Originally posted by Blurr The problem is that people like reavo and alexamore try to force their beliefs on everyone else by insulting us for wanting to uphold the law the way it is. You can claim it's unconstitutional all you want, but as of right now, the Supreme Court says that's the way it is. The Supreme Court says it can hold you responsible to law even if you claim you are practicing religion. If you don't like it, change it or leave the country. Breaking the law is breaking the law. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you like and don't like, that's what the government is for. Don't like what the government is doing? Vote for someone else. The fact is though, even though you say "oh we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic", the fact remains that the people who make the laws are elected by a majority. They get to say what the law is, and you don't. Frankly I'll cheer every time they throw a polygamist in jail for breaking the law. You can challenge it in court all you want, but don't come crying "it's still unconstitutional" when the court says no.
You truly make me sick with some of your lat comments. you say that Reavo and Alex are forcing opinions on you by insulting you. You have insulted right back but the problem with your arguments is that not one is based on a source of fact. Reavo states the constitution and you basically say that it is wrong until someone of power says it isn't. The entire argument between reavo, alex, and you is that they say the law should be changed, and you say that it should be illegal because someone else said it should be illegal to you. the government is there for the people, not to control them. As soon as you understand that it is repressing others beleifs the sooner you'll come around to thinking in the Poligamous persons shoes. I'm imagining that you think that gay marraige should be illegal because the government says its illegal. When will you start thinking for yourself? Has it ever occured to you that this government in place does illegal, unmoral things constantly? But to you the goverment is infoulable? should you be punished for something that is moral and should be legal? what if the government said that it was illegal to attend to mass, or service on sundays? You would think of that as unmoral. What will it take for you to understand that there are other people in this world with other lifestyles that are as "good" as yours?
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
Originally posted by Blurr The problem is that people like reavo and alexamore try to force their beliefs on everyone else by insulting us for wanting to uphold the law the way it is. You can claim it's unconstitutional all you want, but as of right now, the Supreme Court says that's the way it is. The Supreme Court says it can hold you responsible to law even if you claim you are practicing religion. If you don't like it, change it or leave the country. Breaking the law is breaking the law. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you like and don't like, that's what the government is for. Don't like what the government is doing? Vote for someone else. The fact is though, even though you say "oh we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic", the fact remains that the people who make the laws are elected by a majority. They get to say what the law is, and you don't. Frankly I'll cheer every time they throw a polygamist in jail for breaking the law. You can challenge it in court all you want, but don't come crying "it's still unconstitutional" when the court says no.
No, our representatives do not get to carelessly say what the law is or is not. They are bound by a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. They cannot make laws that go against the Constitution or the judicial branch will find the bill unconstitutional upon review and erase it.
A representatives duty is to protect the Constitution. They cannot do anything outside of that no matter what the people who elected them say. If something is unconstitutional then that's what it is. Plain and simple. It's the reason that majority does not rule in this country. It's the reason we are not a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. That's not America.
Originally posted by Blurr The problem is that people like reavo and alexamore try to force their beliefs on everyone else by insulting us for wanting to uphold the law the way it is. The way the law is contradicts the constitution. You can claim it's unconstitutional all you want, but as of right now, the Supreme Court says that's the way it is. The Supreme Court says it can hold you responsible to law even if you claim you are practicing religion. If you don't like it, change it or leave the country. Breaking the law is breaking the law. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you like and don't like, White man: Pick more cotton! It's the law! Slave: Yes sir. that's what the government is for. Don't like what the government is doing? Vote for someone else. The fact is though, even though you say "oh we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic", the fact remains that the people who make the laws are elected by a majority. They get to say what the law is, and you don't. Wow you don't even understand how our Constitutional Republic works. Just remember there is a Constitutional expert teaching a class about the Constitution and it happens to be recorded for your enjoyment. He has been studying the Constitution since 1983, I think he is qualified. Frankly I'll cheer every time they throw a polygamist in jail for breaking the law. Would you cheer back in the days of slavery if a black man ran away from slavery, was caught, then punished? What about when Hitler made laws that oppressed Jews until rendering them defenseless so they could be slaughtered? It was the law and it happened to lead to the Jews demise...but it was the LAW. What about the Declaration of independence? WE BROKE THE KINGS LAW AND DECLARED OURSELVES INDEPENDENT FROM THE KING! AMERICA SHOULD BE PUNISHED RIGHT???? You can challenge it in court all you want, but don't come crying "it's still unconstitutional" when the court says no.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
The problem is that people like reavo and alexamore try to force their beliefs on everyone else by insulting us for wanting to uphold the law the way it is.
You can claim it's unconstitutional all you want, but as of right now, the Supreme Court says that's the way it is. The Supreme Court says it can hold you responsible to law even if you claim you are practicing religion. If you don't like it, change it or leave the country.
The Supreme court put their opinions infront of their line of work, just like everyone else in the government seems to. It may actually be unconstitutional, but according to but they want it to be constitutional, so they vote that way.
Breaking the law is breaking the law. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you like and don't like, that's what the government is for. Don't like what the government is doing? Vote for someone else.
The fact is though, even though you say "oh we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic", the fact remains that the people who make the laws are elected by a majority. They get to say what the law is, and you don't.
No they are not elected by the majority. Do you know anything about how elections are held? Wait, no you are from canada. What the fuck are you even doing in this conversation? It does not concern you.
Frankly I'll cheer every time they throw a polygamist in jail for breaking the law. You can challenge it in court all you want, but don't come crying "it's still unconstitutional" when the court says no.
Your fucking sick. You're saying that you cheer everytime they throw an innocent man into prison? What about the 17 year old boy who had oral sex with a 16 year old and was thrown into prison for 10 years for it? Georgia called it sodomy and pedophelia. Is he not under similar circumstances?
What about Rosa Parks? She sat in the front of Bus! She should get punished! Blurr: *Cheers!*
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Whoa gnomexxx, first of all, I actually quoted the Supreme Court in a post above where they said that religion was subject to the laws of the land in their practices.
So saying that polygamy being illegal is unconstitutional means that you are saying the Supreme Court is wrong. They have yet to think their own ruling was unconstitutional, perhaps you should take it up with them.
And cornoffcob, I frankly could care less what you think. If you'd actually bothered to read this thread, you'd see the sources of fact (most notably, the ruling by the supreme court which states that they are allowed to dictate that the practices of religion be subject to the laws of the land). These guys say "constitution constitution" but they then quote the freedom of religion amendment, and say "this says religions can do anything they want" but then they add in their own "except these things". The first amendment does not say anything about limitations on what or how a religion can practice. It's the Supreme Court who ruled that religions have to obey the law.
They can say the law should be changed all they want. That's their right. I say the law should be left the way it is because I adhere to a set of morals which believes polygamy is wrong. Guess what though. The government also says that polygamy is wrong. The majority of the population in the US believes that polygamy is wrong. Guess whose side wins? The government! Yaaaaay! The fact is that this whole 'repression' that you guys are so bleeding-heart about is believed to be right by the majority of the people (and those whom they elect) in the country.
I could care less about a polygamist's shoes too. He is directly contradicting the teachings of the church, so he can suffer the consequences. If that means jail time, too bad for him. (I hear some states list death as a punishment for polygamy, neat huh?)
As far as gay marriage, I'm against it. Now before you all get a hard on about me saying that, I said that to prove corn wrong in his narrow-minded view. I think homosexuality is a sin, if you don't like that too bad, freedom of belief remember? I am against it for my own reasons and not just because the church or the government says so. I'm allowed to believe whatever I want to believe (and you are a hypocrite if you try to badmouth me for it).
Does the government do immoral things? Sometimes I'm sure they do. Is the government infallible ? Hardly. You are pretty mouthy and insulting for someone who assumes so much. Trying to force your beliefs on me is not gonna work either, especially if you insult me. It just shows me that you're too stupid to get your point across using normal language.
