Please don’t Feign insult regarding my comment on African American woman.
I feign no insult. There were many ways to make the point you choose using “Uneducated African American woman”
To further the cause if you had even bothered to feel the slightest disrespect which you obviously did by trying to back pedal you would have cited the source. Which I will point out you have yet to do. Typical.
How typical. The reason I quoted the entire thing, was to show there is still a running disagreement in the legal world about the exact way to interpret the Establishment clause. Unlike you, I was trying to be honest by presenting the entire quote and not just the parts the support my own beliefs on the topic.
Actually, as I stated, you quoted then ignored.
Also, it’s clear that the Establishment clause, as shown in the Wiki Quote, was not passed to preclude State establishment of religion. Furthermore, it’s clear that as was understood by the framers, an Establishment of religion meant to set forth a as the norm a set of religious beliefs as the State beliefs.
Exactly why I said you should read up on the Library of congress information. As I stated as well as you have above that it is unclear what the framers had in mind but putting it into context would to you well. It gives us wisdom and insite. As we have both agreed that taken things out of context “bible versus for instance” the true meaning is completely lost.
When there is recognized a day of prayer, it is so amorphous to include all prayer, even atheistic ‘centering’ prayer. It was intentionally worded so that it did NOT establish one religion over another. To make the argument that there are two religions, belief and unbelief, is so ignorant, as to almost be laughable.
Actually it is not. As I cited source above that 16% of americans identify as having no religion.
Therefore prayer is notated with a course of faith, would you not agree? Therefore, a goverment endorcement of prayer is elevating the remaining percentage of american citizens above that 16% Therefore the logical course of action is to withdraw from government endorcement.
Now add to that the previous comment about “what cerimony shall the presidant have in his home” I might add, a comment you seem to blatently try to ignore and dodge (Badly at that).. Again, Typical
It’s like saying that a scientist was establishing a new branch of science because he stated that water was wet. You have to be either a committed anti-religionist or just delusional to believe that a federal recognition of a day of prayer for all religious believers amounts to any sort of establishment of religion.
Again you fail to grasp that prayer only applies to the establishment of a religion.
Listen, frankly, I dont know how else to explain it. I have made it as simply as I can yet you deny the points.
I suspect you would do well to read this article:
I believe it explains my frustration with your logic.
It also VERY accurately and logically explains the problems you face.
Should Earth Day also be expunged from the federal calendar because their are pagans who worship the earth as Gaia? Please get out of your little box of atheistic hate towards all believers and admit that belief in prayer is held by a large number of religious believers all over our country and world. To recognize their prayer in a national Holiday in no way establishes any one of these religions as the state religion. Please tell me you get this…
Regarding how the President himself recognizes publicly his own personal prayer, that is up to him. If we ever vote in a Jewish man as President, I would only expect he would celebrate the day of prayer in a Jewish way.
You said “I absolutely disagree that athiest montra is “Consent and Conform”
I never said that “Consent and Conform” were the Atheist Mantra.
Im sorry you used the word nihilism instead. Semantics.
You Quoted: “So you dear sir are on the wrong. Are you ready to tell everyone in america that they are not allowed to be married unless they only have intercourse in the missionary position? This entire point is laughable at best. Im sorry but the reality is simple. “
True or False: Human sexual organs have the purpose of human procreation, with pleasure as a side affect for the enjoyment of procreation?
Here we go with the typical rprocreation argument. So not only are you ready to negate the marriages of anyone who doesnt have sex in “what you call the normal way” You err in a typical way easily pointed out with those who cant not procreate. should those marriages be null and void as well.
So who else should we continue to take rights away from. Keep going, your actually making my point for me. Who is next?
Obviously True. Now, how a male and female work together in the act of love before the act of sexual consummation is often referred to as ‘Foreplay’ or ‘Sexual arousal before intercourse. This is elementary. Two males and two females are Sexually incompatible.
