Jeep thing or sheep thing?

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
: "Buddy Ebsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:QiiPa.1134$Bp2.137@fed1read07...
: >
: >
: > Well you're welcome to come out and take a look at Colorado City, Arizona.
: It is a
: > polygamous mormon community and it has existed for years and the law
: enforcement officials
: > have done very little to stop the practice. Girls as young as I posted are
: forced into
: > incestuous relationships. An Arizona governor was bounced out of office in
: the 1950's
: > because he had the balls to raid the town. The state's mormon population
: voted him out.
: > Additionally, there are about 30-40,000 plural marriages right now in
: Utah. That fact has
: > been around for years. Everytime Colorado City comes up, I get to hear all
: of this over
: > again.
: >
:
: This story has been done several times by the major news shows, 20/20 etc.
: It's amazing
: it is still going on, but it just goes to show that if you catch people
: young enough it is
: incredible what you can get them to believe. The most frightening thing
: about it is that most
: of those 13 year old girls your talking about _aren't_ forced into those
: relationships, they
: go _gladly_ on account of how they have been programmed/raised.
:
: And not that I'd normally start picking on LDS, but they started it.
: There's lots and lots that
: is official dogma in LDS that is NOT followed by the faithful. Just one
: look at the last Olympic
: Games Salt Lake City scandal should show that. Instead of the church
: members that bribed the
: Olympic Committee being excommunicated, they were carried down the street in
: parades. If
: the LDS church had any honor, when news of the scandal broke they should
: have told the IOC
: to move the games elsewhere than Salt Lake City to punish the people that
: did the bribery. Instead,
: a few people got publically whipped but the vast majority raked in tons of
: money as a reward.


Yes Colorado City is still alive and flourishing

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
: "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
:
:
I get a chuckle every time I see Blacks embracing Lincoln.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo49.html

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:08:13 GMT, "Dave Milne"
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:

>The problem the
>christians have over homosexuality is that the bible condems it, and that
>makes them want to condemn it legally.

Good thing you're not in the USA. Most of the best know homosexuals
and promoters of man-boy sex are prominent in the Christian religion.
I guess they didn't read much of the bible.

Bob

Your making me work too hard Ted. I'll try my best though...

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > > After all that's what all this liberal vs
> > >conservative
> > > bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
> > > conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state.
Either
> > > extreme is terrible, of course.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree. In theory, the liberal / conservative thing is mostly about
the
> > role and scope of the federal government.
>
> That may have been true 200 years ago when Alexander Hamilton was
> arguing for a strong central bank, but it's not true today. And I doubt
> it really ever was.
>
> Today, BOTH sides have the EXACT same position on the role and scope of
> the Federal Government. In short, as long as the Feds are doing what I
want,
> then by gum expand, expand, expand!! But the second the Feds start doing
> what I don't like - then shrink, shrink, shrink!!
>
Ok, the rhetoric is role and scope of government more so than actual
practice. But I don't take your deeply cynical view of the two parties.
The truth is, neither side ever has such a decisive majority as to implement
policy consistent with party doctrine. Second, pork barrel politics has an
enourmous effect on size of government. And both parties engage in it.

> > In most of these morality cases
> > the issue centers around whether state or local legislatures can pass
such
> > laws. Liberals tend to look for ways the federal government can expand
it's
> > jurisdiction on such morality issues.
>
> Until the Feds start blocking something like Death With Dignity or Medical
Marijuana,
> which the Liberals like, and then all the sudden it's Up With States
Rights
>
> > Conservatives tend to view the
> > federal government as being constitutionally limited, unable to impose
> > itself on local jurisdictions.
> >
>
> Only until the States start pushing something like Death With Dignity or
Medical Marijuana,
> which the Conservatives don't like, and then all the sudden it's Up With
The Federal Government.
>
Well, here we are at the crux of the difference between Rupublicans and
Libertarians. With a single minded view that the Feds need to stay out of
private lives, the libertarian viewpoint doesn't take a moral view on these
issues. It's always rights reserved to the states or the people.
Republicans don't take that view, though much more so than Democrats. The
problem with these two issues is many conservatives view drug use as so
threatening to the national welfare that they accept a national policy on
the issue. The same with human life.

And so much of the medical marijuana thing, while having merit medically, is
really part of a larger effort to legalize marijuana. Most of the energy
and support to allow medical marijuana doesn't come from cancer patients.