The fact remains that the government remains in control. The majority of people feel the same way I do. And you guys are just crying because you can't have your way right now. You insult anyone who thinks differently than you. You nitpick small things so you can avoid the big questions. If you don't want to obey the laws, then you can leave or suffer the consequences. Don't come crying to me about injustice this and injustice that. I live a perfectly fine life without breaking the law. So do most people.
And have you guys not figured out that alot of law is influenced by christian beliefs?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr Whoa gnomexxx, first of all, I actually quoted the Supreme Court in a post above where they said that religion was subject to the laws of the land in their practices. So saying that polygamy being illegal is unconstitutional means that you are saying the Supreme Court is wrong. They have yet to think their own ruling was unconstitutional, perhaps you should take it up with them. And cornoffcob, I frankly could care less what you think. If you'd actually bothered to read this thread, you'd see the sources of fact (most notably, the ruling by the supreme court which states that they are allowed to dictate that the practices of religion be subject to the laws of the land). These guys say "constitution constitution" but they then quote the freedom of religion amendment, and say "this says religions can do anything they want" but then they add in their own "except these things". The first amendment does not say anything about limitations on what or how a religion can practice. It's the Supreme Court who ruled that religions have to obey the law. They can say the law should be changed all they want. That's their right. I say the law should be left the way it is because I adhere to a set of morals which believes polygamy is wrong. Guess what though. The government also says that polygamy is wrong. The majority of the population in the US believes that polygamy is wrong. Guess whose side wins? The government! Yaaaaay! The fact is that this whole 'repression' that you guys are so bleeding-heart about is believed to be right by the majority of the people (and those whom they elect) in the country. I could care less about a polygamist's shoes too. He is directly contradicting the teachings of the church, so he can suffer the consequences. If that means jail time, too bad for him. (I hear some states list death as a punishment for polygamy, neat huh?) As far as gay marriage, I'm against it. Now before you all get a hard on about me saying that, I said that to prove corn wrong in his narrow-minded view. I think homosexuality is a sin, if you don't like that too bad, freedom of belief remember? I am against it for my own reasons and not just because the church or the government says so. I'm allowed to believe whatever I want to believe (and you are a hypocrite if you try to badmouth me for it). Does the government do immoral things? Sometimes I'm sure they do. Is the government infallible ? Hardly. You are pretty mouthy and insulting for someone who assumes so much. Trying to force your beliefs on me is not gonna work either, especially if you insult me. It just shows me that you're too stupid to get your point across using normal language. The fact remains that the government remains in control. The majority of people feel the same way I do. And you guys are just crying because you can't have your way right now. You insult anyone who thinks differently than you. You nitpick small things so you can avoid the big questions. If you don't want to obey the laws, then you can leave or suffer the consequences. Don't come crying to me about injustice this and injustice that. I live a perfectly fine life without breaking the law. So do most people. And have you guys not figured out that alot of law is influenced by christian beliefs?
wait you say that i insult you?! you just called me a stupid narrow minded hypocrite! i said nothing of the sort to you. I asked you questions. call me names thats great shows how mature you really are. you are arguing with a 16 year old and you resort to name calling? your 25 grow the fuck up.
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
First they came for the Reds, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Red. Then they came for the Blacks, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Black. Then they came for the Homosexuals, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn't a Homosexual. Then they came for the Polygamists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Polygamist, Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
I think it's fitting.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
lol corn, I was hardly the one to throw the first stone. Don't get mad because you can't take the medicine of your compatriots, or your own.
Seeing as you guys like quotes so much, here's one on the "it doesn't hurt anyone idea"
"I think polygamy is a bad idea for society. With a couple of exceptions, polygamy is really polygyny – one man, multiple women. What happens in polygynous societies is that low status men don’t get to marry at all. This, it seems to me, is just unfair and un-American. Moreover, in every case I have read about of polygyny, even in societies in which it was well established, the wives are never really ok with the fact that their husband has other wives and other children." - William (Beau) Weston Sociology professor. Swarthmore and Yale.
One of the main reasons that polygamy is illegal is because it fosters situations that are prone to the infringement of rights.
Young girls are not given the choice of who to marry, but married off almost like a piece of property. In many instances they are married before the age of consent, often to much older (50+) men. Older men control the society and subjugate the women as their property. While one man often has many wives, it's almost unheardof for a woman to have more than one husband. Younger men are driven out of the society because they are seen as a threat by the older men. Women are treated as second-class citizens and are expected to obey absolutely. It's a breeding ground for pedophilia against young girls. Women are psychologically and emotionally abused to keep them in line. Women become a status symbol for the men to determine who is the leader of the society. There is alot of emotional turmoil because women don't really want to share their husband, but feel they have to. When an old man dies sometimes his wives are given to another in his will. Sexual disease spreads very quickly. Young men and women who do not subscribe to the lifestyle are shunned, sometimes disowned, and sometimes run out of town.
I wonder if any of that infringes on people's rights. A couple of you seem to be experts on that, any idea?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by AlexAmore What about Rosa Parks? She sat in the front of Bus! She should get punished!
She was punished... She was embarrassed, arrested and fined. "The law's the law" that was the comment by the bus driver ... [no matter how unconstitutional it is]
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by AlexAmore What about Rosa Parks? She sat in the front of Bus! She should get punished!
She was punished... She was embarrassed, arrested and fined. "The law's the law" that was the comment by the bus driver ... [no matter how unconstitutional it is]
And Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Sometimes racist people benefit from those they hate for no reason!
Originally posted by Malachi1975 Any person who has the fortitude to have more than one wife can knock themselves out in my book
Oh Yeah!
Im flat out keeping one wife happy let alone 3 or more.
This is another issue that the Govt has no place even having an opinion on. I mean really does it matter whether some Mo'man is touching 1 fur pie or 3 ?? Really.... does it really matter to the rest of us ??
If you even had to think about it.... you need more stuff to occupy your time and your not mentally well Im sorry....
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by AlexAmore What about Rosa Parks? She sat in the front of Bus! She should get punished!
She was punished... She was embarrassed, arrested and fined. "The law's the law" that was the comment by the bus driver ... [no matter how unconstitutional it is]
My point is Blurr would be right there cheering on the oppression against black folk; heck he would probably own a slave. I called him a Nazi, he denies it, but if he was in Nazi Germany then he would support the oppressive laws against Jews and then the extermination. He would also support America being punished for breaking the law and declaring independence from the king.
Blurr, what about Jesus Christ being sentenced to death under Roman law? You support that don't you? You would be there cheering on the death of Jesus, correct?
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by AlexAmore Blurr, what about Jesus Christ being sentenced to death under Roman law? You support that don't you? You would be there cheering on the death of Jesus, correct?
I think you are misunderstanding Blurr.. Or maybe it's just how I read his posts.. He's saying that while some law is still in effect.. You still have to live by it's word or you are liable for punishment... Blurr is saying Current law forbids polygamy... therefore you must live in monogamy until the polygamy ban is thrown out...
And I quoted the Jesus section to show.... that Jesus WAS punished... cuz that was the law at the time.... Just like polygamists can be punished now in the US since that is the law now..
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by AlexAmore Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by AlexAmore What about Rosa Parks? She sat in the front of Bus! She should get punished!
She was punished... She was embarrassed, arrested and fined. "The law's the law" that was the comment by the bus driver ... [no matter how unconstitutional it is]
My point is Blurr would be right there cheering on the oppression against black folk; heck he would probably own a slave. I called him a Nazi, he denies it, but if he was in Nazi Germany then he would support the oppressive laws against Jews and then the extermination. He would also support America being punished for breaking the law and declaring independence from the king.
Blurr, what about Jesus Christ being sentenced to death under Roman law? You support that don't you? You would be there cheering on the death of Jesus, correct?
Wow alexamore. Your posts just get more inane by the moment. Are you mad because you can't fight with real ideas, so you have to try name-calling?
