User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 223

  1. #91
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Now what does this all have to do with Gay marriage? Well in order to be able to support gay marriage in the first place, one has to already adhere to a certain set of premises - and my argument here is that many of those premises are built on rather shaky grounds that have rather negative consequences for a society?
    Interesting. Let's see what my premises are...

    Premise 1: People should use knowledge derived from objective observation of the world and subsequent reasoning based upon those observations, when determining social policy.
    Premise 2: There are no objective observations that can be derived from the world that would suggest gays should be denied the right to marry, and there is evidence that suggests it would even be beneficial to society to allow gays to marry.
    Conclusion: There should be gay marriage.

    The evidence I present is that studies have shown that children raised in same sex households demonstrate no better or worse development than those raised in heterosexual homes. Something good to know considering the number of children in need of adoption in our country. Also many of the same emotional and physical benefits found in heterosexual marriage have been shown to extend to the individuals in same sex marriages in countries that allow same sex marriage. Meaning that same sex couples who can marry will probably lead longer, more meaningful lives. Being married also decreases the potential for spreading STDs such as HIV.

    A few more benefits married people have are...

    Higher household incomes
    Save more of their income
    Live longer because they engage in less risky behaviors
    Children are better off financially and emotionally
    Derive greater satisfaction from sex

    And there isn't any reason to believe any of that wouldn't be true in same sex marriages.

    Homosexuality has also proven to be quite natural, as it is observed in over 400 species in the animal kingdom, including our closest genetic relative, the bonobo. That is not to say that morality should be dictated by nature, but rather that there is evidence that homosexuality is a part of the natural world and serves some yet to be distinguished evolutionary purpose.

    I await to see how you argue against my shaky arguments.

    In terms of marriage; we have already seen the destructive influence of excessive individualism in terms of the breakdown of the family as the basic unit of society; and a divorce rate of almost 50%, among other factors.
    If you want to talk about priorities, I have always found it funny that the religious right is so focused on how allowing gays to marry, who account for approximately 5% of the population, would lead to the destruction of marriage and traditional family, but have never dedicated anywhere near as much resources and time to fighting divorce. Now call me a layman, but doesn't divorce literally destroy marriage?

    What has lead to our 50% divorce rate and decline in traditional families, is the institution of no fault divorce. No fault divorce has lead to approximately a 40% increase from the 1950's, which was before it was initiated. It wouldn't be hard. Covenant marriages, which are marriages which give up no fault divorce and require mandatory counseling before divorce, could be initiated as an option across the country. But are religious groups fighting for that in an effort to "protect the traditional definition of marriage"? No, because the "traditional definition of marriage" has implicitly been altered to mean, "a marriage between one man and one women, unless they decide to get divorced, in which case they can marry as many people of the opposite sex as they want as long as they only marry one of them at a time."

    If that wasn't the true "traditional definition of marriage" there would be more outcry when celebrity women marry celebrity men for a day and then divorce them. Of course, I'm sure you knew how Jesus and the Bible treated the concept of serial monogamy. It was mentioned a hell of a lot more than the 6 little verses on homosexuality.

    When it comes to traditional families, the number of "fatherless" or "motherless" homes created as a result of serial monogamy could never even come close to being approached by gay marriages even though they are inherently "fatherless" or "motherless".

    On that note, since we came to one of my favorite Christian arguments against gay marriage, a fun little video.

    YouTube - Kinderen voor Kinderen song - Two Fathers

    Kinda hard to watch a kid sing about his family in that way and think that just because it is different that it is inferior.

    Granting gay marriage would certainly be another step in that direction, since its justification is directly built upon its assumptions. Would it lead directly to animal-human marriages? [Sarcasm]Well I guess anything is possible.[/Sarcasm]
    The way your argument comes off is...gay marriage is going to lead other people to divorce because the idea is allegedly built on shaky assumptions.

