The Fall of the United States

[pbfoot]

Do what you want ....but I cannot see the reason that you need special rights aside from whats afforded you under your constitution.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Gotta agree with FBJ on this. I think he is putting it foward and simple as to what it is. Gays have the same rights as us straight people. It is how you interpret it, and frankly I agree with him. They dont deserve anything more special than anyone else.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Delusional

mkloby, you are once again either putting words into my mouth or simply "misinterpreting" my posts. I never claimed that there was no liberal push for open borders and immigration; I simply said that there is more of a conservative backlash than a liberal push. Of course, the issue has both its opponents and proponents working hard to further their cause and their ideas.

I'm saying the the free open borders lobby is just as strong, if not stronger than the lobby for those against free open borders.

Originally Posted by Delusional

Thomas Jefferson was one of the few forefathers to ever free his slaves. He tried to ban slavery in the original form of the Declaration of Independence, but many southern states never would have signed the declaration if they were also signing away their livelihood (slavery). He truly believed that all men were created equal, even those of a different color than himself. He even professed to being in love with a slave woman, with whom he had several children. I mostly meant freedom of religion, yes, but our forefathers also believed that church and state should be separate institutions in terms of influence, as well. In other words, they did not want the equivalence of the Catholic or Protestant Church in America. Religion was never meant to rule the political scene of the United States, and vice-versa.

Let's call a spade a spade here - this excerpt taken directly from the Library of Congress:
"The committee to revise Virginia's laws put Jefferson in charge of the section on crimes and punishment. Jefferson's proposal contained some humanitarian sections (capital crimes for white offenders were reduced to two), but it remained largely traditional and harsh. Punishments for free and enslaved blacks were actually increased. Virtually none of the plan was adopted by the Virginia legislature."

Thomas Jefferson had some SERIOUS moral flaws. There is also a copy of an advertisement he made to secure the capture of a runaway slave.

With regard to religion - you cannot say what the forefathers did and did not want. Even if you read the various federalist papers - they ARE NOT the Constitution and have no legal authority. What matters is what's in the Constitution - not what you think the founding fathers may or may not have meant.

Originally Posted by Delusional

I disagree that the majority of Americans are against the gay rights movement and against gays adopting children. Many of the people whom you assume are against the movement are probably undecided or simply don't care. Our legislatures do not always reflect the opinion of the majority. With the Republican majority finally breaking in Congress, we will see what happens, although the Democrats do not have a large enough majority to guarantee any real change. Furthermore, gay rights is not struck down in every place in which it is put forth. Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage, and San Francisco ... well, we all remember that fiasco. The gays have also made huge strides in partnership law.

Again - if Americans support the gay rights movement - why are items like gay marriage voted down by referendum everywhere they are listed as an item? You can't disagree w/ this - it's fact. I'm not speaking of congressional votes - it's the electorate.

If you haven't noticed - the vast majority of Americans are Christian. Homosexuality goes against God's plan. FBJ and Erich covered these - I do not need to go into them again. The gay rights movement definitely does not have popular support to encourage sympathetic legislation on a national level. Furthermore - the gay movement full well knows this - hence their abuse of the judicial system through activists judges.

So if one state decides to allow homosexual marriages - do other states where that is not legal recognize it? What about reciprocity? If you live in a common law marriage state - will you have common law gay civil uions?You can't have different states shooting off in different directions. this is a serious issue that the federal gov't NEEDS to step in and resolve. Unfortunately, it's the difficult decisions that are avoided like the plague in America.

[Delusional]

I said "official" ceremony for a reason, FLYBOYJ. By denying them the right to officially marry, you are still ostracizing them.

"Well maybe if something was done about "flamers" you wouldn't have ignorant fools bashing them!!!!"

That's exactly the kind of ridiculous crap the gays have to fight against. So it's their fault that certain redneck idiots out there target them? So they don't have the right to live and dress and act the way they see fit, yet you do? So they bring this stigmatization on themselves? I guess every minority group brings their torment onto themselves, eh?

You don't have to advertise your sexual content. Everyone assumes that everyone else is straight until given a reason to think otherwise. Unless someone dresses, speaks, or acts in some manner that you think tips you off to their sexual preference, you assume that they are straight. Or they come right out and say it. And what's wrong with that? If they don't come right out and say it, are they supposed to pretend that they are straight so that they don't offend the likes of you? Are they supposed to hide part of their identity just so they are not targeted? Or are they not supposed to comment when someone asks them? As though a lack of comment doesn't give it away anyway, since no one is forced by our society to feel ashamed for being straight. But gays are supposed to keep their shameful secret, huh?

