Stoner Forums - A Marijuana & 420 Friendly Community

Torog · 10-25-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunny

how dare u suggest that kids need both male an female parents to help them grow an develop into grown adults with all their needs fulfilled..
i have bn a single parent for most of my kids lives. i had my son wen i was goin thru a divorce an his father wanted f*k all to do with him at that stage in his life.. he is now a 21 yr old man with no hang ups on havin no father figure in his life.. infact he learned from an early stage that regardless of who brings ya up, as long as u learn to listen to ur kids , watever the subject means more along with the love an caring.. my son talked to me about EVERYTHIN an has no trouble statin things that i didnt feel i should no . but there ya go.. we have a very good relationship because of it
now my daughters father left wen she was 6.. she is now 13 an has adjusted to life without her dad really well . the probs she has is nuthin to do with not havin a man in her life...
ur views make me sick torog, u slur the names of innocent ppl an make up topics an add stories on that dont even have nuthin to do with the topic involved..
in my view if u had a bad time with urself bein a single parent. ur narrow minded views MUST HAVE had summit to do with ur kids not turnin to u for advice. regardless of wat sex u r...

Howdy hunny,

How dare I suggest ? Perhaps you should send a letter to all the psychologists and their respective org's,that they retract all of their research and ban all further study into the fact that Nature designed humans to need the balance of male-female,in order to develope children into a balanced model of both,critical to healthy function ?

Like you,I was a successful single-parent and my daughter is a wonderful person that everyone respects and adores. The one area that I couldn't deal with as well as if she had her mother there,was in regards to female biology,and I doubt seriously if yer son related to you,every single question about male biology,there's just some things boys and girls can't talk about to,to their mothers and fathers.

Ya want to know where my narrow-mindedness kicked in at in regards to raising my daughter ? I thoroughly vetted any boy or man,expressing an interest in my daughter,I demanded that she stay away from drugs and alcohol,that she finish high-school,that she told me the truth and held herself accountable for her decisions and as soon as she turned 18,that she register to vote and I also began treating her as an adult too. Is that so awful ?

As for me making you sick because of my views,have ya ever stopped to consider how sick some of yer views make me and others here that are too reluctant to express their conservative or religious views ? I've had several members here,tell me there's no way they'd ever express their conservative views here,because of the way that they see me treated for daring to be a politically-incorrect, conservative person of faith..they are smart enough,unlike I,to know that conservative stoners are generally un-wanted in the stoner community.

Have a good one ...

DonnieDarko · 10-25-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torog

Obama and his cronies and supporters,are well on their way to ensuring that the LGBT community is a super-protected,super-minority,as is evidenced by the recent expansion of the hate crimes laws to further protect the LGBT community.

So you're a supporter and defender of hate crimes ... Blaming gay hate crime legislation on the victims now .. disgusting Torog.

Torog · 10-25-2009, 12:45 PM

Howdy Death,

The First Amendment prohibts the State from establishing a goverment based on any religion(such as the Church of England),it does not say that people are to be free of religion,no matter how much you'd like for it to say such.

Have a good one ...

DonnieDarko · 10-25-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torog

and that homosexuality is also a sin,immoral and an abomination as well.

Again you slur the many gay people on this site ... just for being born differently .. and hiding behind your god to do it. Not sure why the site allows this .... This is not the religion forum ... this hate against others should not be supported on the site IMO.

Torog · 10-25-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonnieDarko

So you're a supporter and defender of hate crimes ... Blaming gay hate crime legislation on the victims now .. disgusting Torog.

Howdy Donnie,

Nope..I am not a supporter and defender of crimes based on hate,no am I blaming any of it on the victims. I absolutely oppose any violence directed towards anyone,based on their sexual orientation or the color of their skin or for any other reason,based on hate.

I wonder,would you characterize the attack by homosexuals against a grandmother who dared to oppose same-sex marriage in California,a hate crime ? I doubt it seriously. I believe that the attack was based on hatred.

Have a good one ...

Torog · 10-25-2009, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonnieDarko

Again you slur the many gay people on this site ... just for being born differently .. and hiding behind your god to do it. Not sure why the site allows this .... This is not the religion forum ... this hate against others should not be supported on the site IMO.

Howdy Donnie,

My religious beliefs do not equal hatred and I and millions of other folks of faith,do carry our religious beliefs into the voting booth,where same-sex marriage is decided and therefore religious beliefs have everything to do with this issue.

Do ya also believe that my beliefs in a small and limited goverment,equals hatred ?

Please tell me how it could be possible for millions of voters to be seperated from their beliefs before they enter the voting booth ? Is that what ya want ?

Have a good one ...

DonnieDarko · 10-25-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torog

I wonder,would you characterize the attack by homosexuals against a grandmother who dared to oppose same-sex marriage in California,a hate crime ? I doubt it seriously. I believe that the attack was based on hatred.

Once again, we've gone off topic .. but to answer the question ... I would consider any crime, commited against a person, solely on the basis of their identity as a hate crime .. African American , woman, sexual orientation, and yes, there are hate crimes committed against the elderly .. victimized solely on the basis of their age.

Hate crime legislation is necessary because justice, historically, has not typically been fairly applied when it comes to minority groups .. so don't blame the victims .. blame the mindset that of the majority that determines minority groups "deserved" the violence against them ... and lets the perpetrator free.

But of course ... we are off topic again and I suggest that you start another thread if you want to discuss this in detail.

Death · 10-25-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy Death,

The First Amendment prohibts the State from establishing a goverment based on any religion(such as the Church of England),it does not say that people are to be free of religion,no matter how much you'd like for it to say such.

Have a good one ...

Amusingly enough, that's basically what I said the first amendment said. You are arguing "The majority of Americans are religious and their religions prohibit homosexual relationships." (a debatable point, but we'll set it aside because it doesn't actually matter.) Therefore, your argument goes, we should prohibit homosexual marriage.

The only problem is that this violates equal protection. It is thus unconstitutional. Since the separation of church and state means that religious principles cannot override constitutional principles (i.e. the government cannot establish a religion nor favor one religion above another), my argument goes, one cannot prohibit homosexual marriage based solely on religious principles (which is the only justification you're trying to give, although the equal protection argument really would counter just about any reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages).

Equally amusing, however, is that the first amendment does establish a freedom of individuals from religion as much as it does a freedom of religion (see Everson v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision). Now I suspect that may not have actually been what you meant by your statement, but the wording was entirely ambiguous.

Torog · 10-26-2009, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonnieDarko

Once again, we've gone off topic .. but to answer the question ... I would consider any crime, commited against a person, solely on the basis of their identity as a hate crime .. African American , woman, sexual orientation, and yes, there are hate crimes committed against the elderly .. victimized solely on the basis of their age.

Hate crime legislation is necessary because justice, historically, has not typically been fairly applied when it comes to minority groups .. so don't blame the victims .. blame the mindset that of the majority that determines minority groups "deserved" the violence against them ... and lets the perpetrator free.

But of course ... we are off topic again and I suggest that you start another thread if you want to discuss this in detail.

Howdy Donnie,

The incident that I refer to,was a physical attack against an elderly woman who was attacked because she was a Christian protesting against homosexuality and same-sex marriage and was carrying a sign stating her objections on Biblical grounds,she wasn't attacked for being elderly,she was attacked because of her religious beliefs and convictions.

In that case,she was a member of a majority being attacked by a minority,but of course,y'all liberals refuse to acknowledge or condemn,any attacks by minorities against the majority and foolishly believe that it ain't possible for minorities to commit hate crimes because in y'all's minds,only minorities can ever be the victims of hate crimes.

The only reason that we're digressing from the topic,is because you and others believe that my objections can only equal hatred,that my objections aren't legitimate and don't matter..as long as I and millions of other voters feel and believe the way that we do,our beliefs will be legitimate and will matter,because we will carry them into the voting booth where it does dang sure matter.

Yer mission is clear--write to Obama and tell him that he needs to figure out a way to outlaw the carrying of religious beliefs into the voting booth,also all traditional values and any other beliefs that impede the homosexual agenda and liberal agenda's.

Have a good one ...

Torog · 10-26-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death

Amusingly enough, that's basically what I said the first amendment said. You are arguing "The majority of Americans are religious and their religions prohibit homosexual relationships." (a debatable point, but we'll set it aside because it doesn't actually matter.) Therefore, your argument goes, we should prohibit homosexual marriage.

The only problem is that this violates equal protection. It is thus unconstitutional. Since the separation of church and state means that religious principles cannot override constitutional principles (i.e. the government cannot establish a religion nor favor one religion above another), my argument goes, one cannot prohibit homosexual marriage based solely on religious principles (which is the only justification you're trying to give, although the equal protection argument really would counter just about any reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages).

Equally amusing, however, is that the first amendment does establish a freedom of individuals from religion as much as it does a freedom of religion (see Everson v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision). Now I suspect that may not have actually been what you meant by your statement, but the wording was entirely ambiguous.

Howdy Death,

Of course,you start out by declaring that the beliefs of millions of American voters don't matter at all,and you ignore the fact that it does matter because millions of voters have voted to ban same-sex marriage..typical liberal arrogance and foolishness.

So ya want to use the equal protection card,huh ? The main problem with that,is that it supports my slippery slope argument and it would require 'thought police' to somehow seperate voters from their beliefs..sounds pretty dang fascist,totalitarian and orwellian to me,is that really what ya think America needs ?

If the Supreme court decision established freedom from religion,then why hasn't all references to God or Jesus Christ or any other religious figure,been stripped,banned and otherwise removed,from every aspect of society ? Also,how can a court decision be equal to a re-writing or amending of the Constitution,without being approved first by the majority of the States ? I have seen no addition of such language to the Constitution yet..is there a new version of the Constitution out that no one has seen yet ?

Under yer equal protection argument,then there's no way to stop any group from coming forward and demanding 'equal protection'..like NAMBLA or poly-amorous or polygamy groups or people wanting to marry their favorite pet.

Have a good one ...

DonnieDarko · 10-26-2009, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy Donnie,

The incident that I refer to,was a physical attack against an elderly woman who was attacked because she was a Christian protesting against homosexuality and same-sex marriage and was carrying a sign stating her objections on Biblical grounds,she wasn't attacked for being elderly,she was attacked because of her religious beliefs and convictions.

In that case,she was a member of a majority being attacked by a minority,but of course,y'all liberals refuse to acknowledge or condemn,any attacks by minorities against the majority and foolishly believe that it ain't possible for minorities to commit hate crimes because in y'all's minds,only minorities can ever be the victims of hate crimes.

The only reason that we're digressing from the topic,is because you and others believe that my objections can only equal hatred,that my objections aren't legitimate and don't matter..as long as I and millions of other voters feel and believe the way that we do,our beliefs will be legitimate and will matter,because we will carry them into the voting booth where it does dang sure matter.

Yer mission is clear--write to Obama and tell him that he needs to figure out a way to outlaw the carrying of religious beliefs into the voting booth,also all traditional values and any other beliefs that impede the homosexual agenda and liberal agenda's.

Have a good one ...

Can someone tell this out-of-control troll that this isn't the politics section .. ??? and I don't reply to shit-throwin trolls.

Death · 10-26-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy Death,

Of course,you start out by declaring that the beliefs of millions of American voters don't matter at all,and you ignore the fact that it does matter because millions of voters have voted to ban same-sex marriage..typical liberal arrogance and foolishness.

So..."it matters 'cause it matters!"? I mean...I don't really see what you're getting at. If american voters pass a law that is unconstitutional then...yeah. Their votes don't matter. I don't see what your problem with this is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torog

So ya want to use the equal protection card,huh ? The main problem with that,is that it supports my slippery slope argument and it would require 'thought police' to somehow seperate voters from their beliefs..sounds pretty dang fascist,totalitarian and orwellian to me,is that really what ya think America needs ?

Erm. No. It doesn't, and it wouldn't. I really don't see how you're getting here. No one is prohibiting hatred of homosexuals; no one is prohibiting you from saying whatever you like (or voting whatever way you like on any particular issue, though the issue of same-sex marriage shouldn't be put to a vote in any case). What is being said is that laws which have been passed banning homosexual marriage ought to be struck down as unconstitutional for violating equal protection. Don't see how that requires thought control in any way shape or form. As to the slippery slope, I'll come to that in a minute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torog

If the Supreme court decision established freedom from religion,then why hasn't all references to God or Jesus Christ or any other religious figure,been stripped,banned and otherwise removed,from every aspect of society ? Also,how can a court decision be equal to a re-writing or amending of the Constitution,without being approved first by the majority of the States ? I have seen no addition of such language to the Constitution yet..is there a new version of the Constitution out that no one has seen yet ?

Erm...because, perhaps, the first amendment only applies to the government? (the Constitution regulates government, not business or individuals. SHOCK, I know.) Freedom from religion does not equal freedom from ever seeing or hearing about religion. It means that one cannot be forced to follow a religion nor be forced to do anything on solely religious grounds.
"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." -Thomas Jefferson, in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

This is what freedom of (and from) religion means. And it is what the first amendment has always meant. It is in no wise rewriting the Constitution. I mean, sheesh, do you even know what the job of the Supreme Court is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torog

Under yer equal protection argument,then there's no way to stop any group from coming forward and demanding 'equal protection'..like NAMBLA or poly-amorous or polygamy groups or people wanting to marry their favorite pet.

Have a good one ...

Yeah, except that is a blatant falsehood. Equal protection means that the state may not invidiously discriminate against any group. However, contracts (which is what legal marriage is) require, among other things, that both parties be legally compos mentis. Children are legally considered (sort-of; a particular form of) non compos mentis. So are animals. As such, neither are legally capable of entering into binding contracts. Therefore, the State is not discriminating against them invidiously by denying them the ability to marry their partner of choice (or indeed by disallowing them from coupling with their partner of choice; giving consent requires being compos mentis, too).

As to polyamory--well shit, sure? Why not? I've nothing against it, provided it is willingly agreed to by all parties. Obviously, there are huge legal issues in terms of how things would be worked out (e.g. does everyone in the group need to consent to accepting a new member? can a single member opt-out of the contract, or does it need to be dissolved in full in order for that to happen? Which one is legally next-of-kin? and so forth), but so long as those can be worked out, I don't see any reason to prohibit it.

Polygamy (and polyandry, for that matter), on the other hand, are invidiously discriminatory on the basis of gender--they do not afford the same legal protections and capabilities to men and women equally (that is, if either one or the other was legal, but not polyamory--a polygamous marriage might well come about as a result of allowed polyamory and again, provided all the above conditions are satisfied, I see no problem with it).

So in short, your slippery slope is still bullshit, Torog, just like it has been all the numerous times numerous folks have called you out on it.

Cannavelli · 10-26-2009, 08:30 PM

This post has went way off topic and has become political and is now closed.

Stoner Forums - A Marijuana & 420 Friendly Community

Marriage Equality

Marriage and Relationships