Text 1154, 161 rader
Skriven 2008-01-06 18:03:05 av Daniel Prather (195.holysmok)
   Kommentar till text 1151 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Big stink in Green Bay
==============================
  Re: Big stink in Green Bay
  By: Ross Cassell to Daniel Prather on Sun Jan 06 2008 09:56 am

 > The same can be easily said for you or anyone else.
 >
 > If you are allowed to believe as you do, arent others..

I don't have a belief, remember?  But I never said it shouldn't be allowed.
Stop trying to mischaractarize my statements.

 > The difference when it comes to religion or similiar belief is, the holy
 > rollers have a unswerving belief or rather faith in what they believe.
 >
 > You for example cling to the scientific portion of the equation, in many
 > ways some could look at you and say, he believes everything a scientist
 > tells him.

I don't, though.

 > I dont think the fundies are in your face as often as you infer.

You don't live where I do, and haven't experienced my life.  When you have,
THEN you can make a comment about what I deal with on a daily basis.  Okay?

 > Ah another one of your stereotypes.

This isn't evidence, it's just a way of avoiding the question.

 > What if the pregnancy was at a stage in which the baby could have survived
 > outside of the womb?
 >
 > I agree with those laws and believe they should at minimum be applicable if
 > the victim was in the 6th or 7th month of pregnancy or later.
 >
 > Oh wait, you believe in a murderers right to involuntarily cause an
 > abortion?

If rights are given to an unborn fetus that put it on par with the mother, then
where do the mother's rights end and the fetus' rights begin?  If a woman has a
mcarriage, is she guilty of manslaughter?  What if she did something to induce
the miscarraige, either deliberately or accidentally?  What if someone hit a
car with a pregnant woman in it, and while the pregnant woman didn't die, she
miscarried.  Is that vehicular manslaughter?

There's a clear, easy line that nature has provided.  Birth.

 >  DP> No, that's just been the topic at hand.
 >
 > But you are blaming everything on them, surprisingly even Sauer had to
 > correct you on a point or two.

Ummm, what?

 > How many get up in your face. Alot of what you advocate is more proactive
 > than reactive, stay out of their face!

So in other words, because I'm going to be subjected to religious propaganda by
the majority religion, I must stay inside my house, withdraw from all
commercial transactions, etc.?  Gotcha.

 > Would you then agree that the Democrats target voting blocks as do the GOP?

Yes.

 > and to keepit going, we must redefine marriage, why wasnt it redefined
 > centuries ago?

Fundamentalist Christians, who have been in the majority, haven't allowed it.
Interestingly enough, the judiciary generally intervenes when rights of the
minority are being oppressed by the majority.

 > I cant see them from the ground during the day.

Only because of the sun.  They still reflect light down to Earth.

 > Yes it is the homos can insure each other and will shit to the other.

What?  Oh, and "the homos"?  Mmhmm.

 > Notice how the left wing strongholds come up with the stupidest of laws,
 > see the post about NJ I made yesterday.

Changing the subject too.  It's a bit too obvious, though.

 > Thats to prevent all types of discrimination, like preventing Christians
 > from discriminating against Jews for example? Would you prefer otherwise?

I prefer that people be protected against all forms of discrimination.

 > The same law would also prevent an Internet Service Provider from
 > discriminating against you, should you seek employment from or are employed
 > by one.

I agree.  But, that should be extended to everyone.  Unless something about you
is making you unable to perform your job, there should be absolutely no grounds
for people to fire you.  Regardless of your race, religion, gender, age, sexual
orientation, gender identity, economic status, FICO score, nationality, etc.

 > See Civil Rights Act Of 1964.
 > Btw, my employer has a policy against sexual preference discrimination.

Good.  Not all of them do.

 > The Civil Right Act of 1963, The equal pay act of 1967, the age
 > discrimination act of 1967, the Americans with disabilities act of 1990,
 > thh rehabilitation act of 1973 and another civil rights act of 1991.
 > covered alot of ground, the meat of the legislation as we know it today
 > come from the acts passed in the 1960's, faggots and lesbo's werent at the
 > forefront of the national phyche then.

Because it used to be that people who identified as homosexual were beaten,
killed, run out of town, etc.  And faggots and lesbos?  Please.

 > But you know something, if you arent required to accept the religion of
 > another, why are others required to accept homesexuality?

You don't have to accept it.  You simply can't discriminate against them for
it.

 > You tend to blame religious people because they happen to screech the
 > loudest about it, that doesnt mean the entire portion of those whom detest
 > it are all religious people.

Please point me to the nearest evidence that says homosexuality harms you in
some way, form or fashion to the point that you must be against any equal
rights for homosexual people.

 > I have a friend whom lives in Virginia, this was a few years ago, he took
 > his 8 year old son (age at the time) to a public park to toss a ball around
 > and play, when they arrived, they noticed 2 men under a tree sucking face.
 > He had a hard time explaining this to his son, cant say I blame him for the
 > connundrum, since he would never dream of sucking face with his wife in
 > front of his son. Now there is a time and place for everything and some
 > things should stay in the bedroom. However had the couple been a man and a
 > woman, there would have been alot less to explain. We see different sex
 > couples giving each other kisses (pecks) on the cheeks or lips all the
 > time, hand holding, hugging, just goto the shopping mall for instance.

Sounds like a parenting problem to me.  There are those that would say they
shouldn't ever have to explain anything like that to their children until
they're 18+, should all public displays of affection be banned?

 > Alot of people dont stomach the same sex thing, nor do they have to.

There are a lot of racist people too, but they're legally not allowed to extend
their discrimination beyond their mind/opinions.

 > Doesnt change my point, they are still in their own class.

Relegated there by people like you, no doubt.

 >  DP> It's bullshit and you know it, but, lots easier to let it support your
 >  DP> views when the government sanctions the discrimination.
 >
 > Remember Chicken Little?

Again, it doesn't affect you, so why should you care?

-- Daniel
--- SBBSecho 2.12-FreeBSD
 * Origin: :: The Realm of Dreams :: bbs.mysticone.com (1:112/10)