It's not just about states rights.

> > >
> > > From a historical perspective, the US Supreme Court has hardly ever
> > > been at the forefront of expanding personal freedoms. The
conservatives
> > > like to tell people that they are, just because of Roe vs Wade. But
don't
> > > ever forget that the US Supreme Court never freed the slaves, the
> > > executive branch of the government did that. By contrast, the Court
> > > helped to _strengthen_ the legal teeth of slavery. If you view the
Roe vs
> > > Wade decision in the historical context, you will quickly see that the
few
> > > liberal years of the court then were an aberration.
> > >
> >
> > What you have to remember is that it's not the job of the Court to
"expand
> > personal freedoms"
>
> Didn't I just say that?
>
> The Conservatives like to tell people that the Court is at the forefront
of expanding
> personal freedoms, as a crude scare tactic. But as I have shown, and you
have
> just agreed, the Court doesen't do this.
>

I took your words to mean the courts should be at the forefront of expanding
personal freedoms. And as a conservative, I do not believe that. I think
liberals want it to be because, so often, it's the only way they get what
they want. I don't know about other conservatives, but I don't view the
courts so cynically. By and large, I think they've restrained themselves
(except the 9th circuit).

> > (read expand federal jurisdiction over local
> > jurisdiction). As repugnant as slavery is, the court found no
consitutional
> > powers granted to the federal government to prohibit states from
allowing
> > it. It was left to the legislature and the states to amend the
constitution
> > giving the courts the ability to rule in slavery cases. Of course, we
all
> > know it almost tore the union apart. One might argue that it would have
> > been better for the courts to "find" a prohibition against slavery in
the
> > constitution and spare us the result of Dred Scott but, assuming the
court
> > was technically correct in it's ruling, it set the stage for a
constitional
> > amendment prohibiting slavery leaving no question as to it's
> > constitutionality.
> >
>
> The court didn't set the stage for a constitutional amendment prohibiting
> slavery, that stage was set by the original Founding Fathers during the
> constitutional convention. If you study the papers at the time you will
> find that during the original Convention, they talked about putting a ban
> on slavery right into the Constitution, but the Southern colonies
basically
> said that they would walk out of the process if that was done. So they
left
> it alone for the "future" to fix. All the court did was rule consistently
with
> what the Founding Fathers had directed - ie: that the Slavery question
> was "undone constitutional business" and would have to be handled
> legislatively.
>
> Of course, Lincoln said to Hell with it, and simply issued
> an executive order freeing the slaves.
>

I think my point stands.

> > In Roe v. Wade, the courts "found" an implied right that states could
not
> > violate (right to privacy) and thus expanded it's jurisdiction over
states
> > without legislation.
>
> This is a clever restatement of the issue. The Roe vs Wade decision
didn't
> strip the States from the ability to outlaw abortion in the first 2
trimesters,
> because the states never had such ability to outlaw abortion in the first
place.
> They merely assumed that they had that right, and the court set them
straight.
>
> And it most definitely didn't "usurp" the power of the States in this
matter
> because it ALSO didn't permit the Federal Government the right to outlaw
> abortion EITHER in the first 2 trimesters. Thus the Feds were not given
any
> expansion of power over the states because the Feds, like the States,
cannot
> exercise any rights with regard to abortion in the first 2 trimesters
either.
>

The court needed to base it's assertion that states coudn't outlaw abortion
in the first 2 trimesters based on the derived right of privacy in the
constitution. Depending on your view of the issue, you might look at it as
setting the states straight or taking power away from the states. It
doesn't matter, because the outcome left no doubt where the power lay.

I hate to say it, but I gotta go (going to see League of Extraordinary
Gentlement). Ta Ta.