    Also when it comes to the slippery slope argument, it goes the other way too. If we let the religious right discriminate against certain groups, then who is next? Women? People of different faiths? Liberals? [/Sarcasm]

    The great irony is that gays are so staunch about getting married at a time when the institution of marriage itself is becoming more and more meaningless.
    The great irony is that there are intelligent people who still choose to overgeneralize by saying things like, "[insert group] are all so [insert some derogatory trait] that they don't see things my way."

    Which begs the question as to why its advocates are so adamant about this.
    That is what this entire thread has been. One big logical fallacy of begging the question. You argue that you don't know what basis there is for fighting for gay marriage, therefore there must not be one. But you didn't start this thread to ask for reasons for why there should be gay marriage, rather you started it to tell people that since you couldn't conceive of one, they should all STFU. Since you come from a Christian paradigm, it is clearly difficult for you to understand the injustice of denying one group of people the same rights as everyone else via unreasonable discrimination. After all, the Christian religion has historically been used to advocate slavery and the subjugation of women. The fact that it is now being used to justify denying gays the right to marry is simply history repeating itself.

    When it comes to fundamentalist Christians, if you are advocating only following the Bible and reasoning based on the Bible, then of course you wouldn't understand a point of view that is separate from the Bible.

    But I assure you I am quite adamant about this for all the reasons I stated above and more. Gay marriage will be beneficial to society. It will not lead to the same kind of decay as no fault divorce. Fighting no fault divorce would be a far better use of time and resources in the quest to preserve the tradition of marriage and traditional families than fighting to keep gays from having the right to be married.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  2. #92
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Well this is getting interesting. It's past 2am here, so I'll respond to what I can at the moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Anyone can read the Declaration of Independence and decide for themselves whether the ideas presented represent traditional Christian values or Enlightenment values.
    The irony of course being that the rhetoric of the Enlightenment came from a religious source as well - specifically, Liberal Calvinism.

    Also, I could argue that our conception of a nation with states as defined in our Constitution is derived from the Iroquois, of whom Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers spent considerable time with and analyzed quite closely.
    You can, but I can also point out that such conceptions were derived from the Medieval concept of subsidiarity.

    When the American Revolutionaries championed notions of limited government and individual liberty, they were harking back to archaic English traditions dating from the Medieval period. When the Colonists protested "No taxation without representation", they invoked a notion dating to the Magna Carta.

    This is what Edmund Burke stated to Parliament when remarking about why the colonists were rebelling. They were rebelling in the name of age-old English traditions.

    Numerous historians and political commentators , like John P. McCarthy for one, have noted that Medieval concepts of decentralism was better preserved in America than in Europe.

    Peter Drucker also came to this conclusion:

    "The American Revolution brought victory and power to a group which in Europe had been almost completely defeated and which was apparently dying out rapidly: the anticentrist, antitotalitarian conservatives with their hostility to absolute and centralized government and their distrust of any ruler claiming perfection. It saved the autonomous common law from submersion under perfect law codes; and it re-established independent law courts. Above all, it reasserted the belief in the imperfection of man as the basis of freedom."( Source).

    Randolph G. Adams also notes in his study Political Ideas of the American Revolution that at best the American Revolution used the language of the Enlightenment, but most of its ideals had little to do with it.

    And the lectures of James Wilson I cited clearly make arguments in perfect line with Aquinas, as well as Richard Hooker in Ecclesiastical Polity.


    The fact that non believers were forced into conversion all the way up into the War for Souls by the conquistadors should probably be noted as evidence that the ideas weren't exactly embraced by Christianity prior to the Enlightment.
    Funny you mention that, since the mistreatment of native peoples of America actually set the stage for Spanish theologians, especially Father Francisco de Vitoria, to conceive of the concept of what we now call international law.

    And once again, I will let anyone read the Constitution and decide whether the ideas represent a literal interpretation of the Bible. I doubt even you would make that claim.
    No I don't, in fact I never made the claim that the Constitution represents a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact just for the record, I don't uphold a literal interpretation of the Bible and neither does my religious tradition.

    This is a rather odd point to bring up.


