Grr I hate living in the bible thumping texas..Follow

Did you know im infallible?

Touche

The "right to abortion" was established on flawed jurisprudence. In order to create this "right" the court had to first create a "right to privacy" which they inferred from the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law. In that amendment there is no reference to privacy.
--------------------------------------------------

the flaw with your argument is again, that roe vs wade establised a new right.

the rulling was based on the interpetation that that right already existed under the constitution.

the confusion comes up when you try to look at the rulling based on weather an abortion is the termination of a human being, or just a medical proceedure to correct a problem.

the court ruled conservatively. im not talking about conservative activism as it is used in politics, but conservative in that the rulling does not violate the constitution, and more importantly, does not infringe on freedoms given to us under the constitution.

this does not establish some new right, it only upholds the rights guarenteed us under the constitution, even though this spacific situation is not expressly mentioned in the constitution.

to vote to end abortion is not passing some law to protect unborn children untill a clear defination is made as to when two cells becomes a life.

it is a vote to TAKE AWAY freedoms guarenteed us under the constitution.

the same can be said for redifining marriage as a union between a man and a women. it is discriminatory, and takes freedoms away from americans.

it is activism. it is a group of people trying to force every one else to live according to their standards by taking away freedoms given to all of us under the constitution because they dont like "THAT" particular freedom.

why stop there. lets stop allowing the practice of worshiping the islamic religion. it violates the Bible more so than abortion.

the dress it up by trying to REDEFINE whan a person is a person so they can call it murder. and REDIFINING what a marriage is. then taking away some of the freedoms granted to ALL of us.

just like REDEFINING what a prisoner of war is to make it "ok" to torture a human being.

it is wrong. it is unamerican. and it is EVIL. Freedom. that what this country was founded on. that is why we are not in a constant state of civil war like other countries.

you dont like abortion? dont have one. you have that freedom. you dont like gay marriages? marry someone of the opposite sex, you have that freedom.

you want to take away freedoms from other americans? that is treason, and you should be expelled from the country IMO.

Kudos to SR for making sense for once. Now if only he could master the secret art of the paragraph and the quote function (PM me SR I'll show you how if you care) his posts might start to be readable.

As for crazy religious people. "Meh". Are you sure you werent one of 20+ people on her list that she forwarded it to? Or did she send it specifically to you?

Whever I go you see them around but I have to say they are the exception in Canada. Most of the church going crowd I've met in all the cities and towns I've lived in are of the persuasion that believe what they believe and don't try to force it on anyone else. However the city I am currently in has a fair amount of religious nutballs and bible thumpers. An example is a girl that I know just got married to a guy. The guy is normal but his family are crazy. They refuse to own VISA because "VI" is 6 which is 666 the mark of the Beast and "SA" are the first two letters of "SAtan". They honestly buy into that so they use mastercard instead. Also the girlfriends family are mostly Mennonite. I was judged automatically as a good guy since I had "short hair" but if I had long hair I would be dissapproved of. I feel like telling them to go look at a picture of Jesus and then discussing hair length.

If I could grow long hair I would just to spite them.

Unfortunately it ends up just being an afro and I don't care to spite them at the expense of having an afro.

I hear ya katie.

Out where I live, one of the farmers, who is simple but VERY religous decided to put up a sign on his property that states (in these colors)

80% of all [Red]ABORTIONS are for UNWED Mothers.[/Royalblue]

I've been debating on putting up a sign in my yard that says:

80% of STUPID signs are put up by RETARTED farmers.

My wife won't let me though

I'd say that's pretty accurate.







I tried to grow long hair when I was a punk kid but it curls, frizzes and gets split ends so badly. Anyone that can grow long hair must have sold their soul to Satan and should burn. In about 5 years, I'll revise this claim to include all hair above the ears.

that would mean that I'd have the balls to stand up to her, which, with her hormones raging right now...no, not gonna do it.

I'd love to DsD!

At least you haven't had Jehova's Witnesses knocking on your door.

I have always believed that if men were the ones to get pregnant, there would be no abortion issue. There would also be no more children.

Not if their political agenda includes forcing me to live my life governed by views that I don't share.

Let's imagine for a moment the implications if orthodox Judaism somehow became the predominant religion in this country. If there were power brokers who wanted laws in place requiring me to have my son circumcised, or forbidding me to eat pork or shellfish. That is a violation of MY rights as an American citizen, as guaranteed in the First Amendment. I have a right to free religious expression (or lack thereof,) and to freedom from religious persecution, and if someone attempts to govern me based upon a religion that I don't share, then they are violating that right.

If someone doesn't want gay marriage or abortion to be legal, fine, they can WANT anything they choose. But the moment they attempt to make their religious inclination into a law that will govern MY life, then they have gone too far.




This is just a self-important egotistical bullsh[/b]it statement designed to help you congratulate yourself on your congnitive superiority by implying that no one else can possibly be capable of forming opinions without being told what to think by the media. Any chance of your argument carrying weight is essentially squandered when you elevate yourself to that sort of a pedestal.

Believe it or not, most of us can form our own opinions without being spoon-fed them by the media. And since gay marriage is the topic du jour here, I'll give you a prime example of how I came to the conclusion that banning gay marriage was wrong all by my widdle wonesome.

Less than a century ago, in my very own state of Oregon, there was a law in effect that proscribed any white person from marrying a person who was more than 1/16th "Negro, Indian, or Chinaman." If that law were still in effect today, my own marriage to my half-Japanese husband would be invalid.

Measure 36, which passed here on the 2004 ballot, amends the Oregon constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Who were the primary champions of Measure 36? Christian conservatives. So what they have done is take their religious beliefs and made them law.

What THAT has done is opened to door for any group with sufficient numbers to impose their religiously-prompted definition of what constitutes a valid marriage upon the rest of us.

On the other side of the Cascades in eastern Oregon and Idaho, there are an awful lot of white supremecists who can point out chapter and verse in the Bible to prove the case that interracial marriage is AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD. Now, racial tensions in the US are getting worse, not better, which means that white power movements are growing, not shrinking. So it is quite possible that someday, such a group would have sufficient numbers to get their own euphemistically-named Defense of Marriage Act on the ballot which would once again invalidate interracial marriage. MY marriage.

That is the danger of legislating based upon your religion. If one group can do it, anyone can do it. All they need is the numbers. Which means the anti-gay DOMA measures that passed all around the country in 2004 have jeopardized my [b]heterosexual marriage.

Yes, it's a slippery slope argument, and yes, it's UNLIKELY that neonazis will ever gain enough of a mainstream foothold to ever make such a thing fly--but it's POSSIBLE, and that is very worrisome to me. Just because something is unlikely now doesn't mean it won't come to pass. DOMA measures opened the door for anyone to define marriage in any way they choose as long as they have enough popular backing. So any marriage that isn't completely homogenized with regards to race, religion, or any other number of factors, is subject to potshots virtually at will.

so can you tell me the distinct difference between taking a life because the person was doing something you didnt condone, i.e. sodomy, and taking a life for other reasons? How is killing a person because they are gay not considered murder? I'm not including killing over self defense here.

Ambrya you are all types of wonderful.

If the christian right cares to legislate their beliefs much like a islamic theocracy at least we have you their to call bullsh[b][/b]it on them.