Erich, I could argue morality with you, but it would be pointless. My moral compass does not come from the Bible, because I do not believe in the Bible. You have my every respect for being a devout Christian, but you preaching at me will accomplish nothing. I will never view homosexuality as immoral.

One thing that many of you are failing to realize is that the gay rights movement is responsible for many of the rights that you guys are saying the gays already have. Well, they didn't always have them. They had to fight for them, and that is why the gay rights movement began in the first place. If you think the rights that they currently enjoy are fair and needed, than you cannot possibly be truly against the movement.

mkloby, you're telling me a bunch of public protests is a stronger lobby than government action and military backing when it comes to immigration? There may be just as many people on each side, but the influence that those people have is much different. Right now we are moving towards securing our borders not towards opening them up to one and all. By the way, I'm not advocating opening them up to one and all; I'm just saying that the conservatives are definitely winning on this issue.

Thomas Jefferson's moral flaws were no worse than any other's during his time. In fact, I would argue that he had fewer and far worse flaws, but again, how can one argue morality?

The vast majority of Americans claim to be Christians. And these people never go to church, never read the Bible, and never pray. They were raised to believe in Christianity, so when someone asks them their religion, it's automatically Christianity. They go along with what the leading Christians say is right and wrong, never giving any thought as to how they themselves actually feel. These are the Christians that I don't like, and similarly, that many devout Christians don't like.

"So if one state decides to allow homosexual marriages - do other states where that is not legal recognize it? What about reciprocity? If you live in a common law marriage state - will you have common law gay civil uions?You can't have different states shooting off in different directions. this is a serious issue that the federal gov't NEEDS to step in and resolve. Unfortunately, it's the difficult decisions that are avoided like the plague in America."

Who's advocating going against the Constitution now? There have been many issues in our nation's history that have caused different states to shoot off in different directions. It's allowed because the Constitution specifically says this is how it's supposed to be. Article X states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." By saying the federal government should step in, you are giving the federal government too much power. Gay rights have always been a state issue and will always remain a state issue thanks to the Constitution.

[pbfoot]

i personally think a husband and wife should be able to procreate if not it ain't a marriage . The next thing is somebody in Cornwall will wish to make their sheep a legal mate

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Delusional

I said "official" ceremony for a reason, FLYBOYJ. By denying them the right to officially marry, you are still ostracizing them.

"Well maybe if something was done about "flamers" you wouldn't have ignorant fools bashing them!!!!"

That's exactly the kind of ridiculous crap the gays have to fight against. So it's their fault that certain redneck idiots out there target them? So they don't have the right to live and dress and act the way they see fit, yet you do? So they bring this stigmatization on themselves? I guess every minority group brings their torment onto themselves, eh?

and that's my point - if they settled for the status quo and realize they DO have rights you wouldn't have ignorant fool ostracizing them

Originally Posted by Delusional

You don't have to advertise your sexual content. Everyone assumes that everyone else is straight until given a reason to think otherwise. Unless someone dresses, speaks, or acts in some manner that you think tips you off to their sexual preference, you assume that they are straight. Or they come right out and say it. And what's wrong with that? If they don't come right out and say it, are they supposed to pretend that they are straight so that they don't offend the likes of you? Are they supposed to hide part of their identity just so they are not targeted? Or are they not supposed to comment when someone asks them? As though a lack of comment doesn't give it away anyway, since no one is forced by our society to feel ashamed for being straight. But gays are supposed to keep their shameful secret, huh?

The point here is sexuality doesn't have to be legislated. You're too young and ignorant to realize that! Do you think this is the first time a "movement" like this has been attempted?? In the 60s the same thing started and it got so out of hand it lost momentum and support becuase many realized there were underlying political agenda behind the whole thing, just as it is now!

Originally Posted by Delusional

Erich, I could argue morality with you, but it would be pointless. My moral compass does not come from the Bible, because I do not believe in the Bible. You have my every respect for being a devout Christian, but you preaching at me will accomplish nothing. I will never view homosexuality as immoral.

and that's your choice

Originally Posted by Delusional

One thing that many of you are failing to realize is that the gay rights movement is responsible for many of the rights that you guys are saying the gays already have. Well, they didn't always have them.

how do you know - have you live around a gay couple or had one for a relative?

