You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Just let the gays get married already. Bigotry is so passe.
You know what I find funny? You never see these religious nuts protesting adultry. (And yes, this is about religion, don't pretend otherwise) You want something that desecrates the sanctaty of marriage, start with the one that was on that Commandement tablet thingy, or have you forgotten it existed? Goram nutjobs.
Those people are protesting a marketing piece, they aren't protesting the act itself. Invalid.
__________________ -Fish
"When you can't run anymore you crawl, and when you can't crawl, when you can't do that..."
Karma to whomever can finish that.
All of the first 10 amendments are restrictions on the gov't. Not the people.
In order for people to have their rights protected, they have to be annointed said rights in the first place?
The 2nd amendment basically states that the government cannot infringe on the individual's rights to bear arms. Are you saying that the constitution doesn't give those rights in the first place, so it's really a moot amendment? I think that might be big news to the general public, especially with that pesky companion "Bill of Rights" that was also drafted.
In order for people to have their rights protected, they have to be annointed said rights in the first place?
The 2nd amendment basically states that the government cannot infringe on the individual's rights to bear arms. Are you saying that the constitution doesn't give those rights in the first place, so it's really a moot amendment? I think that might be big news to the general public, especially with that pesky companion "Bill of Rights" that was also drafted.
I'm saying that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights all demonstrate what the gov't is not allowed to take from people. It is a limitation of what the gov't is actually able to do. The 2nd amendment says, as do you, that the gov't can't take that away. . .ergo, a limitation.
I'm just curious when people were ok with the gov't "granting" them rights.
I'm just curious when people were ok with the gov't "granting" them rights.
I'm guessing throughout history would be the most accurate answer.
Apparently, the government "granted" a lot of rights when it drafted the founding documents. As time went on, it "granted' more rights, including allowing women to vote, and making blacks complete humans. Quite honestly, I don't really look at this as a negative, but I'm unsure if you do or not.
The people in this county are soverign, and the government's job is to inact the will of the people, based upon certain principles.
I think allowing some people certain rights, while denying others the same rights is not the will of the people, especially since the only opposition is based on a direct violation of the Bill of Rights by clouding the whole storm with religious conflicts.
What this country NEEDS to do is consider addressing the issues of the founding documents on a regular basis - say every 50 years, and use these times to mondernize and update what can only have been dreamt when the founding fathers were alive. It is still considered one of the greatest foundations for civilizations in our generation, but as times change, if we continue to feel the need to live as directed/intended at the end of the 18th Century, eventually we will fall apart.
Last edited by dgrycan; August 19th, 2008 at 12:43 AM.
How does it feel to know your grand/great-grandchildren will look at you wondering how stupid you can be about gay marriage as we do our grand/great-grandparents and their intolerance toward interracial relationships?
How does it feel to know your grand/great-grandchildren will look at you wondering how stupid you can be about gay marriage as we do our grand/great-grandparents and their intolerance toward interracial relationships?
-_Sf
I suspect their just happy that they'll have grand/great-grandchildren as opposed to the gay folks that won't.
Read the other posts. Then try to tell me everyone else disagrees with me.
And no, fundamental principle is not equal to semantics.
Although if you disagree with that, there's no point in discussing this further.
Never argue with a fool. He'll bring you down to your level, and beat you with experience.
Yes, I'm drunk, but it's still all valid.
Really? People even commented on you stating that protesting a sign that was "encouraging" infidelity wasn't actually a protest of infidelity? They don't think the act is wrong? They're merely disagreeing with a billboard going up in their neighborhood?
Really? People even commented on you stating that protesting a sign that was "encouraging" infidelity wasn't actually a protest of infidelity? They don't think the act is wrong? They're merely disagreeing with a billboard going up in their neighborhood?
Give me a valid link that shows people protesting infidelity, not an ad for it.
I'm guessing throughout history would be the most accurate answer.
Apparently, the government "granted" a lot of rights when it drafted the founding documents. As time went on, it "granted' more rights, including allowing women to vote, and making blacks complete humans. Quite honestly, I don't really look at this as a negative, but I'm unsure if you do or not.
From the preamble of the Bill of Rights:
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added"
That sounds a lot more like what the gov't CAN'T do, rather than what it's citizens CAN do.
Very clever that part at the end too, Hitler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgrycan
I think allowing some people certain rights, while denying others the same rights is not the will of the people, especially since the only opposition is based on a direct violation of the Bill of Rights by clouding the whole storm with religious conflicts.
Well, you can't say it isn't the will of the people considering it's been voted on in several states and passed. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but it certainly (thus far) has been the will of the people.
Slavery was the will of the people. Seperate but equal was the will of the people. Are you saying the government was right to allow them because it was the will of the people?
Slavery was the will of the people. Seperate but equal was the will of the people. Are you saying the government was right to allow them because it was the will of the people?
Yes. That's PRECISELY what I've been saying. Spot on.
SmytheKing