I know, lets do the same thing you do. Now you support polygamy, and polygamy can sometimes lead to pedophilia. Alexamore you're a pedophile! I hope they keep you away from children wherever you are. Oh and polygamists tend to take a stance against gay marriage. Alex i can't believe you hate gay people too. Nazi's hated gay people, omg you're a nazi! Some muslims practice polygamy, and some muslims are terrorists. Wow alex, I didn't know you were a terrorist too. Since polygamy is illegal, you are promoting crime too. I can't believe you sell drugs to kids in the schoolyard. You can call me a nazi all you want, but by your logic you are a gay-bashing, drug dealing, nazi terrorist pedophile.
See alex? That type of argument is stupid. Every time you open your mouth with this kind of stupidity, you don't actually show anything but how little your argument actually has to do with any facts whatsoever. You make feeble attempts to insult me and have nothing else in your post. That sounds like pure trolling to me.
Also you're guilty of using logical fallacies. Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"). It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
Atleast if you're going to have a discussion, try not to sound like a total troll. You haven't responded to half the points I made, instead resorting to nit-picking and name-calling.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by AlexAmore Blurr, what about Jesus Christ being sentenced to death under Roman law? You support that don't you? You would be there cheering on the death of Jesus, correct?
I think you are misunderstanding Blurr.. Or maybe it's just how I read his posts.. He's saying that while some law is still in effect.. You still have to live by it's word or you are liable for punishment... Blurr is saying Current law forbids polygamy... therefore you must live in monogamy until the polygamy ban is thrown out...
And I quoted the Jesus section to show.... that Jesus WAS punished... cuz that was the law at the time.... Just like polygamists can be punished now in the US since that is the law now..
I'm not even saying polygamy is wrong (though I think it is). Methane gets it. The fact is that I am advocating responsibility for your actions. If you practice polygamy, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences.
The point is that you CAN'T use religion as a defense to circumvent law. If religion circumvents law, then law no longer matters, because religion can be made up however one wants.
As far as people being punished for their crimes, yes I am all for it. And super-hippie alex can call me a nazi all he wants. You know it's such a tragesty that I should believe people should take responsibility for their actions. Society has stopped doing this, instead trying to blame all their problems on forces out of their control. You're fat not because you eat too much, but because it's a genetic disposition. You're a serial-killer because your mom never held you as a child. You're addicted to crack because the government is culturally biased towards you. You cheat on your wife because she's a 'toxic influence' on you. All your problems are caused by evil body thetans attached to your soul.
It's all a load of "i'm okay, you're okay, it's not our fault" bullcrap.
My problem with the original story is that they are trying to circumvent the law by saying their religion commands them to. This is a false argument and the government is right in punishing them for breaking the law.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr Originally posted by AlexAmore Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by AlexAmore What about Rosa Parks? She sat in the front of Bus! She should get punished!
She was punished... She was embarrassed, arrested and fined. "The law's the law" that was the comment by the bus driver ... [no matter how unconstitutional it is]
My point is Blurr would be right there cheering on the oppression against black folk; heck he would probably own a slave. I called him a Nazi, he denies it, but if he was in Nazi Germany then he would support the oppressive laws against Jews and then the extermination. He would also support America being punished for breaking the law and declaring independence from the king.
Blurr, what about Jesus Christ being sentenced to death under Roman law? You support that don't you? You would be there cheering on the death of Jesus, correct?
Wow alexamore. Your posts just get more inane by the moment. Are you mad because you can't fight with real ideas, so you have to try name-calling? I have been fighting with real arguments. You choose to ignore them.
I know, lets do the same thing you do. Now you support polygamy, and polygamy can sometimes lead to pedophilia. Alexamore you're a pedophile! I hope they keep you away from children wherever you are. Oh and polygamists tend to take a stance against gay marriage. Alex i can't believe you hate gay people too. Nazi's hated gay people, omg you're a nazi! Some muslims practice polygamy, and some muslims are terrorists. Wow alex, I didn't know you were a terrorist too. Since polygamy is illegal, you are promoting crime too. I can't believe you sell drugs to kids in the schoolyard. You can call me a nazi all you want, but by your logic you are a gay-bashing, drug dealing, nazi terrorist pedophile. All I am saying is you support oppressing religious beliefs. I am saying that is no worse than Nazi Germany, but if you can refute that then go ahead. Polygamy can sometimes lead to pedophillia but so can Christian Priesthood and normal (one man, one woman) marriages....so now next time when you go to church, know that you are possibly learning your morals from a pedo. In the end Polygamy possibly could lead to pedophillia but oppressing religious beliefs IS OPPRESSION....not possibly oppression.
See alex? That type of argument is stupid. Yes your argument was stupid and flawed. Every time you open your mouth with this kind of stupidity, you don't actually show anything but how little your argument actually has to do with any facts whatsoever. You make feeble attempts to insult me and have nothing else in your post. That sounds like pure trolling to me. Look in the mirror. I have been stating many facts about the Constitution and you choose to try and ebate this being an uneducated (in the Constitution) Canadian. You say there is nothing that limits Religion from doing whatever it wants in the 1st Admendment but then you forget about the 5th Admendment which is just as important. They made many admendments in the Constitution and instead of lumping them all into one Admendment (Which would put religion and limits in one admendment), they instead made many admendments that are all equally important.
Also you're guilty of using logical fallacies. Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. I am attacking your ideas. You may feel like i'm attacking you but it's just your ideas, but I can see why it would/could sound personal. Your ideas are what make up YOU. I'm showing how your ideas of oppression can be used to show that you are very unchristian. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"). It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
Atleast if you're going to have a discussion, try not to sound like a total troll. You haven't responded to half the points I made, You haven't responded to my questions either. instead resorting to nit-picking and name-calling. You have been nit-picking like crazy at the Constitution and not seeing the big picture or even trying to learn more about it. I gave you a f*cking expert who has been studying it for over 20 f*cking years! I'm gonna have to side with him instead of a Canadian, sorry.
The point is that you CAN'T use religion as a defense to circumvent law. If religion circumvents law, then law no longer matters, because religion can be made up however one wants. You can use religion and practice it freely however you want until you infringe on one Admendments in the Constitution. Find me the part in the Constitution where it says you can't marry more than one wife. They can't prohibit the free exercise of one's religion, it's right there in the Constitution.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by AlexAmore Originally posted by Blurr Originally posted by AlexAmore My point is Blurr would be right there cheering on the oppression against black folk; heck he would probably own a slave. I called him a Nazi, he denies it, but if he was in Nazi Germany then he would support the oppressive laws against Jews and then the extermination. He would also support America being punished for breaking the law and declaring independence from the king.
Blurr, what about Jesus Christ being sentenced to death under Roman law? You support that don't you? You would be there cheering on the death of Jesus, correct?
I have been fighting with real arguments. You choose to ignore them.
Yes, "Blurr is a racist nazi" is a real argument...
All I am saying is you support oppressing religious beliefs. I am saying that is no worse than Nazi Germany, but if you can refute that then go ahead. Polygamy can sometimes lead to pedophillia but so can Christian Priesthood and normal (one man, one woman) marriages....so now next time when you go to church, know that you are possibly learning your morals from a pedo. In the end Polygamy possibly could lead to pedophillia but oppressing religious beliefs IS OPPRESSION....not possibly oppression.
First of all, using Nazi's to prove your point shows that you don't have any creidibility, nor strength in your arguments, and must lean on the dislike of Nazi's to strengthen your point. You are not making an intelligent point when you call someone a nazi. You are name-calling, plain and simple. Forcing religions to obey the law is completely different from religious oppression. The thing is, you've drawn this imaginary line where some forms of rules on religion are okay and some are not. You hold this line to be fact but the truth is, it's just an opinion you made up which has no real validity. By your own argument you support any religion that centers around crack addicition too.