Originally Posted by Delusional

They had to fight for them, and that is why the gay rights movement began in the first place. If you think the rights that they currently enjoy are fair and needed, than you cannot possibly be truly against the movement.

Movement, there is no movement unless you have a political agenda...

[Nonskimmer]

I realize that the cartoon thread is just down the hall a ways, but this seemed better suited for here:

[Delusional]

"i personally think a husband and wife should be able to procreate if not it ain't a marriage . The next thing is somebody in Cornwall will wish to make their sheep a legal mate"

So a sterile man or woman should not be able to marry? How would allowing two human beings to marry lead to allowing a human being to marry a member of another species? It's this kind of talk that serves to dehumanize gays. Like all of society's morals, common sense, and decency will go out the window just because two men are getting married.

"and that's my point - if they settled for the status quo and realize they DO have rights you wouldn't have ignorant fool ostracizing them"

Sorry, but I tend to think that the blame here lies in the ignorant fools and not their targets.

"how do you know - have you live around a gay couple or had one for a relative?"

Wow, do you want me to go into my extensive involvement with the gay community? My aunt and cousin are gay (one is a woman, the other is a man). My best friend is bisexual (a woman), another good friend of mine is gay (a man), and I go to a school (a college for mostly theater and music majors) where over 35% of the student body is either gay or bisexual. Not to mention the fact that I myself am bisexual. Does that satisfy your criteria?

The whole movement is political. It involves referendums, legislatures, political parties, the judiciary system, etc.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Delusional

The whole movement is political. It involves referendums, legislatures, political parties, the judiciary system, etc.

Yep - and much of the "movement" has been struck down in courts and elections because the vast majority of the population see through this agenda.

Should your Bi-friend be granted Bi-rights? Have one husband and one wife? Then that person will be a polygamist right? See the problem here?

Let me ask you something - lets say you get into an altercation with someone (their fault). You defend yourself. You go to court and then suddenly you're adversary claims they're gay and you committed a hate crime - what do you do????

You're surrounded by a gaggle of liberals and liberal ideas and those who think they are enlightened because they are in university. Half of them haven't seen the real world (and I'm not talking the TV show) thus fit right into the above cartoon. Many of us were there once - things change...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You know I think that if Gays did not run around in pink boas and other outwardly women stuff (the shemale in the relationship) and stop acting like women there would not be that bad of a problem

To be honest I dont care if someone is gay or not. It is there right and choice but I sure as hell dont need to see them acting all prissy and like a woman. I also dont want my children to see that because I personally dont agree with it.

Do I have a right not to agree with it? Hell yes I do. It is my honest opinion and therefor it is not wrong for me to think that way.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Delusional

That's exactly the kind of ridiculous crap the gays have to fight against. So it's their fault that certain redneck idiots out there target them?

Come on - what's w/ the redneck comment? That's just unnecessary... and also derrogatory. What is your exact definition of a "redneck?" Many of my best friends who I serve with are likely what you would thumb you nose at and call "rednecks," and these are great people that help keep you and your family safe.

Originally Posted by Delusional

Erich, I could argue morality with you, but it would be pointless. My moral compass does not come from the Bible, because I do not believe in the Bible. You have my every respect for being a devout Christian, but you preaching at me will accomplish nothing. I will never view homosexuality as immoral.

You many not get your morals from the Bible - yet America was founded upon these principles, and a ridiculous amount of Americans base their morals on the Bible. Think of this - polygamy is illegal. That's a Judeo-Christian value, and it's also law. Should that be struck down as oppressive? Just one example. You must know that you are a huge minority, not deriving your morals from the Bible. Even those who you claim do not go to Church or Mass still overwhelmingly base their belief system on the Bible. Think about this - if you, and those who think like you, want to impose your belief system on the US, and this is obviously against the will of the American people - isn't that the very definition of tyranny?