    Hey, if someone wants to argue a traditional definition of marriage while slighting its historical context, I am more than free to do so with the definition of equality as defined in the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers lived in the 1700's and many were slave owners. I doubt that equality meant to them what it means to us today, but that doesn't make my moral argument any less valid than yours.
    Actually you just demonstrated why your argument is not valid. Your simply projecting your own interpretation of "equality" onto the past, and furthermore admit that it doesn't apply to the actual original historical context.

    Classic example of an intellectual swindle as Eric Voegelin termed it.

    I'm not advocating anything abstract. I'm speaking purely in terms of rights.
    Rights as commonly understood nowadays are abstract concepts - via Kantian political theory.

    I'm sure that is why America alone possesses a third of the world's wealth and uses nearly that much of its resources.
    This has absolutely nothing to with my argument. Here's even Wikipedia's summary of Catholic Social Doctrine's take on the enviroment:
    Catholic social teaching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Care for God's creation

    A Biblical vision of justice is much more comprehensive than civil equity; it encompasses right relationships between all members of Godís creation. Stewardship of creation: The world's goods are available for humanity to use only under a "social mortgage" which carries with it the responsibility to protect the environment. The "goods of the earth" are gifts from God, and they are intended by God for the benefit of everyone.[29] Man was given dominion over all creation as sustainer rather than as exploiter,[30] and is commanded to be a good steward of the gifts God has given him.[31] We cannot use and abuse the natural resources God has given us with a destructive consumer mentality.

    Or is that the secularist liberals fault?
    If we look at it from the larger context of secular liberalism, then yes that's very much so.

    Okay, you named one religious group with high birth rates in this country, what does that have to do with the total population growth?
    I'm addressing your argument about conservatives not reproducing themselves as much as Liberals.

    Also, you were talking in terms of political denomination, not religious.
    No actually I wasn't; I was talking more in terms of morality. And even if I was talking politically, I would not be referring to mainstream conservatives - who are largely classical liberals.

    Usually if I refer to Conservativism politically, I'm invoking the tradition of Edmund Burke, Joseph de Maistre, Russell Kirk, Michael Oakeshott, etc. as opposed to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Ronald Reagen or even William F. Buckley Jr..

    Ooookay. What does where they live have to do with the total population growth of this country?
    It puts your argument in larger context.

    Anyways....I'll continue on this later.

  3. #93
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Anyways....I'll continue on this later.
    Please do. However, it seems you intentionally skipped over the point that I'm not denying Christianity's role in the formation of our government. A point I made in the very beginning of the post when I said...

    I won't argue that Christianity hasn't played a role in the formation of our government, because it has, but it is only a part because our Constitution was inherently designed to be pluralistic. That is why we have a government which can demonstrate mutual respect for many different cultures, and why each culture should be allowed to express itself free from prejudice and unreasonable discrimination.
    I am merely making the argument that Christianity is not the only component to the design of our Constitution, as is evident by how far removed it is from the Bible. Now if you want to argue that Christianity has directly and indirectly influenced countless philosophies that have in turn lead to our Constitution, that then is all wonderful as well, but irrelevant, since those philosophies swayed from what is the "traditionalist" view of Christianity. After all, there was a time when Christianity was used to justify rule by a monarch.

    Now what your arguments prove is that Christian tradition has changed over the centuries to accommodate new knowledge. I can assure you that Christian tradition is currently and will continue to change to accommodate gay marriage. Hence why some Christian churches do marry gay couples and have gay religious leaders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Actually you just demonstrated why your argument is not valid. Your simply projecting your own interpretation of "equality" onto the past, and furthermore admit that it doesn't apply to the actual original historical context.

    Classic example of an intellectual swindle as Eric Voegelin termed it.
    Ah, my friend, how much of an intellectual swindle is it to cut people's words so you can take them out of context. As I said after the point you quoted...

