Hello Daniel!

05 Jan 08 21:10, you wrote to me:

 >> So you advocate war to keep the evil "christians" away?

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

The very thought of them existing makes you shiver in fear.

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

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

You wouldnt have made such a big production out of it if you werent obsessed.

 DP>  * Trying to pass laws and amend the Constitution to forbid same sex
 DP> marriage

Not specifically an exclusive issue of the religious.

 DP> * Laws being passed to limit/control what medical procedures
 DP> can and can't be performed, without any scientific reason to ban
 DP> "taboo" ones (including abortion).

Do you agree with some state laws that when a pregnant women gets murdered
that sometimes the accusd gets charged with 2 counts of murder?

 DP>  * The government setting laws to
 DP> make substances "illegal", even those that occur
naturally, and even
 DP> when states have chosen to allow them within their borers.

Is this an all exclusive religious mantra?

Careful here, be honest!

 DP>  * The
 DP> banning of different types of online gambling at a national
 DP> level (except horse racing, that's just fine).

Why is a ban on horse racing ok and not other types?

Why is online gambling such a necessity?

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

I think you have christianity on the brain.

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

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

Are big govts at any level acceptable?

 >> Then the system worked!

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

Then we would never have needed a court system, listen to yourself.

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

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

No I see people like you as bad as the christians you denounce.

As long as you get in their face, they shall get in yours.

 >> and votes!!!

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

I think votes is the ultimate objective to obtaining office, money is just
a tool to achieve that end.

 >> 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.

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

If homosexuality has been pervasive throughout civilization, why is there a
problem now?

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

 DP> As I said.  Separate but equal.  Technically, a marriage is where an
 DP> invisible man in the sky blesses your relationship.

How do you know it is in the sky, is this part of your misguided stereotyping?

As far as I know, the only men in the sky are onboard the International
Space Station?

 DP>   But, the state
 DP> has also used that term to refer to the legal rights/protections
 DP> afforded the couple.  This is where it needs to stop.  It's a contract
 DP> between two people.  It isn't like denying them rights is going to
 DP> make them stop fucking, no matter how badly the religious right would
 DP> like that to happen.  So give people the legal rights and protections
 DP> they deserve, and leave the religious bullshit out of it.

Yes, lets have the religious bullshit in marriage and the homo shit in civil unions.

 >> Ever hear of a marriage license?

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

Good!

They can get a civil union license.

Let them all live in Vermont and New Hampshire with the other nutz.

 >> 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.

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

Sorry but their sexual status already places them in a separate class, by
very definition alone. Unless you want sexual preference removed from a
protected status in the eyes of the law, especially laws regarding
employment and discrimination.

In fact sexual preference is more of a separate class now than race is.

You cannot equate homesexuality to heterosexuality, one cant procreate.

Therefore separate but equal is the best you are going to get.


==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info
E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Blogs/Other Places: http://links.cassell.us
... WORK HARDER! Millions on welfare depend on it.
--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-30413