Originally Posted by Delusional

mkloby, you're telling me a bunch of public protests is a stronger lobby than government action and military backing when it comes to immigration? There may be just as many people on each side, but the influence that those people have is much different. Right now we are moving towards securing our borders not towards opening them up to one and all. By the way, I'm not advocating opening them up to one and all; I'm just saying that the conservatives are definitely winning on this issue.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I'm saying the non-gov't open borders/immigration lobby is stronger than the non-gov't lobby to secure borders and strictly control immigration. Independent of the government itself. Hopefully, the US gov't itself will continue to strengthen border security, but even the gop controlled senate was a dismal failure in that course. We want the borders open to one and all - what we don't want is you to break federal law, enter the US unlawfully, reap the benefits of the American economy, not pay taxes or illegally use another's SSN. the list goes on and on. Illegals cost this country millions yearly. A congressmen from CO estimated that illegals cost the state about 150 million from their healthcare costs yearly - obviously they aren't insured!

Originally Posted by Delusional

Thomas Jefferson's moral flaws were no worse than any other's during his time. In fact, I would argue that he had fewer and far worse flaws, but again, how can one argue morality?

I cannot believe that you are seriously saying this. Participating in the brutalization of a race of people, increasing penal codes for that race vice whites... John Q Adams knew slavery was wrong and IMMORAL, then I'm sure Mr Jefferson was capable of such a feat. You may not believe that you can argue morality - it's called moral relativism. But, as said before, the huge majority of Americans don't buy into that "enlightened" BS, they draw their morality from the Bible. I read O'Reilly's book Culture Warrior, and tended to disagree about his comments on people in your camp (by the way from your comments you pretty much toe the line of the secular progressive movement as he defines it) about moral relativism. I guess he very well may have been right.

Originally Posted by Delusional

The vast majority of Americans claim to be Christians. And these people never go to church, never read the Bible, and never pray. They were raised to believe in Christianity, so when someone asks them their religion, it's automatically Christianity. They go along with what the leading Christians say is right and wrong, never giving any thought as to how they themselves actually feel. These are the Christians that I don't like, and similarly, that many devout Christians don't like.

That's the typical response of those who ACTIVELY OPPOSE religion in the US. Of course, they say they don't, only religion in public life according to the 1st Amendment, which is either a blatant lie or a sharp misunderstanding of said amendment. I hardly seem to think that you, a self proclaimed non-Christian, are able to comment on whether these folks do/don't go the Church, never read the Bible, and CERTAINLY THAT THEY DON'T PRAY! Come on. You have absolutely NO WAY of knowing these items to be true, but it's a "truism" of those that seek to destroy the influence of religion in America.

Originally Posted by Delusional

Who's advocating going against the Constitution now? There have been many issues in our nation's history that have caused different states to shoot off in different directions. It's allowed because the Constitution specifically says this is how it's supposed to be. Article X states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." By saying the federal government should step in, you are giving the federal government too much power. Gay rights have always been a state issue and will always remain a state issue thanks to the Constitution.

I fear that you do not fully understand the Constitution and system of gov't established in the US. I never argued going against the Constitution. I pointed out to a dilemma. If states are supposed to engage in reciprocity w/ respect to marriage, and one state legalizes gay marriage while it's illegal in another state - what is supposed to happen. Think of a good answer to that problem.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You dont like the laws in the United States. You dont like the principles of the United States. You dont like the morals of the United States.

I have a quick solution....

....Go find a better place to live then.

[Erich]

.............. ~ so now Del or whatever your REAL name is, we go back to your original question will the US be destroyed from within or externally

BOTH. seems pretty clear to me and others your stance on the Gay community and that there are no moral standards to live up to, and that this is via free will.
True, God gave us ALL free will whether you believe in Him or not. As for your comment a generalization which I have heard countless times that I am preaching to you and anyone else, you seem to be awfully authorative with your thoughts. fine.

I just don't see a real inner or exterior strength in you or your friends who one day will be running the US of A. In fact I see quite the opposite, soft, passive, and non caring, free for all. I lived and breathed the hellish 60's, and it was a very warped and demented time. Sadly America wants to return to that era to somehow make a statement in what context am not sure.

America will one day become weak with a possible take over by a coalition of other countries or she will stand in such a sorry state that the name will be no more and the country will fall such as Rome did..........it is already happening.

History has an evil way of repeating itself

[Hunter368]

I see Delusional is at it again.....somethings never change. lol

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Come on - what's w/ the redneck comment? That's just unnecessary... and also derrogatory. What is your exact definition of a "redneck?" Many of my best friends who I serve with are likely what you would thumb you nose at and call "rednecks," and these are great people that help keep you and your family safe.

I think we should have a "Redneck's Rights Ammendment" just for those kind of comments!