Wrong, you see them as incompatible. We have talked about this already. Your definition of compatible.. Actually, you would be surprised to learn that many bisexuals will argue that “Gay sex” is much more enjoyable then “straight sex” Logic being simply that someone with the same equipment knows how to handle it better. Duh!
They are no more sexually compatible than a man is compatible to his own body sexually. C people who have bulemiua are sick. They have a demented sense of their….........
Blah Blah Blah…. Again completely fascinated by the sexual aspect. Again. One more time, Maybe it will stick this time however I doubt it. What happens sexually between two people is none of your business. If you are so interested in it then I would seek counsiling as you may be gay. Duh!
And your ploy at again trying to add a sickness, illness or depravity to sexual alternative feelings is just fuel to inflame. Simply put, you have ABSOLUTLY no data to backup that up. I would do well to ask you to do research before actually trying to approach me on an intilectual level. Your bigotry is blatently obvious.
Read this and read well, as I will only say it once.
Every accredited university, psycology department and american psychology organization (with some sort of accredited background) has claimed over and over again that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Your claims have 0 scientific basis so I am left only to assume that as an educated person you bring them in only to inflame. A tactic I have pointed out to you three times now.
If you have nothing better then that to add, I suggest you educate yourself first.
You said: “And this comes on the heals of telling the homosexual population that their marriage could not be federally recognized because it would obligate the church to perform the marriage.”
Do you think that any marriage between Consenting adults should be recognized federally? I dare you to answer this question.
Absolutely but you conveniently trying to lay a trap for me to fall in to. You could not be any more obvious, so I expect a scaulding response to this.
But yes, ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS THAT ARE NOT RELATED.
And the relation like father daughter, cousing. ect… actualy have basis in midecine and science. Because they often produce children at a higher rate for difromity and complications. Again… Duh!
You said: “Do you deny the hypocricy in your statements. Even after being told hundreds of thousands of times that the law dictates that no christian church can be forced to perform anything outside of thier belief system.”
Would you agree that the law would obligate Catholics to treat homosexual couples just as married couples with regards to adoption, contrary to their beliefs. Is this obligating them against their beliefs? So who is the hypocrite? Again, not portraying the entire story to promote your own agenda. Typical.
HAHAHAH this one made me laugh, You mean like the boston catholic child adoption agency that claimed fowl… oh boooo hooo. The hypocracy became all to evident. Something you may have actually learned had you done some research. The same organization had ALREADY placed 7 children with same sex couples the years prior to same sex marriage becoming legal in massachusettes.
REally? Please look these things up before approaching me if you expect to have an intelligent conversation.
They claim fowl and fall on thier sword…. oh wowesss me! poor little church being picked on… then the news came to light and all of a sudden no more complaining.
Grow up, the hypocracy was called out and you got caught with your pants down. Be a big boy and accept the fact that you screwed up.
I will agree with you that it’s more than a sentiment. It’s certainly an incredibly strong compulsion. But there are many unhealthy compulsions that are contrary to the nature of people. With regards to it being like hair color, eye color etc. That’s just absurd. We know those to be genetic. Multiple Genetic Scientists have been looking for the ‘homosexual gene’ or some genetic marker and have failed miserably. In fact, they are fairly certain now that it is not in any way genetic,
I love the fact that you thru out gay gene even though I didnt. Nice try on that one.
Let me help you out here
Look up Brain Differences by Simon Levay.
Also look up,
Twins, Gay gene.
Then follow that up with the Mustanski Report.
Then look up Elliot S. Gershon, MD, professor of psychiatry and human genetics at the University of Chicago
Then look up the following topics:
Chromosome linkage studies
Sexual orientation and evolution
Pathogenic hypothesis of homosexuality
Birth orderand Homosexuality
I could go on and on and on
Obviously in its simplest form science is now leaning towards several determinig factors of homosexuality. None of which make it a disorder and a disease.
Are you simply running out of material. Because I seem to reach a point that I am just repeating myself now.
Please read this though, I found it to be a clear and concise article