See alex? That type of argument is stupid. Yes your argument was stupid and flawed. That's the whole point! I was using your arguments against you and you admit they are stupid and flawed. Think about it, go on. I'll give that a minute to set in.
I have been stating many facts about the Constitution and you choose to try and ebate this being an uneducated (in the Constitution) Canadian. You say there is nothing that limits Religion from doing whatever it wants in the 1st Admendment but then you forget about the 5th Admendment which is just as important. They made many admendments in the Constitution and instead of lumping them all into one Admendment (Which would put religion and limits in one admendment), they instead made many admendments that are all equally important.
First of all, there you go again trying to attack my person instead of my ideas (saying that my argument is invalid because I'm Canadian). The fact is that you are arbitrarily imposing limitations on your own constitution. You are saying that the 5th Amendment is more important than the 1st Amendment. You are saying that religion is free to practice as long as it doesn't break the 5th amendment, but I've yet to see such limitations actually in the constitution anywhere.
I am attacking your ideas. You may feel like i'm attacking you but it's just your ideas, but I can see why it would/could sound personal. Your ideas are what make up YOU. I'm showing how your ideas of oppression can be used to show that you are very unchristian.
Yeah, "Blurr is a racist nazi" isn't a personal attack... "you are very unchristian" isn't a personal attack... You know what? It's put up or shut up time. Prove that I'm a nazi. Prove that I'm unchristian. Prove that I support oppression of religion. I'd love to see this because none of it will hold water.
It's true, I haven't responded to questions like "Would you support Jesus being punished by the romans" because it's an inane question that serves no point except to try and detract from any actual ideas.
You have been nit-picking like crazy at the Constitution and not seeing the big picture or even trying to learn more about it. I gave you a f*cking expert who has been studying it for over 20 f*cking years! I'm gonna have to side with him instead of a Canadian, sorry.
There you go, stating that I'm inferior because I'm Canadian. Tell me, where does that rank on the racism chart? Calling someone inferior because of their ethnicity?
You can use religion and practice it freely however you want until you infringe on one Admendments in the Constitution. Find me the part in the Constitution where it says you can't marry more than one wife. They can't prohibit the free exercise of one's religion, it's right there in the Constitution.
Find me the part in the constitution where it says the Amendment of Religion is conditional to the Amendment of Rights.
You need to stop making sweeping generalizations, using blanket terms, and personal attacks.
Tell me, when the cops arrest a criminal for having a gun, or selling crack, do you jump to their defense with the whole "it's not hurting anyone" argument?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr Originally posted by AlexAmore Originally posted by Blurr Originally posted by AlexAmore My point is Blurr would be right there cheering on the oppression against black folk; heck he would probably own a slave. I called him a Nazi, he denies it, but if he was in Nazi Germany then he would support the oppressive laws against Jews and then the extermination. He would also support America being punished for breaking the law and declaring independence from the king.
Blurr, what about Jesus Christ being sentenced to death under Roman law? You support that don't you? You would be there cheering on the death of Jesus, correct?
I have been fighting with real arguments. You choose to ignore them.
Yes, "Blurr is a racist nazi" is a real argument... I've said more than that. Now I know that you are just blabbering without listening.
All I am saying is you support oppressing religious beliefs. I am saying that is no worse than Nazi Germany, but if you can refute that then go ahead. Polygamy can sometimes lead to pedophillia but so can Christian Priesthood and normal (one man, one woman) marriages....so now next time when you go to church, know that you are possibly learning your morals from a pedo. In the end Polygamy possibly could lead to pedophillia but oppressing religious beliefs IS OPPRESSION....not possibly oppression.
First of all, using Nazi's to prove your point shows that you don't have any creidibility, nor strength in your arguments, and must lean on the dislike of Nazi's to strengthen your point. I have not used nazi in every argument. You are not making an intelligent point when you call someone a nazi. You are name-calling, plain and simple.
Forcing religions to obey the law is completely different from religious oppression. The law must be within with the Constitution's law. The Constitution is not something that governs us but it governs the government. We The People wrote the Constitution, not the government. The thing is, you've drawn this imaginary line where some forms of rules on religion are okay and some are not. The line is very clear. It's all written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I wish you would just read it. You hold this line to be fact but the truth is, it's just an opinion you made up which has no real validity. By your own argument you support any religion that centers around crack addicition too. Ok I can compare Nazi and you can compare crack. Deal? If they consented (21+) to recieving the drugs and then upon using them didn't infringe on anyone else's liberty then i'm not going to be against it.
See alex? That type of argument is stupid. Yes your argument was stupid and flawed. That's the whole point! I was using your arguments against you and you admit they are stupid and flawed. Think about it, go on. I'll give that a minute to set in. Your argument was flawed because it was based on the possibility that polygamists were pedos but we know anyone can be a pedo and we know that you approve of unconstitutionally restricting people of their right to exercise religion which isn't conducive to freedom.
I have been stating many facts about the Constitution and you choose to try and ebate this being an uneducated (in the Constitution) Canadian. You say there is nothing that limits Religion from doing whatever it wants in the 1st Admendment but then you forget about the 5th Admendment which is just as important. They made many admendments in the Constitution and instead of lumping them all into one Admendment (Which would put religion and limits in one admendment), they instead made many admendments that are all equally important.
First of all, there you go again trying to attack my person instead of my ideas (saying that my argument is invalid because I'm Canadian). The fact is that you are arbitrarily imposing limitations on your own constitution. You are saying that the 5th Amendment is more important than the 1st Amendment. No, I said they are both equally important. You are saying that religion is free to practice as long as it doesn't break the 5th amendment, but I've yet to see such limitations actually in the constitution anywhere. WHAT???????????????????????????? The limitation IS Admendment 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! READ IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU MUST TAKE ALL ADMENDMENTS INTO ACCOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW READ THE FRIGGEN CONSTITUTION AND COME BACK TO DEBATE AFTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do I seriously have to give you a Constitution lesson?
I am attacking your ideas. You may feel like i'm attacking you but it's just your ideas, but I can see why it would/could sound personal. Your ideas are what make up YOU. I'm showing how your ideas of oppression can be used to show that you are very unchristian.
Yeah, "Blurr is a racist nazi" isn't a personal attack... "you are very unchristian" isn't a personal attack... You know what? It's put up or shut up time. Prove that I'm a nazi. Prove that I'm unchristian. Prove that I support oppression of religion. I'd love to see this because none of it will hold water. Nazi's imposed restrictions onto Jew's. You want to impose restrictions on religions other than your own. You're unchristian because Christians should love thy neighbor which means not being an asshole to the polygamists. Love your neighbor as yourself, so live and let live. You don't want to be restricted from being married do you? Also didn't Jesus say love your enemies? I hope you don't think Polygamists are your enemies but just incase you should love them.
"Love thy neighbor" is not as hard as it looks on the surface. It simply means respecting others and regarding their needs and desires as highly aswe regard our own." That's coming right from a Christian website. http://www.allaboutgod.com/love-thy-neighbor.htm
It's true, I haven't responded to questions like "Would you support Jesus being punished by the romans" because it's an inane question that serves no point except to try and detract from any actual ideas. Just seeing if your views about authority still apply when it comes to Christianity. I guess you won't answer that....hmm.
You have been nit-picking like crazy at the Constitution and not seeing the big picture or even trying to learn more about it. I gave you a f*cking expert who has been studying it for over 20 f*cking years! I'm gonna have to side with him instead of a Canadian, sorry.
There you go, stating that I'm inferior because I'm Canadian. Tell me, where does that rank on the racism chart? Calling someone inferior because of their ethnicity? Sometimes when you want to learn something you learn it from someone who has experience in the subject....oh like in school for example or did you just disagree with all your teachers? I'm not saying i'm your teacher but Michael Badnarik is more than qualified. He knows more about the Constitution than many politicians and lawyers.
You can use religion and practice it freely however you want until you infringe on one Admendments in the Constitution. Find me the part in the Constitution where it says you can't marry more than one wife. They can't prohibit the free exercise of one's religion, it's right there in the Constitution.
Find me the part in the constitution where it says the Amendment of Religion is conditional to the Amendment of Rights. All admendments are equal to eachother. The government can't break them. Show me the part where it allows the government to break Admendment 5 and 1.
You need to stop making sweeping generalizations, using blanket terms, and personal attacks.
Tell me, when the cops arrest a criminal for having a gun, or selling crack, do you jump to their defense with the whole "it's not hurting anyone" argument? 1. Everyone in USA is allowed to defend themselves and are encouraged to do so. 2. Having a gun is protected by our 2nd Admendment. Shows how much you know. 3. Selling crack could have easily hurt somebody if the man sold it to children. I think two adults should be able to consent to a deal as long as it hurts nobody else. You keep talking about crack but the Constitution says we should not be deprived of life, liberty, or property in Admendment 5. Crack IS property and so I can do whatever I please as long as I do not infringe on other people's rights.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
"Nazi's imposed restrictions onto Jew's. You want to impose restrictions on religions other than your own. You're unchristian because Christians should love thy neighbor which means not being an asshole to the polygamists. Love your neighbor as yourself, so live and let live. You don't want to be restricted from being married do you? Also didn't Jesus say love your enemies? I hope you don't think Polygamists are your enemies but just incase you should love them.
"Love thy neighbor" is not as hard as it looks on the surface. It simply means respecting others and regarding their needs and desires as highly aswe regard our own." That's coming right from a Christian website."
WRONG WRONG WRONG THIS IS A FALSE ARGUMENT
1- I never said I want to impose restrictions on religions other than my own. That's an assumption you made. 2- "not being an asshole to the polygamist" Again this is an assumption and opinion YOU made. I have simply stated that I agree with the law. By your argument, you support polygamists breaking the law, so you are unamerican. 3- Loving your enemies has nothing to do with thinking someone is doing wrong. 4- You've proven your own argument because you cannot claim "Love your neighbour" and then ignore the other laws in the religion like "You should only have one wife"
See, you have made all these assumptions without actually reading anything. I said in one of my very first posts that it doesn't matter whether polygamy is right or wrong. The fact is that it's illegal.
There you go, stating that I'm inferior because I'm Canadian. Tell me, where does that rank on the racism chart? Calling someone inferior because of their ethnicity? Sometimes when you want to learn something you learn it from someone who has experience in the subject....oh like in school for example or did you just disagree with all your teachers? I'm not saying i'm your teacher but Michael Badnarik is more than qualified. He knows more about the Constitution than many politicians and lawyers. I love how you just happened to ignore the part where you indicated that I was inferior because I am Canadian.
In polygamist societies, women are treated like second-class citizens. They are traded off like property even before the age of consent. Breaking the 5th amendment.
Glad to know you support the moral decline of society though.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr Okay lets settle this. "Nazi's imposed restrictions onto Jew's. You want to impose restrictions on religions other than your own. You're unchristian because Christians should love thy neighbor which means not being an asshole to the polygamists. Love your neighbor as yourself, so live and let live. You don't want to be restricted from being married do you? Also didn't Jesus say love your enemies? I hope you don't think Polygamists are your enemies but just incase you should love them.
"Love thy neighbor" is not as hard as it looks on the surface. It simply means respecting others and regarding their needs and desires as highly aswe regard our own." That's coming right from a Christian website." WRONG WRONG WRONG THIS IS A FALSE ARGUMENT 1- I never said I want to impose restrictions on religions other than my own. That's an assumption you made. 2- "not being an asshole to the polygamist" Again this is an assumption and opinion YOU made. I have simply stated that I agree with the law. The law is very unfair. It makes them second class citizens (illegal to have second class citizens) because of their religion. Now don't ask me where it says that....just read it. I'll give you hint, go to Admendment 14 section 1. By your argument, you support polygamists breaking the law, so you are unamerican. They are breaking no law.The Constitution allows them to marry mulitiple wives because it infringes on nobody else. 3- Loving your enemies has nothing to do with thinking someone is doing wrong. You thinking they are doing wrong is an opinion. 4- You've proven your own argument because you cannot claim "Love your neighbour" and then ignore the other laws in the religion like "You should only have one wife" Oh but you ignore so many (all) laws in the Constitution. See, you have made all these assumptions without actually reading anything. I said in one of my very first posts that it doesn't matter whether polygamy is right or wrong. The fact is that it's illegal. It was unconstitutional to make illegal therefore it is not illegal, and you haven't refuted any of my arguments when I point you to the Constitution. I doubt you even read the Constitution. Sure you can give me an example of polygamy being banned by some judges or something but it only means the judges broke the law. There you go, stating that I'm inferior because I'm Canadian. Tell me, where does that rank on the racism chart? Calling someone inferior because of their ethnicity? Sometimes when you want to learn something you learn it from someone who has experience in the subject....oh like in school for example or did you just disagree with all your teachers? I'm not saying i'm your teacher but Michael Badnarik is more than qualified. He knows more about the Constitution than many politicians and lawyers. I love how you just happened to ignore the part where you indicated that I was inferior because I am Canadian. Have you actually read the Constitution? In polygamist societies, women are treated like second-class citizens. They are traded off like property even before the age of consent. Breaking the 5th amendment. I'm talking about whether men can marry mulitple woman. In Christianity woman are treated like second class citizens too btw. Glad to know you support the moral decline of society though. That's another opinion.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
I had once again refuted all your false arguments but the site lost it.
And you know what, I'm tired of trying to explain this stuff to you. You obviously don't know how to have an intelligent debate without resorting to name calling or personal attacks.
You claim I'm inferior because I'm Canadian and then you conveniently forget to acknowledge that you've said so.
You don't appear to even read what you're writing.
You just keep running back to the constitution but only as long as it benefits you.
In polygamist societies, women are treated as second class citizens. That makes it illegal by your constitution. Women are not allowed to marry more than one man, they are not treated equally. Young girls are married off to older men before the age of consent, against their will. They are treated like slaves. Young men are driven out of the society or not allowed to marry because they are seen as a threat to the older men in the society.
All this stuff makes it illegal according to the constitution.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Comments
You truly make me sick with some of your lat comments. you say that Reavo and Alex are forcing opinions on you by insulting you. You have insulted right back but the problem with your arguments is that not one is based on a source of fact. Reavo states the constitution and you basically say that it is wrong until someone of power says it isn't. The entire argument between reavo, alex, and you is that they say the law should be changed, and you say that it should be illegal because someone else said it should be illegal to you. the government is there for the people, not to control them. As soon as you understand that it is repressing others beleifs the sooner you'll come around to thinking in the Poligamous persons shoes. I'm imagining that you think that gay marraige should be illegal because the government says its illegal. When will you start thinking for yourself? Has it ever occured to you that this government in place does illegal, unmoral things constantly? But to you the goverment is infoulable? should you be punished for something that is moral and should be legal? what if the government said that it was illegal to attend to mass, or service on sundays? You would think of that as unmoral. What will it take for you to understand that there are other people in this world with other lifestyles that are as "good" as yours?
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
A representatives duty is to protect the Constitution. They cannot do anything outside of that no matter what the people who elected them say. If something is unconstitutional then that's what it is. Plain and simple. It's the reason that majority does not rule in this country. It's the reason we are not a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. That's not America.
===============================
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Blurr: *Cheers!*
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Whoa gnomexxx, first of all, I actually quoted the Supreme Court in a post above where they said that religion was subject to the laws of the land in their practices.
So saying that polygamy being illegal is unconstitutional means that you are saying the Supreme Court is wrong. They have yet to think their own ruling was unconstitutional, perhaps you should take it up with them.
And cornoffcob, I frankly could care less what you think. If you'd actually bothered to read this thread, you'd see the sources of fact (most notably, the ruling by the supreme court which states that they are allowed to dictate that the practices of religion be subject to the laws of the land). These guys say "constitution constitution" but they then quote the freedom of religion amendment, and say "this says religions can do anything they want" but then they add in their own "except these things". The first amendment does not say anything about limitations on what or how a religion can practice. It's the Supreme Court who ruled that religions have to obey the law.
They can say the law should be changed all they want. That's their right. I say the law should be left the way it is because I adhere to a set of morals which believes polygamy is wrong. Guess what though. The government also says that polygamy is wrong. The majority of the population in the US believes that polygamy is wrong. Guess whose side wins? The government! Yaaaaay! The fact is that this whole 'repression' that you guys are so bleeding-heart about is believed to be right by the majority of the people (and those whom they elect) in the country.
I could care less about a polygamist's shoes too. He is directly contradicting the teachings of the church, so he can suffer the consequences. If that means jail time, too bad for him. (I hear some states list death as a punishment for polygamy, neat huh?)
As far as gay marriage, I'm against it. Now before you all get a hard on about me saying that, I said that to prove corn wrong in his narrow-minded view. I think homosexuality is a sin, if you don't like that too bad, freedom of belief remember?
I am against it for my own reasons and not just because the church or the government says so. I'm allowed to believe whatever I want to believe (and you are a hypocrite if you try to badmouth me for it).
Does the government do immoral things? Sometimes I'm sure they do. Is the government infallible ? Hardly. You are pretty mouthy and insulting for someone who assumes so much. Trying to force your beliefs on me is not gonna work either, especially if you insult me. It just shows me that you're too stupid to get your point across using normal language.
The fact remains that the government remains in control. The majority of people feel the same way I do. And you guys are just crying because you can't have your way right now. You insult anyone who thinks differently than you. You nitpick small things so you can avoid the big questions. If you don't want to obey the laws, then you can leave or suffer the consequences. Don't come crying to me about injustice this and injustice that. I live a perfectly fine life without breaking the law. So do most people.
And have you guys not figured out that alot of law is influenced by christian beliefs?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
minded hypocrite! i said nothing of the sort to you. I asked you
questions. call me names thats great shows how mature you really are.
you are arguing with a 16 year old and you resort to name calling? your
25 grow the fuck up.
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
First they came for the Reds,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Red.
Then they came for the Blacks,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Black.
Then they came for the Homosexuals,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn't a Homosexual.
Then they came for the Polygamists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Polygamist,
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
I think it's fitting.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Hate yourself, not them.
lol corn, I was hardly the one to throw the first stone. Don't get mad because you can't take the medicine of your compatriots, or your own.
Seeing as you guys like quotes so much, here's one on the "it doesn't hurt anyone idea"
"I think polygamy is a bad idea for society. With a couple of exceptions, polygamy is really polygyny – one man, multiple women. What happens in polygynous societies is that low status men don’t get to marry at all. This, it seems to me, is just unfair and un-American. Moreover, in every case I have read about of polygyny, even in societies in which it was well established, the wives are never really ok with the fact that their husband has other wives and other children." - William (Beau) Weston Sociology professor. Swarthmore and Yale.
One of the main reasons that polygamy is illegal is because it fosters situations that are prone to the infringement of rights.
Young girls are not given the choice of who to marry, but married off almost like a piece of property. In many instances they are married before the age of consent, often to much older (50+) men. Older men control the society and subjugate the women as their property. While one man often has many wives, it's almost unheardof for a woman to have more than one husband. Younger men are driven out of the society because they are seen as a threat by the older men. Women are treated as second-class citizens and are expected to obey absolutely. It's a breeding ground for pedophilia against young girls. Women are psychologically and emotionally abused to keep them in line. Women become a status symbol for the men to determine who is the leader of the society. There is alot of emotional turmoil because women don't really want to share their husband, but feel they have to. When an old man dies sometimes his wives are given to another in his will. Sexual disease spreads very quickly. Young men and women who do not subscribe to the lifestyle are shunned, sometimes disowned, and sometimes run out of town.
I wonder if any of that infringes on people's rights. A couple of you seem to be experts on that, any idea?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
And Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Sometimes racist people benefit from those they hate for no reason!
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Oh Yeah!
Im flat out keeping one wife happy let alone 3 or more.
This is another issue that the Govt has no place even having an opinion on. I mean really does it matter whether some Mo'man is touching 1 fur pie or 3 ?? Really.... does it really matter to the rest of us ??
If you even had to think about it.... you need more stuff to occupy your time and your not mentally well Im sorry....
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
My point is Blurr would be right there cheering on the oppression against black folk; heck he would probably own a slave. I called him a Nazi, he denies it, but if he was in Nazi Germany then he would support the oppressive laws against Jews and then the extermination. He would also support America being punished for breaking the law and declaring independence from the king.
Blurr, what about Jesus Christ being sentenced to death under Roman law? You support that don't you? You would be there cheering on the death of Jesus, correct?
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Without polygamy, societies will destroy themselves by themselves.
bother ask why ?
And I quoted the Jesus section to show.... that Jesus WAS punished... cuz that was the law at the time.... Just like polygamists can be punished now in the US since that is the law now..
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
My point is Blurr would be right there cheering on the oppression against black folk; heck he would probably own a slave. I called him a Nazi, he denies it, but if he was in Nazi Germany then he would support the oppressive laws against Jews and then the extermination. He would also support America being punished for breaking the law and declaring independence from the king.
Blurr, what about Jesus Christ being sentenced to death under Roman law? You support that don't you? You would be there cheering on the death of Jesus, correct?
Wow alexamore. Your posts just get more inane by the moment. Are you mad because you can't fight with real ideas, so you have to try name-calling?
I know, lets do the same thing you do. Now you support polygamy, and polygamy can sometimes lead to pedophilia. Alexamore you're a pedophile! I hope they keep you away from children wherever you are. Oh and polygamists tend to take a stance against gay marriage. Alex i can't believe you hate gay people too. Nazi's hated gay people, omg you're a nazi! Some muslims practice polygamy, and some muslims are terrorists. Wow alex, I didn't know you were a terrorist too. Since polygamy is illegal, you are promoting crime too. I can't believe you sell drugs to kids in the schoolyard. You can call me a nazi all you want, but by your logic you are a gay-bashing, drug dealing, nazi terrorist pedophile.
See alex? That type of argument is stupid. Every time you open your mouth with this kind of stupidity, you don't actually show anything but how little your argument actually has to do with any facts whatsoever. You make feeble attempts to insult me and have nothing else in your post. That sounds like pure trolling to me.
Also you're guilty of using logical fallacies. Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"). It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
Atleast if you're going to have a discussion, try not to sound like a total troll. You haven't responded to half the points I made, instead resorting to nit-picking and name-calling.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
And I quoted the Jesus section to show.... that Jesus WAS punished... cuz that was the law at the time.... Just like polygamists can be punished now in the US since that is the law now..
I'm not even saying polygamy is wrong (though I think it is). Methane gets it. The fact is that I am advocating responsibility for your actions. If you practice polygamy, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences.
The point is that you CAN'T use religion as a defense to circumvent law. If religion circumvents law, then law no longer matters, because religion can be made up however one wants.
As far as people being punished for their crimes, yes I am all for it. And super-hippie alex can call me a nazi all he wants. You know it's such a tragesty that I should believe people should take responsibility for their actions. Society has stopped doing this, instead trying to blame all their problems on forces out of their control. You're fat not because you eat too much, but because it's a genetic disposition. You're a serial-killer because your mom never held you as a child. You're addicted to crack because the government is culturally biased towards you. You cheat on your wife because she's a 'toxic influence' on you. All your problems are caused by evil body thetans attached to your soul.
It's all a load of "i'm okay, you're okay, it's not our fault" bullcrap.
My problem with the original story is that they are trying to circumvent the law by saying their religion commands them to. This is a false argument and the government is right in punishing them for breaking the law.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
My point is Blurr would be right there cheering on the oppression against black folk; heck he would probably own a slave. I called him a Nazi, he denies it, but if he was in Nazi Germany then he would support the oppressive laws against Jews and then the extermination. He would also support America being punished for breaking the law and declaring independence from the king.
Blurr, what about Jesus Christ being sentenced to death under Roman law? You support that don't you? You would be there cheering on the death of Jesus, correct?
Wow alexamore. Your posts just get more inane by the moment. Are you mad because you can't fight with real ideas, so you have to try name-calling?
I have been fighting with real arguments. You choose to ignore them.
I know, lets do the same thing you do. Now you support polygamy, and polygamy can sometimes lead to pedophilia. Alexamore you're a pedophile! I hope they keep you away from children wherever you are. Oh and polygamists tend to take a stance against gay marriage. Alex i can't believe you hate gay people too. Nazi's hated gay people, omg you're a nazi! Some muslims practice polygamy, and some muslims are terrorists. Wow alex, I didn't know you were a terrorist too. Since polygamy is illegal, you are promoting crime too. I can't believe you sell drugs to kids in the schoolyard. You can call me a nazi all you want, but by your logic you are a gay-bashing, drug dealing, nazi terrorist pedophile.
All I am saying is you support oppressing religious beliefs. I am saying that is no worse than Nazi Germany, but if you can refute that then go ahead. Polygamy can sometimes lead to pedophillia but so can Christian Priesthood and normal (one man, one woman) marriages....so now next time when you go to church, know that you are possibly learning your morals from a pedo. In the end Polygamy possibly could lead to pedophillia but oppressing religious beliefs IS OPPRESSION....not possibly oppression.
See alex? That type of argument is stupid.
Yes your argument was stupid and flawed.
Every time you open your mouth with this kind of stupidity, you don't actually show anything but how little your argument actually has to do with any facts whatsoever. You make feeble attempts to insult me and have nothing else in your post. That sounds like pure trolling to me.
Look in the mirror. I have been stating many facts about the Constitution and you choose to try and ebate this being an uneducated (in the Constitution) Canadian. You say there is nothing that limits Religion from doing whatever it wants in the 1st Admendment but then you forget about the 5th Admendment which is just as important. They made many admendments in the Constitution and instead of lumping them all into one Admendment (Which would put religion and limits in one admendment), they instead made many admendments that are all equally important.
Also you're guilty of using logical fallacies. Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.
I am attacking your ideas. You may feel like i'm attacking you but it's just your ideas, but I can see why it would/could sound personal. Your ideas are what make up YOU. I'm showing how your ideas of oppression can be used to show that you are very unchristian.
The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"). It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
Atleast if you're going to have a discussion, try not to sound like a total troll. You haven't responded to half the points I made,
You haven't responded to my questions either.
instead resorting to nit-picking and name-calling.
You have been nit-picking like crazy at the Constitution and not seeing the big picture or even trying to learn more about it. I gave you a f*cking expert who has been studying it for over 20 f*cking years! I'm gonna have to side with him instead of a Canadian, sorry.
The point is that you CAN'T use religion as a defense to circumvent law. If religion circumvents law, then law no longer matters, because religion can be made up however one wants.
You can use religion and practice it freely however you want until you infringe on one Admendments in the Constitution. Find me the part in the Constitution where it says you can't marry more than one wife. They can't prohibit the free exercise of one's religion, it's right there in the Constitution.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
I have been fighting with real arguments. You choose to ignore them.
Yes, "Blurr is a racist nazi" is a real argument...
All I am saying is you support oppressing religious beliefs. I am saying that is no worse than Nazi Germany, but if you can refute that then go ahead. Polygamy can sometimes lead to pedophillia but so can Christian Priesthood and normal (one man, one woman) marriages....so now next time when you go to church, know that you are possibly learning your morals from a pedo. In the end Polygamy possibly could lead to pedophillia but oppressing religious beliefs IS OPPRESSION....not possibly oppression.
First of all, using Nazi's to prove your point shows that you don't have any creidibility, nor strength in your arguments, and must lean on the dislike of Nazi's to strengthen your point. You are not making an intelligent point when you call someone a nazi. You are name-calling, plain and simple. Forcing religions to obey the law is completely different from religious oppression. The thing is, you've drawn this imaginary line where some forms of rules on religion are okay and some are not. You hold this line to be fact but the truth is, it's just an opinion you made up which has no real validity. By your own argument you support any religion that centers around crack addicition too.
See alex? That type of argument is stupid.
Yes your argument was stupid and flawed.
That's the whole point! I was using your arguments against you and you admit they are stupid and flawed. Think about it, go on. I'll give that a minute to set in.
I have been stating many facts about the Constitution and you choose to try and ebate this being an uneducated (in the Constitution) Canadian. You say there is nothing that limits Religion from doing whatever it wants in the 1st Admendment but then you forget about the 5th Admendment which is just as important. They made many admendments in the Constitution and instead of lumping them all into one Admendment (Which would put religion and limits in one admendment), they instead made many admendments that are all equally important.
First of all, there you go again trying to attack my person instead of my ideas (saying that my argument is invalid because I'm Canadian). The fact is that you are arbitrarily imposing limitations on your own constitution. You are saying that the 5th Amendment is more important than the 1st Amendment. You are saying that religion is free to practice as long as it doesn't break the 5th amendment, but I've yet to see such limitations actually in the constitution anywhere.
I am attacking your ideas. You may feel like i'm attacking you but it's just your ideas, but I can see why it would/could sound personal. Your ideas are what make up YOU. I'm showing how your ideas of oppression can be used to show that you are very unchristian.
Yeah, "Blurr is a racist nazi" isn't a personal attack... "you are very unchristian" isn't a personal attack... You know what? It's put up or shut up time. Prove that I'm a nazi. Prove that I'm unchristian. Prove that I support oppression of religion. I'd love to see this because none of it will hold water.
It's true, I haven't responded to questions like "Would you support Jesus being punished by the romans" because it's an inane question that serves no point except to try and detract from any actual ideas.
You have been nit-picking like crazy at the Constitution and not seeing the big picture or even trying to learn more about it. I gave you a f*cking expert who has been studying it for over 20 f*cking years! I'm gonna have to side with him instead of a Canadian, sorry.
There you go, stating that I'm inferior because I'm Canadian. Tell me, where does that rank on the racism chart? Calling someone inferior because of their ethnicity?
You can use religion and practice it freely however you want until you infringe on one Admendments in the Constitution. Find me the part in the Constitution where it says you can't marry more than one wife. They can't prohibit the free exercise of one's religion, it's right there in the Constitution.
Find me the part in the constitution where it says the Amendment of Religion is conditional to the Amendment of Rights.
You need to stop making sweeping generalizations, using blanket terms, and personal attacks.
Tell me, when the cops arrest a criminal for having a gun, or selling crack, do you jump to their defense with the whole "it's not hurting anyone" argument?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
I have been fighting with real arguments. You choose to ignore them.
Yes, "Blurr is a racist nazi" is a real argument...
I've said more than that. Now I know that you are just blabbering without listening.
All I am saying is you support oppressing religious beliefs. I am saying that is no worse than Nazi Germany, but if you can refute that then go ahead. Polygamy can sometimes lead to pedophillia but so can Christian Priesthood and normal (one man, one woman) marriages....so now next time when you go to church, know that you are possibly learning your morals from a pedo. In the end Polygamy possibly could lead to pedophillia but oppressing religious beliefs IS OPPRESSION....not possibly oppression.
First of all, using Nazi's to prove your point shows that you don't have any creidibility, nor strength in your arguments, and must lean on the dislike of Nazi's to strengthen your point.
I have not used nazi in every argument.
You are not making an intelligent point when you call someone a nazi. You are name-calling, plain and simple.
Forcing religions to obey the law is completely different from religious oppression.
The law must be within with the Constitution's law. The Constitution is not something that governs us but it governs the government. We The People wrote the Constitution, not the government.
The thing is, you've drawn this imaginary line where some forms of rules on religion are okay and some are not.
The line is very clear. It's all written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I wish you would just read it.
You hold this line to be fact but the truth is, it's just an opinion you made up which has no real validity. By your own argument you support any religion that centers around crack addicition too.
Ok I can compare Nazi and you can compare crack. Deal? If they consented (21+) to recieving the drugs and then upon using them didn't infringe on anyone else's liberty then i'm not going to be against it.
See alex? That type of argument is stupid.
Yes your argument was stupid and flawed.
That's the whole point! I was using your arguments against you and you admit they are stupid and flawed. Think about it, go on. I'll give that a minute to set in.
Your argument was flawed because it was based on the possibility that polygamists were pedos but we know anyone can be a pedo and we know that you approve of unconstitutionally restricting people of their right to exercise religion which isn't conducive to freedom.
I have been stating many facts about the Constitution and you choose to try and ebate this being an uneducated (in the Constitution) Canadian. You say there is nothing that limits Religion from doing whatever it wants in the 1st Admendment but then you forget about the 5th Admendment which is just as important. They made many admendments in the Constitution and instead of lumping them all into one Admendment (Which would put religion and limits in one admendment), they instead made many admendments that are all equally important.
First of all, there you go again trying to attack my person instead of my ideas (saying that my argument is invalid because I'm Canadian). The fact is that you are arbitrarily imposing limitations on your own constitution. You are saying that the 5th Amendment is more important than the 1st Amendment.
No, I said they are both equally important.
You are saying that religion is free to practice as long as it doesn't break the 5th amendment, but I've yet to see such limitations actually in the constitution anywhere.
WHAT???????????????????????????? The limitation IS Admendment 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! READ IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU MUST TAKE ALL ADMENDMENTS INTO ACCOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW READ THE FRIGGEN CONSTITUTION AND COME BACK TO DEBATE AFTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do I seriously have to give you a Constitution lesson?
I am attacking your ideas. You may feel like i'm attacking you but it's just your ideas, but I can see why it would/could sound personal. Your ideas are what make up YOU. I'm showing how your ideas of oppression can be used to show that you are very unchristian.
Yeah, "Blurr is a racist nazi" isn't a personal attack... "you are very unchristian" isn't a personal attack... You know what? It's put up or shut up time. Prove that I'm a nazi. Prove that I'm unchristian. Prove that I support oppression of religion. I'd love to see this because none of it will hold water.
Nazi's imposed restrictions onto Jew's. You want to impose restrictions on religions other than your own. You're unchristian because Christians should love thy neighbor which means not being an asshole to the polygamists. Love your neighbor as yourself, so live and let live. You don't want to be restricted from being married do you? Also didn't Jesus say love your enemies? I hope you don't think Polygamists are your enemies but just incase you should love them.
"Love thy neighbor" is not as hard as it looks on the surface. It simply means respecting others and regarding their needs and desires as highly as we regard our own."
That's coming right from a Christian website. http://www.allaboutgod.com/love-thy-neighbor.htm
It's true, I haven't responded to questions like "Would you support Jesus being punished by the romans" because it's an inane question that serves no point except to try and detract from any actual ideas.
Just seeing if your views about authority still apply when it comes to Christianity. I guess you won't answer that....hmm.
You have been nit-picking like crazy at the Constitution and not seeing the big picture or even trying to learn more about it. I gave you a f*cking expert who has been studying it for over 20 f*cking years! I'm gonna have to side with him instead of a Canadian, sorry.
There you go, stating that I'm inferior because I'm Canadian. Tell me, where does that rank on the racism chart? Calling someone inferior because of their ethnicity?
Sometimes when you want to learn something you learn it from someone who has experience in the subject....oh like in school for example or did you just disagree with all your teachers? I'm not saying i'm your teacher but Michael Badnarik is more than qualified. He knows more about the Constitution than many politicians and lawyers.
You can use religion and practice it freely however you want until you infringe on one Admendments in the Constitution. Find me the part in the Constitution where it says you can't marry more than one wife. They can't prohibit the free exercise of one's religion, it's right there in the Constitution.
Find me the part in the constitution where it says the Amendment of Religion is conditional to the Amendment of Rights.
All admendments are equal to eachother. The government can't break them. Show me the part where it allows the government to break Admendment 5 and 1.
You need to stop making sweeping generalizations, using blanket terms, and personal attacks.
Tell me, when the cops arrest a criminal for having a gun, or selling crack, do you jump to their defense with the whole "it's not hurting anyone" argument?
1. Everyone in USA is allowed to defend themselves and are encouraged to do so.
2. Having a gun is protected by our 2nd Admendment. Shows how much you know.
3. Selling crack could have easily hurt somebody if the man sold it to children. I think two adults should be able to consent to a deal as long as it hurts nobody else. You keep talking about crack but the Constitution says we should not be deprived of life, liberty, or property in Admendment 5. Crack IS property and so I can do whatever I please as long as I do not infringe on other people's rights.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Okay lets settle this.
"Nazi's imposed restrictions onto Jew's. You want to impose restrictions on religions other than your own. You're unchristian because Christians should love thy neighbor which means not being an asshole to the polygamists. Love your neighbor as yourself, so live and let live. You don't want to be restricted from being married do you? Also didn't Jesus say love your enemies? I hope you don't think Polygamists are your enemies but just incase you should love them.
"Love thy neighbor" is not as hard as it looks on the surface. It simply means respecting others and regarding their needs and desires as highly as we regard our own."
That's coming right from a Christian website."
WRONG WRONG WRONG THIS IS A FALSE ARGUMENT
1- I never said I want to impose restrictions on religions other than my own. That's an assumption you made.
2- "not being an asshole to the polygamist" Again this is an assumption and opinion YOU made. I have simply stated that I agree with the law. By your argument, you support polygamists breaking the law, so you are unamerican.
3- Loving your enemies has nothing to do with thinking someone is doing wrong.
4- You've proven your own argument because you cannot claim "Love your neighbour" and then ignore the other laws in the religion like "You should only have one wife"
See, you have made all these assumptions without actually reading anything. I said in one of my very first posts that it doesn't matter whether polygamy is right or wrong. The fact is that it's illegal.
There you go, stating that I'm inferior because I'm Canadian. Tell me, where does that rank on the racism chart? Calling someone inferior because of their ethnicity?
Sometimes when you want to learn something you learn it from someone who has experience in the subject....oh like in school for example or did you just disagree with all your teachers? I'm not saying i'm your teacher but Michael Badnarik is more than qualified. He knows more about the Constitution than many politicians and lawyers.
I love how you just happened to ignore the part where you indicated that I was inferior because I am Canadian.
In polygamist societies, women are treated like second-class citizens. They are traded off like property even before the age of consent. Breaking the 5th amendment.
Glad to know you support the moral decline of society though.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
I had once again refuted all your false arguments but the site lost it.
And you know what, I'm tired of trying to explain this stuff to you. You obviously don't know how to have an intelligent debate without resorting to name calling or personal attacks.
You claim I'm inferior because I'm Canadian and then you conveniently forget to acknowledge that you've said so.
You don't appear to even read what you're writing.
You just keep running back to the constitution but only as long as it benefits you.
In polygamist societies, women are treated as second class citizens. That makes it illegal by your constitution. Women are not allowed to marry more than one man, they are not treated equally. Young girls are married off to older men before the age of consent, against their will. They are treated like slaves. Young men are driven out of the society or not allowed to marry because they are seen as a threat to the older men in the society.
All this stuff makes it illegal according to the constitution.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000