    To the contrary, the founding fathers were more than aware that as our observations of the natural world improved, so would our ability to reason about what is fair and equitable. Hence why we have the ability to amend our Constitution.
    The argument that my definition of equality is out of historical context is a concession I readily made. There is no swindle involved. However, I argued that statement in the Declaration of Independence can apply to my conception of equality because I have a better understanding of the world than the founding fathers did simply because there have been many new observations made since the 1700's and our founding fathers did not have that knowledge. Thus I have a better ability to reason about what is fair and equitable now than they did in their time. And that is why the Founding Fathers gave us the ability to change our Constitution. They knew as time progressed and we learned, we would develop on their conceptions of their concepts...such as equality.

    Where the swindle is are those folks who claim their traditional definition of marriage is in historical context. A point which I explained further in my other post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  4. #94
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    If you want to talk about priorities, I have always found it funny that the religious right is so focused on how allowing gays to marry, who account for approximately 5% of the population, would lead to the destruction of marriage and traditional family
    Perhaps you should read what I stated more carefully: "I would say that gay marriage would be one of several factors contributing to such mayhem and anarchy".

    So nowhere did I ever argue that gay marriage would be the leading cause of divorce or the breakdown of the family. You're right in noting the greater impact of no-fault divorce on that score.

    Oh and btw, I'm not of the Religious Right.


    The way your argument comes off is...gay marriage is going to lead other people to divorce because the idea is allegedly built on shaky assumptions.

    Also when it comes to the slippery slope argument, it goes the other way too. If we let the religious right discriminate against certain groups, then who is next? Women? People of different faiths? Liberals? [/Sarcasm]
    Wow...Kiddo...talk about missing the sarcastic point which I made clear.

    The great irony is that there are intelligent people who still choose to overgeneralize by saying things like, "[insert group] are all so [insert some derogatory trait] that they don't see things my way."
    Hmmmn....that seems to be howmany of the pro-gay marriage advocates are arguing here. I would include you in that category.

    That is what this entire thread has been. One big logical fallacy of begging the question. You argue that you don't know what basis there is for fighting for gay marriage, therefore there must not be one. But you didn't start this thread to ask for reasons for why there should be gay marriage, rather you started it to tell people that since you couldn't conceive of one, they should all STFU.
    It's very interesting how you come up with these random speculations as to the meaning of my arguments. Interesting as they are, I must however point out that they're way off the mark.

    As I actually admitted to several times, both within this very thread and in messages to participants, my OP was largely me blowing off steam and being sarcastic at the fact this issue is discussed so many times - and thus not to be taken too seriously.

    So my main beef is that this topic is discussed ad nauseam; not that people have opposing views on the issue.

    So go ahead and continue and make a big deal out of nothing. Heck I'm sure you can further speculate as to how this shows my hidden contempt for poodle puppies.

    Since you come from a Christian paradigm, it is clearly difficult for you to understand the injustice of denying one group of people the same rights as everyone else via unreasonable discrimination.
    Yeah.....ok

    After all, the Christian religion has historically been used to advocate slavery and the subjugation of women.
    And yet interestingly it was Christian cultures that first abolished slavery and sought greater freedom for women. Ahhh irony.

    When it comes to fundamentalist Christians, if you are advocating only following the Bible and reasoning based on the Bible, then of course you wouldn't understand a point of view that is separate from the Bible.
    I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, and I'm not telling you this again. I'm also not of the Religious Right.

    Much of my worldview is based upon several sources: Classical, Christian, Enlightenment, Right-wing, Left-wing, etc.

  5. #95
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Please do. However, it seems you intentionally skipped over the point that I'm not denying Christianity's role in the formation of our government. A point I made in the very beginning of the post when I said...
    No actually I didn't skip it; rather I wanted to focus on other aspects of your argument.

    I am merely making the argument that Christianity is not the only component to the design of our Constitution, as is evident by how far removed it is from the Bible.
    I don't quite understand the second half of your argument; however the first half contains an element of truth. Our constitution was built largely upon the Classical-Christian heritage.


    Now if you want to argue that Christianity has directly and indirectly influenced countless philosophies that have in turn lead to our Constitution, that then is all wonderful as well, but irrelevant, since those philosophies swayed from what is the "traditionalist" view of Christianity.
    And what is the "traditionalist" view of Christianity?