> > This leaves one to wonder what other things can be
> > "found" in the constitution allowing the federal government to usurp
power
> > from the local jurisdictions.
>
> Well, the Conservatives are headed in this direction with regards to
education.
> It appears to me that education is supposed to be the province of the
States,
> but with the School voucher program that the Conservatives are pushing, it
> appears they want to be able to force all States to institute a voucher
program
> against their will.
>
> >You might think of Roe v. Wade as "expanding"
> > your personal freedom because the ruling went in your direction,
>
> This is a facinating statement from you. First you have no idea of my
> personal
> views on Roe vs Wade so you don't know if it really did go my direction or
> not. You are assuming that it did because you know from my posts that
> I am in favor of expanded personal freedom - and here's the kicker -
> by this statement you are stating that it is a fact that Roe vs Wade DID
> expand personal freedoms. (because that is why you assume that I like it)
>
> The facinating thing here is that most true conservatives argue with Roe
> vs Wade that it was NOT about expanding personal freedoms at all!!
> Instead they say that Roe vs Wade curtailed the rights of the fetus to
> enjoy life, liberty, etc. in short, it curtails greatly the personal
freedom
> of
> the fetus.
>
> What you sound like is a Democrat who is trying to play devils advocate
and
> argue like a Republican. Please, take my advice, your not doing a good
> job of it.
>
> > but the
> > true impact is a Judicial branch that can impose law based on popular /
> > political views rather than interpret law based on a technical analysis
of
> > the law.
> >
>
> Sort of when the Judicial Branch imposed it's law on the vote counting of
> the 2000 Federal Election, when they told the State of Florida that the
> State
> could not have the power to determine the Electors of the State. Of
course,
> those "popular political views" were the political views of the US Supreme
> Court justices, not of the actual popular vote.
>
> Yes, your right, this IS a serious problem!!!
>
> Ted
>
>

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:08:13 GMT, "Dave Milne"
> <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>
> >The problem the
> >christians have over homosexuality is that the bible condems it, and that
> >makes them want to condemn it legally.
>
> Good thing you're not in the USA. Most of the best know homosexuals
> and promoters of man-boy sex are prominent in the Christian religion.
> I guess they didn't read much of the bible.

Then I guess you don't know that that disgusting practice is nearly
"socially acceptable" in many non-Christian areas of the world... and is
certainly not acceptable in the U.S. which is predominently Christian. Look
at Afghanistan and what was common between men and boys before the Taliban
took over and stopped that practice... the only good thing the Taliban ever
did for Afghanistan. Now that the Taliban are out of power, the practice
is returning. And its a ridiculous statement that the practice is
"prominent" in the Christian religion areas of the world.

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: >
: > "Buddy Ebsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > news:QiiPa.1134$Bp2.137@fed1read07...
: > >
: :
: There's more than one issue here. First, 13 year old girls? Mormons didn't
: do that. Incest? Mormons didn't do that.

The hell they didn't! You don't live here and don't have a clue about what you are saying!

Polygamy? Mormons did do that
: more than a century ago, though very few as a percentage did. The remnants
: and effects of polygamy are still very strong in the church today. Modern
: polygamists have zero attachment to the polygamists from a century ago.
: These people are typically in various forms of disaffection or have been
: brought up with it. They are not Mormons, though they might have started
: out that way or their relatives from previous generations.

Wrong. Colorado City is a Mormon Community! For the mormon church to refute polygamy would
require the restructuring of the core of their theology. Ol' Joseph Smith & Bring'Em Young
saw that plural wives was a central value of that religion.

:
: I suppose you can argue that Mormons started polygamy in the America's, but
: certainly didn't start it overall and weren't the last to practice it.
: Muslims still practice it in many Arab countries. The old testament is
: filled with sanctioned polygamy. There's no doubt that the children in
: polygamous cultures grow up to believe it's ok.
:
: > There's lots and lots that
: > is official dogma in LDS that is NOT followed by the faithful. Just one
: > look at the last Olympic
: > Games Salt Lake City scandal should show that. Instead of the church
: > members that bribed the
: > Olympic Committee being excommunicated, they were carried down the street
: in
: > parades. If
: > the LDS church had any honor, when news of the scandal broke they should
: > have told the IOC
: > to move the games elsewhere than Salt Lake City to punish the people that
: > did the bribery. Instead,
: > a few people got publically whipped but the vast majority raked in tons of
: > money as a reward.
: >
: I don't know what "lots and lots" of "official dogma" you're thinking of.
: Your example of the Olympic scandal is odd since there's no "official dogma"
: that relates to what happened. Excommunication is a very personal matter
: and isn't used to identify scapegoats or send a message to or appease
: anyone.
:
: > Ted
: >
: >
: > >
: >
: >
:
:

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: speaking as a christian myself, most of the pious dont seem to have brains
: at all. In fact, being dense and "simply believing" seems to be a virtue.
: You get a lot of crap about "man can never understand the wisdom of God"
: which is a convenient get out clause for difficult questions. Example below
: is a classic - I don't like it, so it's not science. The problem the
: christians have over homosexuality is that the bible condems it, and that
: makes them want to condemn it legally. Frankly, I don't care what they do in
: the privacy of their own homes as long as I dont have to know about it,
: see, it or be chatted up by queers. I'm entitled to my opinion that it is
: disgusting, but they are entitled to do it. I'd be happy for them to pump
: their dog if it could be established that the dog wanted it. I'm sure God is
: big enough to sort it out on judgement day ... and guess what ? We have
: plenty of christians about to admit they are not qualified to do such a good
: job..
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

Of course the holey babble also condones slavery......

