Election Day !!!!!!!!!

[NuWaveRx]

[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]

<p align="justify">There are a lot of things consenting adults cannot do: they can't run around naked in the park, they can't marry multiple people, they can't marry siblings, they can't eat shit and drink piss in public, they can't marry animals. Also, it's insulting to compare the issue of homosexual "marriage" with the plight other races have had to face in the past. One could infer from this baseless idea that being black or brown is the same as being a homosexual... which is not.
[/quote]


First up: you didn't answer either question. Second, you make the strawman arugment that I've heard so many times before. Your logic goes: Because "running around naked in public" is illegal (in most places, anyway) then same-sex marrigages cannot be allowed? That's sophistry at its finest. Behavior A has no connection to Behavior B, but Your "logic" could then be applied to any human behavior to condemn or praise it. Just because certain behaviors are not "allowed" (I'm assuming you mean by law), does that mean they should be condemned? Ever jaywalked, there XXX?

The more pertinent question your sophistry fails to address is what should be the role of government in our Constitutional republic? My argument is that the running thread through our Constitution is,at heart, the right to be left alone. If you are engaged in an activity that harms no one you should be allowed to continue that activity. The examples you provide, in my view, (with two exceptions: marrying first degree relatives due to chance of consanguinity genetic disorders--even then, if there were no chance of having children, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with it, and since animals aren't consenting adults that would be considered a red herring to my original arugment) should be allowed--again as long as consenting adults who harm no one are performing them.

To me the bottom line of this argument is simple: don't like homosexulality, XXX? Don't practice it. Since there is no evidence I'm aware of that same sex marriage harms anyone, let other consenting adults lives their lives as they see fit.


Finally you repeat your sohpistry with your repudiation of my "baseless" claim. So, in your view, if prejudice isn't based on race it's meaningless? I would submit that the numerous examples of bigotry based on the whole human spectrum of differences, religion, gender, social class, etc invalid that claim and shows a lack of understanding of world history.

[enzfan]

Just because he is black is no reason for racism to be involved remember he is half white also, so let's see what the cracker can do now that he has been elected.[:)]

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
First up: you didn't answer either question. Second, you make the strawman arugment that I've heard so many times before. Your logic goes: Because "running around naked in public" is illegal (in most places, anyway) then same-sex marrigages cannot be allowed? That's sophistry at its finest. Behavior A has no connection to Behavior B, but Your "logic" could then be applied to any human behavior to condemn or praise it. Just because certain behaviors are not "allowed" (I'm assuming you mean by law), does that mean they should be condemned? Ever jaywalked, there XXX? [/quote]

<p align="justify">First up, I wasn't answering your question. Second, I merely alluded to the fact there are activities that consenting adults are not allowed to do by law. Are we to suddenly begin to rethink every public ordinance and overturn it all? "Behaviour A has no connection with behaviour B"? Well, the only connection being that they're both no allowed by law and they involve consenting adults. Is jaywalking allowed by law? Hell, loitering isn't allowed by law. If one were to get called on it (hahaha), then they'd be in the wrong.

[quote]The more pertinent question your sophistry fails to address is what should be the role of government in our Constitutional republic? My argument is that the running thread through our Constitution is,at heart, the right to be left alone. If you are engaged in an activity that harms no one you should be allowed to continue that activity. The examples you provide, in my view, (with two exceptions: marrying first degree relatives due to chance of consanguinity genetic disorders--even then, if there were no chance of having children, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with it, and since animals aren't consenting adults that would be considered a red herring to my original arugment) should be allowed--again as long as consenting adults who harm no one are performing them.[/quote]

<p align="justify">Actually, I'm of the opinion that govt. should be out of the marriage business and leave it to each community to enact whatever ordinances they see fit with regards to it.

Sure, there is a really high chance of genetic mutations to happen from the offspring of close relatives, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen to unrelated people. Sarah palin had a retarded kid, for example. Now, [b]why[/b] would an animal need to give "consent" to anything? Hahaha. They've never have had to consent to anything in their lives. You want to adopt them as a pet, you want to kill them and eat them, you want to shoot them for fun? It's pretty much a free-for-all when it comes to some animals. An animal has the right to be tasty when cooked and placed between two pieces of toasty bread with mayo and mustard... being able to marry them would be a godsend to animals. [i]They're not harming anyone.[/i] See? Now you want to define marriage as "a marriage between two consenting, adult humans." What about retards? Can they really give consent? What about minors who have their parents' approval? [i]They're not harming anyone[/i]. Yet, according to your definition, they should not be allowed to marry.

