User CP :: Log in to check your private messages :: Chat :: Register :: Log in

Board Index :: Album :: FAQ :: Calendar :: Members :: Groups :: Staff ::
Search
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
graphic I'm a wee bit confused... (church and state) graphic
Author Message PO Info
Graillik Tur
Renaissancetaku



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 09 Jul 2004
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:15 am    Post subject:

No actually that was perfectly honest.

On the pro-choice candidate. I can understand why that would seem to be propaganda. Unfortunately it was stricktly aimed at one deomgraphic and any stragglers that could be bought. Because that message had 'brought to you by blank' anyone with half a brain would go..."oh, I don't believe what they believe, but I understand why they are saying that, that's nice of them to do that for their people."

To me that's not propaganda, that's feeding on the week and ignorant, which helped get the man I wanted elected. I fully expect and accept the next Dem. runner to do the exact same thing if he wants to win, and I will do my best to educate my fellow Rep. not to do so or listen to the lies.

Abortion. Abortion affects everyone. Anyone with a soul should be deeply saddend by the termination of a young child. I have a niece that very well could have been an abortion to make it easier on her mother and father. She wasn't, she cause many problems and had many trials and hardships. She is now 13, and the most beautiful and intelligent little woman I have ever met. I love her with all my heart and can not think of a single day going by that she wouldn't be here. Abortion is denying the world a joy that everyone can enjoy.

Imagine your closest friend. Now imagine if they were gone today, forever. Imagine the sadness that you would feel. Now imagie being told that the reason they were gone was because someone simply felt there existance was an inconvinance to them. How would that make you feel.

The rape thing, yes I believe abortion is viable at that stage. When it is a danger to the mother and childs health the carry to term, yes viable option. When used as a medical tool and a reliever of undo or unconcented conciquence yes, birhtcontrol, no.

Gay marriage. To allow gay marriage would mean to completely change a deffinition that has been around since the dawn of man and the fertile cresent. That is assinine to attempt such a things so less than 3% of an American population can feel closer to their diotice being for feel they are like everyone else when obviousely they are not like everyone else. Their 3%. And lets not get on to what this would do to the economy, cause it wouldn't be much, but as a white male between 21 and 28, I don't have any organizations funded by the government or private companies fighting for my rights or my job. And that is fine, I understand why. I also understand that in no way has the country done anything to gays as a peoples and therefore the country doesn't owe them anything, in the form of say...tax breaks or life insurance because of a marriage that isn't defined in any major religious sect around the world.

Social Union...give it to them. Let them have it. But no where on the planet is a marriage between to members of the same sex given the same ideals and perks of a union of a man and a woman.

Thanks you for you time Rune, it was most enjoyable.

_________________
It is my firm belief that in this era of mass connectivity, the death of us all will be mass media.

Why do we insist in believing we are masters of our surroundings when we fail so miserably to master ourselves?


Reply with quote
Wins 2 - Losses 10
Level 3
EXP: 283
HP: 1950
Eligible for battle!
STR: 750
END: 600
ACC: 750
AGI: 600
Shotbow (Shotgun)
(240 - 320)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Silver Adept
Otaku Lord


Age: 42
Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 20 May 2003
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:25 am    Post subject:

Grallik Tur, quite correctly wrote:

There is no such thing as a complete seperation of church and state.


A true statement, since generally the values of law are those based, at least in part, in religion or philosophy, the two arms of the various churches and schools. My point, however, was that because of this fact, politicians who feel like it can exercise influence over the state using ideas gathered from the church insomuch as the state allows him/her to. This can be a bad thing if the state is too permissive or too much of the church has infiltrated the state, which many think will occur now that Mr. Bush has been re-elected. They clamor for separation of church from state because they fear the abuses that may be perpetuated through the close ties they see. While I do not advocate a clean break between the two (as Grallik notes, it really is impossible), I would prefer to see the church's influence minimized in matters of the state.

This does lead, in a somewhat roundabout fashion, to a position on mattes of marriage of homosexuals. Grallik missteps when he says that the definition of marraige is one man and one woman, dates to Mesopotamian society, and has stayed relatively unchanged across time and space. The idea of a contract of marriage, recognized by the state, for property and succession rights, does go back that far. But we have several indications of polyganous societes through history, even to today. The marriage definition he wants to use is Judeo-Christian in origin, and while commonly accepted as the definition, is not the only example.

In addition, Grallik, changing to accomodate a minority has had positive results before - women and racial minorities earning suffrage rights is an easy example.

It appears to me that the ire, fervor, and rage around gay marraiges and such forgets to address (somewhat conveniently, I might add) whether or not homosexuals count as a minority under law, and thus are entitled to benefits of law designed to protect minorities. Any Federal Amendment to the Constitution to outlaw homosexual marriage also carries with it the decision that homosexuals are not a recognized legal minority. At the moment, under the current climate of Judeo-Christian values, which view homosexuality as a deviancy that be corrected, much like an addiction, homosexuals are not viewed as a legal minority.