"Jerry Bransford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
newsOWPa.4136$u51.2813@fed1read05...
: "'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...


The ice pack idea worked on the chain saw. I realize that has nothing to do with this
topic, but it seems the name of this NG should be changed to "current events 101"

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> Personally I don't like racism and discrimination in either direction -
> and that goes for affirmative action too.

I was once on a panel debating the merits and drawbacks of the notion of
legalizing gay marriage. During the question period, a black young lady
(who had, the week before, been on a panel in the same forum arguing
vociferously in favor of affirmative action) stood up and said "I don't
think gay marriage is a good idea. It will encourage people to be gay."

I asked her "Do you suppose affirmative action encourages people to be
black?"

The audience and the moderator roared with laughter. She didn't get it.


> discrimination in either direction is wrong.

But only when it applies to your particular list of
approved characteristics, as it seems.

DS

I believe someone should be allowed to do whatever they want *as long as it
doesn't harm someone else* (which slavery clearly does). I'm a Christian,
and that's my choice. You're entitled to your choice and if I don't like
what you do, that's *my* problem, not yours (as long as I'm not materially
affected by it). Its a tolerance thing.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Dr. Zachary Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fkXPa.3583$Bp2.2831@fed1read07...
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: : speaking as a christian myself, most of the pious dont seem to have
brains
: : at all. In fact, being dense and "simply believing" seems to be a
virtue.
: : You get a lot of crap about "man can never understand the wisdom of God"
: : which is a convenient get out clause for difficult questions. Example
below
: : is a classic - I don't like it, so it's not science. The problem the
: : christians have over homosexuality is that the bible condems it, and
that
: : makes them want to condemn it legally. Frankly, I don't care what they
do in
: : the privacy of their own homes as long as I dont have to know about it,
: : see, it or be chatted up by queers. I'm entitled to my opinion that it
is
: : disgusting, but they are entitled to do it. I'd be happy for them to
pump
: : their dog if it could be established that the dog wanted it. I'm sure
God is
: : big enough to sort it out on judgement day ... and guess what ? We have
: : plenty of christians about to admit they are not qualified to do such a
good
: : job..
: :
: : Dave Milne, Scotland
: : '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: Of course the holey babble also condones slavery......
:
:

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: I believe someone should be allowed to do whatever they want *as long as it
: doesn't harm someone else* (which slavery clearly does). I'm a Christian,
: and that's my choice. You're entitled to your choice and if I don't like
: what you do, that's *my* problem, not yours (as long as I'm not materially
: affected by it). Its a tolerance thing.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Dr. Zachary Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:fkXPa.3583$Bp2.2831@fed1read07...
: :
: : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: : news:[email protected]...
: : : speaking as a christian myself, most of the pious dont seem to have
: brains
: : : at all. In fact, being dense and "simply believing" seems to be a
: virtue.
: : : You get a lot of crap about "man can never understand the wisdom of God"
: : : which is a convenient get out clause for difficult questions. Example
: below
: : : is a classic - I don't like it, so it's not science. The problem the
: : : christians have over homosexuality is that the bible condems it, and
: that
: : : makes them want to condemn it legally. Frankly, I don't care what they
: do in
: : : the privacy of their own homes as long as I dont have to know about it,
: : : see, it or be chatted up by queers. I'm entitled to my opinion that it
: is
: : : disgusting, but they are entitled to do it. I'd be happy for them to
: pump
: : : their dog if it could be established that the dog wanted it. I'm sure
: God is
: : : big enough to sort it out on judgement day ... and guess what ? We have
: : : plenty of christians about to admit they are not qualified to do such a
: good
: : : job..
: : :
: : : Dave Milne, Scotland
: : : '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: :
: : Of course the holey babble also condones slavery......
: :

I merely made the point that slavery is condoned in the bible. Many people are surprised
to hear that. There are lots of things in the bible that should make people think twice
before praising it as some great literary work. Personally, I prefer "Cosmos"

I think we are both making the same point - a religious belief should not be
an excuse for bigotry or hurting other people in the face of common sense.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Will Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:spYPa.3602$Bp2.2393@fed1read07...
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: : I believe someone should be allowed to do whatever they want *as long as
it
: : doesn't harm someone else* (which slavery clearly does). I'm a
Christian,
: : and that's my choice. You're entitled to your choice and if I don't like
: : what you do, that's *my* problem, not yours (as long as I'm not
materially
: : affected by it). Its a tolerance thing.
: :
: : Dave Milne, Scotland
: : '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: :
: : "Dr. Zachary Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: : news:fkXPa.3583$Bp2.2831@fed1read07...
: : :
: : : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: : : news:[email protected]...
: : : : speaking as a christian myself, most of the pious dont seem to have
: : brains
: : : : at all. In fact, being dense and "simply believing" seems to be a
: : virtue.
: : : : You get a lot of crap about "man can never understand the wisdom of
God"
: : : : which is a convenient get out clause for difficult questions.
Example
: : below
: : : : is a classic - I don't like it, so it's not science. The problem the
: : : : christians have over homosexuality is that the bible condems it, and
: : that
: : : : makes them want to condemn it legally. Frankly, I don't care what
they
: : do in
: : : : the privacy of their own homes as long as I dont have to know about
it,
: : : : see, it or be chatted up by queers. I'm entitled to my opinion that
it
: : is
: : : : disgusting, but they are entitled to do it. I'd be happy for them to
: : pump
: : : : their dog if it could be established that the dog wanted it. I'm
sure
: : God is
: : : : big enough to sort it out on judgement day ... and guess what ? We
have
: : : : plenty of christians about to admit they are not qualified to do
such a
: : good
: : : : job..
: : : :
: : : : Dave Milne, Scotland
: : : : '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: : :
: : : Of course the holey babble also condones slavery......
: : :
:
: I merely made the point that slavery is condoned in the bible. Many people
are surprised
: to hear that. There are lots of things in the bible that should make
people think twice
: before praising it as some great literary work. Personally, I prefer
"Cosmos"
:
:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Dave Milne wrote:

> I believe someone should be allowed to do whatever they want *as long as
> it doesn't harm someone else* (which slavery clearly does). I'm a
> Christian, and that's my choice. You're entitled to your choice and if I
> don't like what you do, that's *my* problem, not yours (as long as I'm
> not materially affected by it). Its a tolerance thing.

I agree, but the definition of "harm someone else" gets twisted and
stretched to meet lots of different personal agendas. There's high-handed
talk of gays "ripping the fabric of society" (though the ~50% heterosexual
divorce rate is never mentioned as doing so), there's self-righteous cries
of "Protect the children, don't let gays adopt!" (though implicit in this
is that any drugged-up, drunken, no-account, shiftless, abusive piece of
**** is a fit parent as long as s/he's heterosexual). There's preachy "I
believe in the Bible and I'm not about to let gays pervert our society,
because that's discriminating against my right to be a Christian!"
gobbledegook, which unfortunately works rather well because there's little
hope of responding meaningfully to such a pile of nonsequiturs.

Remember the Golden Rule: Them that gots the gold, makes the rules.

> You get a lot of crap about "man can never understand the wisdom of God"
> which is a convenient get out clause for difficult questions.

It really just amounts to answering a question with "Because."

> The problem the christians have over homosexuality is that the bible
> condems it,

Well, as Lynn Lavner said, The Bible contains six admonishments to
homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that
God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.
The Bible condemns lots of things most of today's Christians do on a daily
basis. You might've seen the open letter to "Dr" Laura Schlessinger that
went around the net after she called homosexuals "biological errors". It
certain provides food for the Chapter-and-Verse types to chew on:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have
learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as
many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from
you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow
them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do
I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around
us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not
Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination
(Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't
agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you
can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.


> that makes them want to condemn it legally.

Well, as I posted before, often these people cannot conceive of the idea
that theirs is not the only valid viewpoint. ("Look, it says right here in
the Book that Christ is the Way and the Truth! How could anyone possibly
object to laws based on the Way and the Truth? Anyone who doesn't follow
the Way and the Truth is going to have a hard life, that's their
fault.")

> Frankly, I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own homes as
> long as I dont have to know about it, see, it or be chatted up by
> queers.

I imagine most homosexuals don't particularly want to know about or see
what most heterosxuals do in the privacy of their own homes, either. As
far as the chatting-up thing, I've always been somewhat amused by
heterosexuals fearing they'd be hit on by homosexuals. Amused? Yes,
because it implies they think they're god's gift to their own gender. Most
of 'em probably have the ordinary tough time getting a date with the
opposite sex, so it's not too clear what makes 'em think others of their
same sex would find 'em drop-dead gorgeous.

Or else they think homosexuals will have sex anytime, anywhere, with
anyone of their same gender. *shrug*

> God is big enough to sort it out on judgement day

Yep. If uppercase-G God and Judgement Day are your schtick, then I'm
certain God is big enough to sort it all out on Judgement Day. Brings up
another interesting point, though -- if the Religious Reich types (amusing
term shamelessly lifted from another poster in this thread) are so sure
they've got reserved seats in Heaven while homosexuals are going to Hell,
then what's for them to worry about? Only that they might be wrong, the
souls of homosexuals might be permitted into their Heaven, and they might
have to deal with tastefully-done decor and impeccably-prepared food for
all eternity... *smirk*

DS

Someone , in an earlier post said that eventually, in long posts - such as
this one - someone will make a reference to Nazis...............

--
Carlo F. Serusa, Jr. RPh
[email protected]
'98 Sahara TJ - '89 YJ - '79 Scout II
O|||||||O
'92 Explorer '65 Mustang


"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think we are both making the same point - a religious belief should not
be
> an excuse for bigotry or hurting other people in the face of common sense.
>
> --
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Will Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:spYPa.3602$Bp2.2393@fed1read07...
> :
> : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]...
> : : I believe someone should be allowed to do whatever they want *as long
as
> it
> : : doesn't harm someone else* (which slavery clearly does). I'm a
> Christian,
> : : and that's my choice. You're entitled to your choice and if I don't
like
> : : what you do, that's *my* problem, not yours (as long as I'm not
> materially
> : : affected by it). Its a tolerance thing.
> : :
> : : Dave Milne, Scotland
> : : '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : :
> : : "Dr. Zachary Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : : news:fkXPa.3583$Bp2.2831@fed1read07...
> : : :
> : : : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : : : news:[email protected]...
> : : : : speaking as a christian myself, most of the pious dont seem to
have
> : : brains
> : : : : at all. In fact, being dense and "simply believing" seems to be a
> : : virtue.
> : : : : You get a lot of crap about "man can never understand the wisdom
of
> God"
> : : : : which is a convenient get out clause for difficult questions.
> Example
> : : below
> : : : : is a classic - I don't like it, so it's not science. The problem
the
> : : : : christians have over homosexuality is that the bible condems it,
and
> : : that
> : : : : makes them want to condemn it legally. Frankly, I don't care what
> they
> : : do in
> : : : : the privacy of their own homes as long as I dont have to know
about
> it,
> : : : : see, it or be chatted up by queers. I'm entitled to my opinion
that
> it
> : : is
> : : : : disgusting, but they are entitled to do it. I'd be happy for them
to
> : : pump
> : : : : their dog if it could be established that the dog wanted it. I'm
> sure
> : : God is
> : : : : big enough to sort it out on judgement day ... and guess what ? We
> have
> : : : : plenty of christians about to admit they are not qualified to do
> such a
> : : good
> : : : : job..
> : : : :
> : : : : Dave Milne, Scotland
> : : : : '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : : :
> : : : Of course the holey babble also condones slavery......
> : : :
> :
> : I merely made the point that slavery is condoned in the bible. Many
people
> are surprised
> : to hear that. There are lots of things in the bible that should make
> people think twice
> : before praising it as some great literary work. Personally, I prefer
> "Cosmos"
> :
> :
>
>

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Daniel J Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
: On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Dave Milne wrote:
:
: : > Frankly, I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own homes
as
: > long as I dont have to know about it, see, it or be chatted up by
: > queers.
:
: I imagine most homosexuals don't particularly want to know about or see
: what most heterosxuals do in the privacy of their own homes, either.


Totally agree.

: far as the chatting-up thing, I've always been somewhat amused by
: heterosexuals fearing they'd be hit on by homosexuals. Amused? Yes,
: because it implies they think they're god's gift to their own gender.

I don't fear getting chatted up by homosexuals at all. It has happened on
several
occasions to me, and I would *prefer* if it didn't happen again.

:Most of 'em probably have the ordinary tough time getting a date with the
: opposite sex, so it's not too clear what makes 'em think others of their
: same sex would find 'em drop-dead gorgeous.

I guess my hairy white ass is more appealing than I thought. Or perhaps they
were
drunk and would have hated themselves in the morning

: > God is big enough to sort it out on judgement day
: Yep. If uppercase-G God and Judgement Day are your schtick, then I'm
: certain God is big enough to sort it all out on Judgement Day. Brings up
: another interesting point, though -- if the Religious Reich types (amusing
: term shamelessly lifted from another poster in this thread) are so sure
: they've got reserved seats in Heaven while homosexuals are going to Hell,
: then what's for them to worry about? Only that they might be wrong, the
: souls of homosexuals might be permitted into their Heaven, and they might
: have to deal with tastefully-done decor and impeccably-prepared food for
: all eternity... *smirk*

Exactly my point. Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals except when
they talk about sex or make a big thing about their sexuality. I equally
dislike heterosexuals going on about having banged some bird that was
gagging for it. If you want to have sex with one of the 3 billion men or the
3 billion women on the planet , then go right ahead ; everyone is doing it.
Do it, and no need to talk about it. It's like buying petrol for your Jeep -
a regular occurrence that to anyone else is entirely unremarkable (only a
bit more enjoyable !).



: DS
:

Carlo is like Hitler...

Earle

Carlo Jr. wrote:
> Someone , in an earlier post said that eventually, in long posts - such as
> this one - someone will make a reference to Nazis...............
>

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm sure you mean the ninth amendment. I can accept that a privacy right
>can't be denied because it isn't enumerated. But a derived right must be
>strongly rooted in other express rights. There has to be a limit to derived
>rights. Where is that limit? Some rights just can't be found in the
>constitution. Those rights are reserved to the states and the people (tenth
>amendment).

If they can't be found in the Constitution, that does not mean they are not
basic rights. Read the 9th. It is quite clear. You do not need to
"derive" and rights from others. They are rights in their own right.

Right to privacy is a basic right. I object to calling it "derived." The
9th Amendment is quite clear that there need be no other mention of the
right for it to be a right. The court doesn't need to decide whether it
"derives" from other enumerated rights.

It is quite reasonable that the right to privacy not be enumerated. There
was no practical way to violate it. The EM spectrum was not in use for
personal reasons. There were not any communications devices in people's
houses. The recording and surveillance technology employed by the
government consisted of a guy with a telescope (very poor quality) and a
paint brush. If you didn't want anyone violating your privacy, you closed
your blinds. The regulations against mail tampering should have been
applied to *all* communications as they became available. That was the
only possible invasion of privacy.

Today, there is technology that will let people see in the dark, look
through walls, monitor nearly all wired and wireless communications. The
right to privacy that is as important today as it was in 1787 was not
enumerated then because it was not necessary to enumerate it based on the
limitations in being able to violate it.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Skin color is given us, as is gender. Sexual orientation is something we
>acquire. It is a choice we make somewhere along the line. Most of us choose
>the opposite sex, but some of us do not. I don't really care which sex you
>choose, if there are standards of morality in a community or state that make
>your choice difficult, then you change your choice or your community.

I can remember being attracted to females before reaching puberty and
knowing what and why I was attracted to them. It was never a choice for
me.

If it was a choice for you, that tells me that you are attracted to men,
but choose only to act on it with women. That would make you a homosexual.
And that would also explain your hostility towards those that are attracted
to men and do decide to act on it.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Dave Milne wrote:

> I don't fear getting chatted up by homosexuals at all. It has happened
> on several occasions to me, and I would *prefer* if it didn't happen
> again.

I 'magine the best response would be a bemused "No, thanks", same as it is
for an unwanted advance from someone of the opposite sex.

DS

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Today, BOTH sides have the EXACT same position on the role and scope of
> the Federal Government. In short, as long as the Feds are doing what I
> want, then by gum expand, expand, expand!! But the second the Feds
> start doing what I don't like - then shrink, shrink, shrink!!

In America today, the only real differences between "liberals" (or
"Democrats") and "conservatives" (or "Republicans") are:

1) Which rights they wish to withhold from which people
2) What they lie about

All the rest is just marketing BS.

DS