[quote]Finally you repeat your sohpistry with your repudiation of my "baseless" claim. So, in your view, if prejudice isn't based on race it's meaningless? I would submit that the numerous examples of bigotry based on the whole human spectrum of differences, religion, gender, social class, etc invalid that claim and shows a lack of understanding of world history.[/quote]

<p align="justify">We're all prejudiced, unless one is indiscriminate and unconditional when it comes to everyone else. I don't like shit-eating-piss-drinkers, so I'm not going to associate with them, or espouse the propagation to the rest of the world that eating shit and drinking piss is something acceptable or normal - like being born black or brown (to the chagrin of shit-eating-piss-drinkers who want to promote this behaviour).

[NuWaveRx]

More sophistry, and specious arugments. Way to make no sense, whatsoever XXX (children? I said consenting adults--but when reason is lacking reading must be too).

No use continuing this pointless debate. When you decide to come up with a logical reply that answers my retort, give me a email.

[Bitter Almonds]

<p align="justify">Don't hold your breath for any e-mail. I already replied to your baseless claims.

[NuWaveRx]

I know--I was waiting for a reply that made sense. As I mentioned, turning my arugment focused on the activites of consenting adults into a diatribe on the lack of consent of animals is specious in the extreme. The conception of Consent is in fact a basis of the rule of law in Western culture and has been readily codifed and described enough, that I need not repeat its defense here. Play with your strawmen all you like, but the concepts I describe in my first reply bear little relation to your "retort" C'est la vie I suppose.

I will say I admire the way you readily admit your bigotry--most opponents of same sex marriage have blinded themselves to it (the old "love the sinner, hate the sin" chesnut)

Again, I won't be holding my breath for anything here or via email (though I have no doubt you'll get your last licks in after this). We both stated our views and should leave it at that.

[djcraig]

[quote][i]Originally posted by enzfan[/i]
<br>Just because he is black is no reason for racism to be involved remember he is half white also, so let's see what the cracker can do now that he has been elected.[:)]
[/quote]
Exactly, that White Honky Mutha!

Wasn't Clinton really the first black president?




<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by djcraig[/i]
<br>Wasn't Clinton really the first black president?
[/quote]
Turned out it was only blackface.

[phillyidol]

Obama had his first press conference today. First I would like to say that he is the first politician I have ever seen that actually talked to the press. He answered questions and actually engaged in conversation. What a breath of fresh air in a place where teams of lawyers write speeches for you. Give the guy a chance. So far he does not strike me as a phony piece of crap like 99% of the government.




Worlds GREATEST Photographer!

[MetaMatrix]

this whole "1st BLACK president in the WHITE house" media headline bullshit is so utterly ridiculous & wrong !

obama is NEITHER black NOR white - he's BOTH , as his father was black & his mother was white !

of course a headline like "1st AFRO-AMERICAN president in the white house" doesn't look nor sound so special !

only rather simple minded people could still fall for this "black / white" nonsense ...

obama clearly represents "the best of both worlds" - so to say - & that's what makes him so special !

p. s. : it would be so good to have somebody like obama also in germany , my homecountry , for the next election in 2009 , but sadly we can only choose between the bad and the worse here ! *sigh*

[enzfan]

You guys don't need another leader who happens to be a charismatic speaker over there to enthuse the masses. The last one didn't work out so well.

[MetaMatrix]

[quote][i]Originally posted by enzfan[/i]
<br>You guys don't need another leader who happens to be a charismatic speaker over there to enthuse the masses. The last one didn't work out so well.
[/quote]

oh ... "how funny" this is ... NOT !

comments like that jus' show that certain americans DON'T deserve a president like obama , as they would be much better off with ... palin ! [}:)]

[club80]

[quote][i]Originally posted by enzfan[/i]
<br>You guys don't need another leader who happens to be a charismatic speaker over there to enthuse the masses. The last one didn't work out so well.
[/quote]

Who was the last charismatic speaker to whom you refer? You couldn't possibly mean George W Bush?!

We didn't sell a lot of records, but somehow we left an impression.
-Johnny Ramone-

[enzfan]

[quote][i]Originally posted by MetaMatrix[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by enzfan[/i]
<br>You guys don't need another leader who happens to be a charismatic speaker over there to enthuse the masses. The last one didn't work out so well.
[/quote]

oh ... "how funny" this is ... NOT !

comments like that jus' show that certain americans DON'T deserve a president like obama , as they would be much better off with ... palin ! [}:)]
[/quote] I agree, I don't deserve a president like him.


<center>
<img src="http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h199/dancinnberlin/325954619v15_350x350_Front.jpg" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"><br><br>
</center>

[marie3]

[quote][i]Originally posted by enzfan[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by MetaMatrix[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by enzfan[/i]
<br>You guys don't need another leader who happens to be a charismatic speaker over there to enthuse the masses. The last one didn't work out so well.
[/quote]

oh ... "how funny" this is ... NOT !

comments like that jus' show that certain americans DON'T deserve a president like obama , as they would be much better off with ... palin ! [}:)]
[/quote] I agree, I don't deserve a president like him.


<center>

</center>
[/quote]

Geez, move to Alaska already and stop whining. Sarah can govern you from there.