Re: Big stink in Green Bay
  By: Ross Cassell to Daniel Prather on Sat Jan 05 2008 09:17 pm

 >  DP> I follow the meanings of the words to their conclusion.
 >
 > I dont think so..

Matter of opinion.

 > No you didnt.

Yes, I did.  But, go ahead and think what you like.

 >  DP> It's a long road to get a lot of things changed.  It took a war to end
 >  DP> slavery.
 >
 > So you advocate war to keep the evil "christians" away?

No, it was an example of how sometimes bad things take a huge response before
they can be changed.  I don't want Christians to go away, I just want to stop
their religious influences in our government (enforcing Christianity on those
who aren't Christian).

 > Radis atheism isnt a healthy profession, its only leads to obsession.

Radis?  Was that supposed to be radical?  I'm not an atheist by profession.
I'm a computer programmer and web developer.  They're sorta similar, perhaps.
:)  I'm also not obsessed with this stuff, but it is an important issue.

 >  DP> Until it affects you personally, of course.
 >
 > What has happened so far that has affected me personally?

Nothing, apparently.  That was my point.

 >  DP> It's being invoked at the federal level.  The federal government is
 >  DP> interfering more and more with our rights.
 >
 > I will agree that some of the stuff since 9-11 is highly suspect, but other
 > than that, name them?

I wasn't talking about just things since 9/11.

 * Trying to pass laws and amend the Constitution to forbid same sex marriage
 * Laws being passed to limit/control what medical procedures can and can't be
performed, without any scientific reason to ban "taboo" ones (including
abortion).
 * The government setting laws to make substances "illegal", even
those that
occur naturally, and even when states have chosen to allow them within their
borers.
 * The banning of different types of online gambling at a national level
(except horse racing, that's just fine).

There's probably a lot more.  But, those ones are what comes right off the top
of my head.  They're also not necessarily "new", just ongoing problems.

 > Now how are we going to have a smaller Federal govt, when people like you
 > want national health care, welfare and the ilk?

I don't necessarily want "national health care" or "national
welfare".  I think
social programs are important, but, I don't think they have to be done at the
national level.

 > Then the system worked!

I never said it didn't.  But, it shouldn't allow that type of nonsense to begin
with.

 > and they are in the USSC,,, haha squirm why dont you?

They shouldn't be.  I told you that in the thread on the other echo.

 > I would rather have a concern based on a rational belief, not irrational
 > nonsense.

Rather, you just aren't bothered by any of the cases where Christian views have
infringed (or are in danger of infringing) on the rights of everyone.  It's not
irrational nonsense, it's just that those things aren't important to you.

 > and votes!!!

I think money is likely more effective nowadays.  But, that too.

 > Everyone gets pandered to, even you will want to buy into someones spiel,
 > even if they are unable to act on any promises made.

Sometimes.  That makes me think of the time when one kid running for student
council president (in elementary school) said he'd make our lunches bigger.  So
all the kids voted for him, even though he obviously couldn't do anything.  I
think I was one of the few that said, "umm, can he do that?".

 > Please list the ways they are being imposed on you and also list the ways
 > you might be doing the same exact thing?

I'm not a lawmaker, nor do I have religious views (aside from disliking
religion).  If I was a lawmaker, I'd fight to keep religion out of government.
As far as things that have been imposed on me, I'm not willing to get into
specifics because I'd have to give you more information about me than I'm
willing to reveal.

 > A marriage between a man and a man or a woman between a woman is not the
 > same thing as a marriage between and man and a woman.

The first two are homosexual, the last is heterosexual.  Please explain to me
what business the government has in providing legal protection only to
heterosexual couples?

 > You can still have your cake, just dont fuck with redefining something.

As I said.  Separate but equal.  Technically, a marriage is where an invisible
man in the sky blesses your relationship.  But, the state has also used that
term to refer to the legal rights/protections afforded the couple.  This is
where it needs to stop.  It's a contract between two people.  It isn't like
denying them rights is going to make them stop fucking, no matter how badly the
religious right would like that to happen.  So give people the legal rights and
protections they deserve, and leave the religious bullshit out of it.

 > Ever hear of a marriage license?

Yes, it's called a marriage license.  Same sex couples can't get them.

 > The whole issue has more to do with being able to able to have the same sex
 > partner benifit from having common property willed to them, medical
 > benifits and the ilk, civil unions allow this.

In some states they do.  In others they don't.  As I said, separate but equal.
We've been down this road before, and it creates two classes.

 > In your world, a marriage between 2 men, who is the husband?

Whomever wants to be.  What does it matter?

-- Daniel
--- SBBSecho 2.12-FreeBSD