from increased medicare, and social security disability claims), and courts gets clogged up with smokers sueing tobacco companies for killing them slowly. All the while, they are saying "Hey, I'm only hurting myself".

When the homosexual agenda is constantly being broadcast into my home via network telivision, plastered all over my newspaper and being presented in the class room, it begins to infringe on my right to raise my kids in an atmosphere free from such immorality.

Stu also said:

On your windshield example, It's already illegal in most if not all states to operate a vehicle on public roads if the drivers visibility is impaired
Click to expand...
and:

Even if gays go to the courthouse and get married in public -something I really don't agree with- I don't see how that inflicts harm to me, or places me in danger. My marriage certificate still hangs on the wall, my relationship with my wife is not effected in any way that I can perceive, etc.
Click to expand...
The last I heard, it is also illegal for same sex couples to marry (obtain marriage licenses) in all states. Your arguments are contradictory.

If I get my concealed carry license LEGALLY and you get yours out of a CRAKER JACK BOX and box are recognized by the state, does that impact my license? I would think that it does. Mine now has less validity or significance since people are going around getting them from a Craker Jack box.

Stu- I'm really trying to figure out if you really believe and have faith in what you are saying, or if you are just trying to play the Devil's Advocate (pun only intended if you think it is relavent).
 
The last I heard, it is also illegal for same sex couples to marry (obtain marriage licenses) in all states. Your arguments are contradictory.

If I get my concealed carry license LEGALLY and you get yours out of a CRAKER JACK BOX and box are recognized by the state, does that impact my license? I would think that it does. Mine now has less validity or significance since people are going around getting them from a Craker Jack box.

I don't think so. I've already expressed myself on the legality of issuing such licenses in this thread. Apparently no one bothered to read that part, and it was enough typing that I'm not doing it again.

Set aside for now the fact that these marraiges are illegal. Assume that the law has been changed to allow them. How does two people of the same sex marrying harm your marriage?

As to your CCW example, I don't think your permit has been impacted, as it is still valid and you are still able to use it to legally carry a concealed weapon. Someone getting a permit by any other means has not hindered your ability to use yours in any way.

You'd just be pissed because they got theirs cheaper, faster and easier than you did.

Real world example, specific to your CCW example: The state of AZ has a CCW law. To get one, you have to take 16 hours of training, qualify with live fire, and pass a background check. AZ charges $50 for a 4 year permit.

Recently, they changed the law regarding concealed carry without a permit. It used to be a misdemeanor, with up a $250 fine, loss of the gun, and possible jail time.

It is now a petty offense. Get caught carrying concealed without a permit and, at most, you will get a simple ticket. I think the fine is $25. It is now treated the same as spitting on the sidewalk.

So anyone who does not want to submit themselves to the state for permission can simply run around armed (concealed, open doesn't require a permit) having done nothing.

Does that in any way take away from those who jumped through the hoops and got a CCW?

Nope. They still have their permits. They even have some advantages: They can't be ticketed for carrying concealed. They have a CCW, so when they go to a state that recognizes AZ's permits, they can legally carry there. The people who did not get a CCW will not enjoy reciprocity with other states. When a CCW holder buys a gun in AZ, their permit exempts them from NICS, they don't get run through the system. Not so people without.

As to what I believe:

I have a fundamental belief in personal liberty and freedom. I believe that our constitution and BOR embody that and are well designed for the purpose, and clearly were intended so based on the writings of the founders that I've read.

I think that our govt, at all levels, has gotten way too bloody big and intrusive. There are multiple reasons for this, but it seems to me that the biggest 2 are these:

1) The lust for power. For power to mean anything, it must be used. So people who crave power seek it, obtain it, and then use it to control other people to whatever degree they can.

2) What I wrote about earlier, that part of human nature that turns us into busy-body meddlers that can't stand leaving people alone.

The economic objections some have raised are valid. To a point. To me, they serve to point out what is wrong with the creeping socialism we have here in America.

We want to ban certain behaviors because it might cost us money, in terms of taxes or insurance premiums.

Well, if we were responsible for ourselves, and didn't have all the entitlements & other govt intrusion into our lives, where we bought our own insurance and paid our own ways, that objection would be totally removed.

So while I agree that those things are good objections, I simply see them as excellent demonstrations of what is wrong with those things to start with.

If I wasn't forced to be my brother's keeper, so to say, I wouldn't have any grounds for worrying about what he might do.
 
I made a mistake and read Stu's post wrong again, but I left it the way it was just to see if he will catch it. The mistake that is. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif He said two gays who are NOT infected, and I missed the one word--"NOT". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I believe that Gay's and abortion rights activists win in the legislature and win again in supreme court because these places are now infiltrated with Gays and liberals. The communists once said that they would win the war against the United states and never fire a shot. They will win by destroying our morals. Our morals are at an all time low right now, and still falling. Our right to keep and bear arms has been infringed upon several times already, and the criminals have more rights than honest people do. Society has allowed all of this to happen, and they will not wake up until it is too late. Are we on the brink of Civil war? I think so, but I sure as heck hope that I am wrong about that.
 
Stu - I'd like to thank you for hanging in there. I don't know if I could take this much scrutiny. I have a feeling that we all agree with most of your last e-mail. But this quote bothers me a bit:

Well, if we were responsible for ourselves, and didn't have all the entitlements & other govt intrusion into our lives, where we bought our own insurance and paid our own ways, that objection would be totally removed.
Click to expand...
The problem is - that is a big if that vanished years ago and most likely won't come back anytime soon. I too hate the socialism going on in D.C. but if we are to retain morals in our society - we simply must play the game or the game will play us. I think we are past the days where we can sit back and do nothing. Look where it has gotten us so far /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
that is a big if that vanished years ago and most likely won't come back anytime soon.

Yeah. No argument there at all. Beats the hell out of me what to do about it, either.

The Libertarian Party has some pretty good ideas, but until and unless they grow up and get serious about winning elective office and changing things, they'll just amount to a debate society.

Which is sad. I don't agree with them on every position, and I think they come on way too strong about drug legalization for most folks, but I'd sure like to see a number of them in the house & senate to get in the way of the democrats & republicans /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Stu= Devil's Advocate.Great job Stu.For a minute there I thought you were wearing pink camo. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Your in Tennesee,what would Charlie Daniels say about this?Jack Daniels even?
 
Stu, I've heard the points you where making. I agree that gay's getting hitched really don't affect me directly, it's the indirect affects on society that everyone should be aware of. While listening to Rush yesterday, the news came on that a courthouse in OR had opened it's doors to gays. There was a little 8 y.o. girl outside that courthouse they interviewed, she was spinning a little noise maker and extremely happy because her "mommies" where getting married. What kind of laws are going to be made by that little girl when she grows up and becomes a senator? Or how will she interperate the consitution when she's setting on the supreme court bench? It don't affect me today, but it sure is going to change the world my grandchildren live in, I'd rather not be the one responible for that.
 
Back
Top