    After all, there was a time when Christianity was used to justify rule by a monarch.
    It was also used to justify republican forms of government, like that in Florentine and Venice during the Renaisance in Italy. Christianity does not espouse a specific form of government.


    Now what your arguments prove is that Christian tradition has changed over the centuries to accommodate new knowledge.
    At best that can apply to doctrine, but not dogma. And even then, your interpretation of such is rather faulty.

    I can assure you that Christian tradition is currently and will continue to change to accommodate gay marriage. Hence why some Christian churches do marry gay couples and have gay religious leaders.
    Those churches are actually major troubles, especially within the Anglican-Episcopalian church is even facing possible schism over the issue.


    Ah, my friend, how much of an intellectual swindle is it to cut people's words so you can take them out of context. As I said after the point you quoted...
    I still stand by my words.

    The argument that my definition of equality is out of historical context is a concession I readily made. There is no swindle involved. However, I argued that statement in the Declaration of Independence can apply to my conception of equality because I have a better understanding of the world than the founding fathers did simply because there have been many new observations made since the 1700's and our founding fathers did not have that knowledge. Thus I have a better ability to reason about what is fair and equitable now than they did in their time. And that is why the Founding Fathers gave us the ability to change our Constitution.
    Well first off, you're assuming that ethical and moral matters can change and develop over time, when in fact they're based upon eternal values.

    Second, you're confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution; which are two documents serving two purposes.

    So again I stand by my words.

  6. #96
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Peguy! Is there some reason you have opted to skip over my entire "shaky" argument? Surely you can find ways to easily debunk my premises and prove the negative consequences inherent in allowing gays to marry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Perhaps you should read what I stated more carefully: "I would say that gay marriage would be one of several factors contributing to such mayhem and anarchy".

    So nowhere did I ever argue that gay marriage would be the leading cause of divorce or the breakdown of the family. You're right in noting the greater impact of no-fault divorce on that score.

    Oh and btw, I'm not of the Religious Right.
    You made an argument about pro gay marriage supporters priorities, so I made an equally valid argument about the priorities of those who are against gay marriage. A fact I thought was readily clear when I said, "If you want to talk about priorities..."

    Wow...Kiddo...talk about missing the sarcastic point which I made clear.
    Wow...Peguy...talk about missing the sarcastic point I made clear. I put one of your "[/Sarcasm]" things on the end of my point as well.

    Hmmmn....that seems to be howmany of the pro-gay marriage advocates are arguing here. I would include you in that category.
    ROFL! You didn't catch that I was making fun of the statement that I quoted. I was referring to you Peguy and your argument.

    It's very interesting how you come up with these random speculations as to the meaning of my arguments. Interesting as they are, I must however point out that they're way off the mark.

    As I actually admitted to several times, both within this very thread and in messages to participants, my OP was largely me blowing off steam and being sarcastic at the fact this issue is discussed so many times - and thus not to be taken too seriously.

    So my main beef is that this topic is discussed ad nauseam; not that people have opposing views on the issue.

    So go ahead and continue and make a big deal out of nothing. Heck I'm sure you can further speculate as to how this shows my hidden contempt for poodle puppies.
    I read this entire thread prior to posting Peguy. I know what you said you were doing and I know what you were actually doing. The classic libertarian strategy of saying you don't care about a point of view and then systematically attacking it, is something of which I have encountered quite a bit.

    Yeah.....ok

    And yet interestingly it was Christian cultures that first abolished slavery and sought greater freedom for women. Ahhh irony.
    As I've said, Christian tradition has evolved to accommodate new knowledge. As it will evolve to accomodate gay marriage.

    Much of my worldview is based upon several sources: Classical, Christian, Enlightenment, Right-wing, Left-wing, etc.
    Excellent. Perhaps that means my arguments won't fall on deaf ears.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  7. #97
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Ok, while the NFs bicker and bash each other against the brick walls of each other's foreheads, I actually discovered another reason AGAINST the support of Gay Marriage: Geography, but also borrowing from the earlier hypothesis that the Gay Marriage civil rights movement is akin to the "real" civil rights movement.

