Did the Republicans just get handed the Nov Election? - Page 5

I think I'm ok... I always stop myself at 2nd base.... it's like....WHOA!...hold on there mister!

I am as I realize we have gone from "Did the Republicans just get handed the Nov election" to a discussion on "self-love" Sounds like a South Park episode !

The Bastards!! UnHAND Kenney!!!


.

If the majority of Americans think that Iraq is in South America, does that make it so? Absolutely not. Simply feeling that your First Amendment rights are being restricted does not they are. Furthermore, out of all the arguments I've heard about gay marriage, this is the first that brings up the First Amendment.

If you can show conclusively that allowing a man who is not you to marry another man who is also not you infringes on ANY of your constitutional rights, and especially those in the First Amendment, I will agree that you have a good argument. So far, however, you have not presented an argument at all.

For the record, if some homosexuals came on the board saying Christians shouldn't be allowed to get married, I would be equally offended at that. But then, not many people would take such a comment seriously, so the reaction would probably be different.

Amen brother.

Let me ask you a question Baggi. Should any actions taken under the presumption of "freedom to practice religion" be allowed? In other words, because I do something and I believe it to be part of "practicing my religion" can the government never impose any restrictions on those actions?

For example, if I believe my religion requires human sacrifice should I not be allowed to practice human sacrifice, regardless of laws against murder?

Baggi, I don't necessarily agree with the Massachusetts discrimination decision. IMO, first amendment rights should take precedent over discrimination laws, and that is the way the law is supposed to work, too. Adoption agencies practice all sorts of discrimination in order to determine who can and cannot adopt children, generally for the safety and wellbeing of the children. This obviously doesn't fall under that category since gay couples have proven to be at least as good at parenting as straight couples, on average, but that's not to say it couldn't be done without permitting gay marriage.

On the other hand, that's some bad judgment on the Church's part, too. The Catholic Church also considers (heterosexual) sex before marriage an abomination. Should the Church also refuse to accept the babies that result from such acts? What if the couple having the baby used birth control and it failed? The Catholic Church hates birth control, too. Better yet, what if the couple adopting the child uses birth control because they would rather adopt than have a child of their own? Surely, there are at least some couples who do that. But the Church doesn't have to know those things since they would have to spy on people's bedrooms, and it's a little more obvious when the adoptive mother's name is Jim. But assuming they could know such things (and they could try with a questionnaire, not that it would be accurate), I think most people would frown on Catholic organizations denying people the right to adopt a child based on such meaningless factors.

So, should Catholic adoption agencies be allowed to discriminate based on the aforementioned Catholic beliefs? I guess technically they should be allowed to, but it's just a really dickish thing to do.

No one is making the Catholic church stop doing anything. They're still allowed to serve as an adoption agency if they so choose. They're expected to comply with government regulations for this particular social service just as any adoption agency is, but there certainly haven't been any laws passed that state that Catholic organizations cannot be adoption agencies. If the church decides not to do it, then that is the church's decision. The church's stance on what they define as "moral evils" certainly hasn't been legislated.

Are murder laws infringing on the first ammendment rights of religions that believe in human sacrifice?

A prudish homosexual? That's a first

Not homosexual...suisexual...geez....

It is also common knowledge 58% of the time that 7 out of 10 people will believe 6 out of 9 statistics your can randomly pull from a hat.

I'll agree with you that our example of "human sacrifice" is an extreme one, but I think fundamentally it makes the point easier to understand.

Let us take a look at the exact wording of the 1st Amendment:


Now this is where it all gets very subjective. Is running an adoption agency part of "exercising a religion"? I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. I would say the Catholic Church as an organization (regardless of its religious affiliations) was running an adoption agency, but that doesn't mean it is part of an individual Catholic practicing their religion. Clearly this is a point that can be argued both ways (effectively), but if it is infringing on a Catholics religious freedom it is doing so indirectly and mildly, IMO.

Clearly you, Baggi, would agree with me that we cannot allow an individual or organization to do as it pleases under the guise of "freedom of religion" ... you wouldn't want to go down that slippery slope.

Now I'd be open to hearing more ways in which gay marriage is affecting, you personally as a religious person, your right to practice religion freely.

I don't need to re-read what you wrote. I understand the point you're trying to make. Where your argument is coming short is the fact that in order to prohibit the free exercise of something, something must be occurring in the first place. That something is, in this case, functioning as an adoption agency...which they're still allowed to do. If the church chooses to discriminate against homosexuals and as a result, no longer provide adoption services, that's their choice. No one is stopping them from doing it but themselves. If being an adoption agency qualifies as "practicing religion" (which I don't belive is the case), then they're still free to "practice their religion" in that manner. The policy of discriminating against homosexuals is not "practicing a religion", it's a policy of religion. It's not about "doing" anything, it's about "not doing" things. If your argument were to hold true, that would mean that prior to passing any law, our government would have to consider whether or not the law was at odds with any religion's belief systems. Our government isn't subject to the rules of churches when passing legislation. Our government is not a theocracy. It guarantees religions' freedom to practice. It does not guarantee the application of their belief systems in legislation.

Part 1
In just one year. Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following: A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $4.00 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.
Quote of the Day........ 'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama



Part 2:
Taxes... Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.
www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html <http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html>
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates. It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.


PART 3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:
Boy , am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.