Applause rendered to Grallik for being kind enough to grant the state the ability to perform a ceremony, but it can be successfully argued that said ceremony counts as an endorsement of homosexuals as a recognized legal group, and thus entitled to the rights of marriage. It does become a bit of an all-or-nothing endeavour there.

The final word on this part of the issue will likely be if science can conclusively prove, with wide acceptance, either the nature or the nuture theory. Thus, looking at it this way, it will take a long time to resolve.

As an alternative, I present this train of thought. Amendment XIV, Section 1, United States Constitution states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As citizens of their respective states, people are entitled to enter into contracts regardless of their sexual orientation. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a contract requiring a license to be issued to be valid. Certain legal benefits and legal bindings apply to the married. Interpreted in this manner, Amendment XIV of the Constitution prohibits any state from abridging the rights of homosexuals that it extends to other citizens. The actions, then, of the eleven states that passed constitutional amendments on Nov. 2 are unconstiutional and should be struck down. (Normally, this requires a court challenge. I am sure there will be such.)

Again, only providing my opinion, as I see it, interpreting hopefully correctly the statements of others. If I am in error, please let me know and I will endeavour to correct it.

KenseiKurisuchan wrote:

This just in: Silver Adept is way hot.


Thank you for the compliment. Hopefully I am providing good material for civilized discusion and debate.

_________________
Sir Silver Adept, KCI. Check out the Knights of Jubal if you want to revive chivalrous behavior.
Reply with quote
Wins 293 - Losses 240
Level 23
EXP: 2163
HP: 3375
Eligible for battle!
STR: 1125
END: 1125
ACC: 1225
AGI: 1225
Sander's Asylum (Partisan)
(505 - 655)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
shadokastur
Patience to see and strength to do. That is all.



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:46 am    Post subject:

Here's my take:

Since the point of Separation of Church and State has been made clear to me (thank you all. I was wrong in my understanding...) the only thing I can see that it does is make sure that some of the religion's archaic beliefs do not become laws. It gives the individual growth more importance.
Now, if one sets religion aside, everything comes down to establishing personal rights and freedoms that do not infringe upon other's personal rights and freedoms.

So (to me) this means:

1) That if two men or women want to marry then who cares other than them as long as they follow the rules to this big game like the rest of us? Gays a minority? Sure and while we're at it I declare MYSELF a minority. Why not? I'm the only Regan Patrick Shepherd that was born on Key West in 1976. That makes me the ONLY ONE! THAT'S a f***ing minority. Making "minorities" is just enforcing our percieved differences instead of focusing on the sucess of our people as a whole. Move forward, don't look back.

2) As far as abortion is concerned it now goes back to: "establishing personal rights and freedoms that do not infringe upon other's personal rights and freedoms." How can anyone determine who has the greater right here? What makes the unborn's rights more or less valid than someone who's ben here going through the motions? What makes what a mother wants less important than the unborn's wants(which is basic cellular intelligence before birth)? I'm not sure (I think that it was Graillik) who said that we need to determine when the unborn is considered a living person. Then the actions of the mother, as far as abortion is concerned, can be excused or punished.

So, I believe that our founding fathers may not have been as book smart as we, in this day and age, are. But their common sense and insight has left us with an impressive start that we, since then, haven't done much with. I also believe that if we focused our attention on making this nation a standard to understand human capabilities and limitations that we could only build a stronger nation. And by that I mean teach children NOT ONLY how our government works BUT ALSO how our economic structure works. If a student is falling behind then find out how this student works. It has been proven that students learn in 12(!) different ways. So now that we have this knowledge what are we doing with it?! Apparently nothing.

I got a little off subject but THAT'S my 2 pennies.

REY

_________________
After our battle, I will keep the ash to remember you by. ~Phayne~

It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built. ~Darth Traya~
Reply with quote
Wins 13 - Losses 19
Level 6
EXP: 2469
HP: 1450
Eligible for battle!
STR: 550
END: 450
ACC: 800
AGI: 1200
Lux Lucideus (Partisan)
(200 - 450)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Graillik Tur
Renaissancetaku



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 09 Jul 2004
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:07 am    Post subject:

There is also a law that says you can move in with someone...it's called a...crap...co-habitation license. Works kind of like a marriage. Might look into that.

_________________
It is my firm belief that in this era of mass connectivity, the death of us all will be mass media.

Why do we insist in believing we are masters of our surroundings when we fail so miserably to master ourselves?


Reply with quote
Wins 2 - Losses 10
Level 3
EXP: 283
HP: 1950
Eligible for battle!
STR: 750
END: 600
ACC: 750
AGI: 600
Shotbow (Shotgun)
(240 - 320)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
graphic graphic
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Board Index -> Miniopia's Soap Box
Page 4 of 4
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Email this topic to a friend

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum