The Official Religious/Political Debate Thread (techno, country, single, American)

IamAlejo · 10-30-2004, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

I've been trying to stay out of this for the last, oh about 7 pages, but this I had to respond to. The government has to be able to adapt to changes in society as the years pass, and to say that we have to stick with the ideals and values upheld by the founders of the country over a hundred years ago is absurd. Social climate changes, and as that changes, the government has to be able to change as well. up until the later 1900's blacks were treated as inferior citizens, because that's the way the founders of the US considered them. does that mean that by giving black's equal rights the US was undermining the values that the country was built upon? of course not. anyone trying to argue that would be deemed ignorant and intolerant (not to mention a racist a**hole but i'm trying to keep this post clean.) so why is there a double standard for homosexuals?

The government is supposed to adapt to changes deemed neccesary, not just because the public thinks it is acceptable. We live in a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. Just because the majority of views of the people think something does not mean it is adapted to.

To show how little you know about American History, a majority of the writers at the Constitutional Convention (living in the Northeast) did not want an agricultural economy. They wanted an industrial economy, and did not need the slaves. The only way they could get enough states (nine) to ratify the Constitution is to not deal with the issue of slavery in the Constitution. That's why it was not addressed.

A marriage was based as a bonding between a man and a woman. While I am all for some sort of "bonding" and license, which would include tax benefits, I do not support *** marriages. I don't think of them as "inferior citizens", but there is still not enough SUBSTANTIAL evidence saying that it is something you are born with. And to reward someone for making that choice is ridiculous.

jibber · 10-30-2004, 09:05 PM

^ ya I knew that, but thanks for the unnecessaryt history lesson anyway. So that works for slavery, but as you'll notice, my analogy dealt with a much broader issue, namely equal rights for blacks. so were blacks denied equal rights for over a hundred years simply for convenience? no, it was because for a while, it was deemed socialy acceptable to denounce blakcs as inferior citiznes, until the black community got sick of it, and gained enough support from the rest of the country. in other words, once the social climate changed, the government adapted it's policies to suit the wants of the public. You brought up an interesting point though, by saying that "Just because the majority of views of the people think something does not mean it is adapted to." I wonder if you would have the same reaction if something you were supporting was being denied by the current administration, despite a great deal of support among the public. you'r last point really didn't make much sense to me. how would granting ***s equal rights be rewarding them? if they lobbying for sepcial treatment, then I'd have to say that it would be rediculous, but all they're asking for is the right to be recognized as married along with every other citizen in the country. so how is that a reward?

IamAlejo · 10-30-2004, 09:51 PM

The social climate changed? The southeast were the ones holding back rights of the blacks. Have you been to the southeast United States? It really hasn't changed that much. Rebel flags everywhere, racism is tension in much of the southeast.

It's not as much equal rights...I do not see anywhere saying ***s aren't allowed to vote, drink from certain fountains, etc. They aren't allowed to get married. I'm not sure how much of a "great deal of the public" you are talking about. I was speaking in general on all issues, but I have a hard time agreeing that a majority of the US population supports *** marriages. ***s aren't even allowed to let it be known they are *** while in the military. *** rights are not supported by the government, and because they CHOOSE to be a certain way, does not mean the government is going to please them by letting them get married. That's like saying convicted felons deserve the same rights as all other citizens. They deserve the right to vote, be teachers, etc. There aren't equal rights for everyone in the US, no matter how much we like to say there is.

jibber · 10-31-2004, 01:57 AM

^ I was going to reply, but when I saw that you were comparing ***s to convicted felons, I decided there's no way we're going to come to an agreement. how bout we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

IamAlejo · 10-31-2004, 08:57 AM

Agreed, but your taking it out of context. It's saying that everyone in the United States does not have equal rights, and never will. And to think that just because you are a citizen you deserve certain rights is ridiculous.

David Frost · 10-31-2004, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

And to think that just because you are a citizen you deserve certain rights is ridiculous.

SwitchFootRocks! · 10-31-2004, 09:22 AM

i just hate this stupid thing. who ever wins good for them. not everybody is going to be happy. not ever. after the election people will be debating on why or why not that person should have one or not. my opinion is we shouldnt have a president. we should have a people run country. every body gets a say on what goes on and not just the government. then people could comprimise.

IamAlejo · 10-31-2004, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwitchFootRocks!

i just hate this stupid thing. who ever wins good for them. not everybody is going to be happy. not ever. after the election people will be debating on why or why not that person should have one or not. my opinion is we shouldnt have a president. we should have a people run country. every body gets a say on what goes on and not just the government. then people could comprimise.

In essence, it would be impossible to have a real Democracy with a country as large as ours. We basically have as close to what you want as possible.

IamAlejo · 10-31-2004, 10:31 AM

David, that's like people saying the homeless don't have the same rights as the rich. It's like saying people all deserve the same income regardless of education. Everyone does not have equal rights.

IamAlejo · 10-31-2004, 10:38 AM

David, you really crack me up at times. But I just thought I'd point out something that makes you look slightly funny. You call me a close minded conservative? Okay, but don't you admit to being close-minded earlier?

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Frost

im so much more of a stickler about politics.

stick·ler
n.
1. One who insists on something unyieldingly

10-30-2004, 09:05 PM	#242 (permalink)
jibber Freeskier Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Istanbul was Constantinople now it's Istanbul not Constantinople... Posts: 1,536	^ ya I knew that, but thanks for the unnecessaryt history lesson anyway. So that works for slavery, but as you'll notice, my analogy dealt with a much broader issue, namely equal rights for blacks. so were blacks denied equal rights for over a hundred years simply for convenience? no, it was because for a while, it was deemed socialy acceptable to denounce blakcs as inferior citiznes, until the black community got sick of it, and gained enough support from the rest of the country. in other words, once the social climate changed, the government adapted it's policies to suit the wants of the public. You brought up an interesting point though, by saying that "Just because the majority of views of the people think something does not mean it is adapted to." I wonder if you would have the same reaction if something you were supporting was being denied by the current administration, despite a great deal of support among the public. you'r last point really didn't make much sense to me. how would granting ***s equal rights be rewarding them? if they lobbying for sepcial treatment, then I'd have to say that it would be rediculous, but all they're asking for is the right to be recognized as married along with every other citizen in the country. so how is that a reward? __________________ What you've done becomes the judge of what you're going to do -- especially in other people's minds. When you're traveling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road. William Least Heat Moon, Blue Highways Your toughest competitor lives in your head. Some days his name is fear, or pain, or gravity. Stomp his ass. HOOKED ON THE WHITE POWDER

10-30-2004, 09:51 PM	#243 (permalink)
IamAlejo Muck Fusic Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,575	The social climate changed? The southeast were the ones holding back rights of the blacks. Have you been to the southeast United States? It really hasn't changed that much. Rebel flags everywhere, racism is tension in much of the southeast. It's not as much equal rights...I do not see anywhere saying *s aren't allowed to vote, drink from certain fountains, etc. They aren't allowed to get married. I'm not sure how much of a "great deal of the public" you are talking about. I was speaking in general on all issues, but I have a hard time agreeing that a majority of the US population supports * marriages. *s aren't even allowed to let it be known they are * while in the military. * rights are not supported by the government, and because they CHOOSE to be a certain way, does not mean the government is going to please them by letting them get married. That's like saying convicted felons deserve the same rights as all other citizens. They deserve the right to vote, be teachers, etc. There aren't equal rights for everyone in the US, no matter how much we like to say there is. __________________ a man, a plan, a canal, panama**

10-31-2004, 01:57 AM	#244 (permalink)
jibber Freeskier Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Istanbul was Constantinople now it's Istanbul not Constantinople... Posts: 1,536	^ I was going to reply, but when I saw that you were comparing ***s to convicted felons, I decided there's no way we're going to come to an agreement. how bout we just agree to disagree and leave it at that. __________________ What you've done becomes the judge of what you're going to do -- especially in other people's minds. When you're traveling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road. William Least Heat Moon, Blue Highways Your toughest competitor lives in your head. Some days his name is fear, or pain, or gravity. Stomp his ass. HOOKED ON THE WHITE POWDER

10-31-2004, 08:57 AM	#245 (permalink)
IamAlejo Muck Fusic Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,575	Agreed, but your taking it out of context. It's saying that everyone in the United States does not have equal rights, and never will. And to think that just because you are a citizen you deserve certain rights is ridiculous. __________________ a man, a plan, a canal, panama

10-31-2004, 10:31 AM	#249 (permalink)
IamAlejo Muck Fusic Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,575	David, that's like people saying the homeless don't have the same rights as the rich. It's like saying people all deserve the same income regardless of education. Everyone does not have equal rights. __________________ a man, a plan, a canal, panama

10-31-2004, 09:22 AM	#247 (permalink)
SwitchFootRocks! insanely insane Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: In a room with padded walls, (florida, USA) Posts: 37	i just hate this stupid thing. who ever wins good for them. not everybody is going to be happy. not ever. after the election people will be debating on why or why not that person should have one or not. my opinion is we shouldnt have a president. we should have a people run country. every body gets a say on what goes on and not just the government. then people could comprimise.