    Let us consider a localized population of a highly objectified characteristic such as homosexuality. Such a population has somewhat different social contingencies than others, because when humans of a similar "feather" come together, we have a region of specialized interests. When the civil rights movement came to a head in the 60s, certain key and strategic cities were nearly crippled while they tried to sort out social matters. I don't remember who said it, (maybe my ESTP haitian friend), but I love reciting the line that the white man didn't bestow equal rights in America, they had to give them out under gun point.

    My hypothesis? In an attempt to avoid (or if you are a progressivist, DELAY) giving rights to Homosexuals such as marriage, conservative hawks are attempting to avoid yet another inconvenient civil movement that will result in regional unrest, which is a threat to cohesiveness anywhere.

    However, if the Hawkish guardians were SO concerned about gays rioting and causing all kinds of hell, why wouldn't they seek sanctification of their rights? Apparently there's a SHITLOAD of homosexuality prevalence in this country that non-conservatives don't know about.... !!!

    So maybe this whole thing is built on an entire cascade of fears?

  8. #98
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Peguy! Is there some reason you have opted to skip over my entire "shaky" argument? Surely you can find ways to easily debunk my premises and prove the negative consequences inherent in allowing gays to marry.
    Yes I'll get to those in a bit.


    I read this entire thread prior to posting Peguy.
    Obviously not well enough.

    I know what you said you were doing and I know what you were actually doing. The classic libertarian strategy of saying you don't care about a point of view and then systematically attacking it, is something of which I have encountered quite a bit.
    By what standard can you call my OP a systematic attack? In fact I often joke about my arguments and worldview being unsystematic in nature.

    Excellent. Perhaps that means my arguments won't fall on deaf ears.
    You can only hope I guess.

  9. #99
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Oh, and to bring that back to the point of Geography: Highest Gay populous cities are NYC, San Fran, Orlando, Atlanta and Chicago. I think the social engineers that be are concerned about those cities among others.

  10. #100
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    No actually I didn't skip it; rather I wanted to focus on other aspects of your argument.
    You call it focusing on other aspects of the argument, I call it taking an argument out of context.

    I don't quite understand the second half of your argument; however the first half contains an element of truth. Our constitution was built largely upon the Classical-Christian heritage.
    And much more.

    And what is the "traditionalist" view of Christianity?
    The Bible. You know, that book that a lot of religous people use to justify their views on why homosexuality is bad and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

    It was also used to justify republican forms of government, like that in Florentine and Venice during the Renaisance in Italy. Christianity does not espouse a specific form of government.
    Yeah, I've noticed. It sorta goes to the highest bidder or whoever has the biggest stick.

    At best that can apply to doctrine, but not dogma. And even then, your interpretation of such is rather faulty.
    Oh, so all Christians believe in talking snakes and whales that swallow people whole. That is comforting.

    Those churches are actually major troubles, especially within the Anglican-Episcopalian church is even facing possible schism over the issue.
    In case you hadn't noticed, there have been thousands of "schisms" of Christianity as a result of the churches being forced to accommodate new ideas. This country was settled and formed by "schisms".

    Well first off, you're assuming that ethical and moral matters can change and develop over time, when in fact they're based upon eternal values.
    I'm simply arguing that human being's understanding of eternal values improves, not that the eternal values themselves change. That is the value of new knowledge.

    Second, you're confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution; which are two documents serving two purposes.
    No I'm not. I'm using the definition of equality that I derived from the Declaration of Independence and the fact that we can amend our Constitution as proof of the idea that the founding fathers knew our understanding of values would improve. I've clearly pointed out where I have gotten each throughout all my posts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-03-2013, 10:30 AM
  2. The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
    By teslashock in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 02:51 PM
  3. whats the big deal about being me?
    By ThatGirl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 07:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO