Free Republic

First, as to my "anti-religious rhetoric", I am a man of faith. I simply do not see how I can lead a man out of sin and to Christ by making him my enemy. If we consistently show antagonism to these people we cannot hope to give them, or those who observe the exchange, a positive view of the followers of God. As to my tagline, the federal government exists in a wild state, unrestrained by the rule of law. That's why I label it 'feral'. Thirdly, your argument stating that it would be difficult to craft a law allowing civil unions but not men marrying dogs and hippopotamuses is inane. The english language and legal structures are completely adequate for this purpose. This is such an easy objection to demolish that it's hardly worth a response, but since the purpose of this forum is discussion of the issues, I'll try to be brief. A child, a dog, a hippopotamus or a pot of petunias cannot be the head of a corporation, the attorney for a divorce, or the legal guardian of a child. There is no reason that a "slippery slope" argument works in marriage but not in other legal matters. It's simply silly to say that it does. What I was trying to say is that our system of Law is intended to mediate between people, and between the States and other entities, to make unlawful that behaviour which is harmful to others' property and physical persons. When we deal with the subject of legally joining two entities as one distinct new entity (marriage or incorporation), the religious distinction cannot be used as it is a matter of Law; and the Constitution must be referenced. Here I speak of the Federal Constitution, for any part of a state or local law found to be in direct conflict with the Federal document is stricken. So for this purpose and most others, the Federal Constitution is what matters. The Fourteenth Amendment states: 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now that's pretty clear cut. It means that legal avenues and structures available to you are available to me. So do you see where attempts at the state level to limit a person's ability to get married based on the gender combination of the applicants can be stricken in courts? Basically, you can't get a Federal marriage license, that's a state responsibility. However, the states are not free to decide just any arbitrary method of approving and denying marriages; they have to be done in accordance with the fourteenth amendment. This basically means that we can get as involved as we like in supporting these state and municipal laws and all we're going to get is beaten. Finally, you speak of my so-called transparent anti-religious sentiments. If that is so, I would like you to point out one instance in the Bible where Jesus failed to forgive and love a person for anything except overbearing religious judgementalism or religious thievery. It is my opinion that modern Christianity is not the religion that Christ practiced. Now, that doesn't mean that he loved sin, but it does mean that he focused on the soul of the person he loved, relying on showing them the love of God and hoping that that love would be greater than their love of the sin, and that in that way God would win their soul because they would give it to Him. I believe that the regulatory, judgemental and hateful sin of pride manifested so clearly in the Pharisee and Saducee has resurfaced, rebranded itself and named itself after Christ Jesus. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: Are your desires to thwart the radical agenda of the Homosexual movement motivated by love for those people who are seduced by the easy sex and lack of consequence, or is it motivated by loathing of the sin itself and its participants by association? A sin is a sin. Pride is the most sensual of them all. It fills us with self righteousness; makes us feel that we are doing the work of God and that he favors us and holds them out of favor. It makes us think that our acceptance of God's love makes us more worthy of it. Many of us who don't fall for the seductiveness of easy sex fall prey to the sin of pridefulness. It seems to me that this puritanical and judgemental attitude is less a labor of love and more of a manifestation of pride. Homosexuality is an abomination before God, but we must remember that no man is one. It is his sin which is repugnant and not the man, for Christ died to save him as well.

oh, just read it was diazepam. Okay.

I'd say it's pretty obvious that somebody injected this fellow with levodopa or zolpidem. It'll last a while and then he'll stop responding to this treatment. After this long in a quasiconscious state he will not manufacture enough dopamine to remain conscious and alert and unfortunately medical science hasn't progressed to the point where this kind of thing can be cured. There are other drugs to be tried here but this guy probably won't stay lucid long. If he'd come out of it on his own I'd say it was likely but if it was just because of a synthetic dopamine I wouldn't think so.
I'm no expert on this by any stretch of the imagination.

Hey, wouldja look at that? Some gays got the right to be united under the law and it didn't change the fact that I'm still married to my wife.

Move along on this issue. It's a lost cause. The equal protection clauses will be worked over this. I think it's worth keeping the Constitution in spite of setbacks to my political views. Basically it will come down to this: Because the law must apply equally to all here, and not arbitrarily enforce a religious viewpoint, those benefits available to heterosexuals wishing to marry must also be granted to any pair of people who wish to be recognized under law as one household.
The Constitution is truly wonderful. Remember that with a Constitutional Republic, we don't get what we want every time, even if we're in the majority. We get what we want only when that is in line with our previous comittment to human dignities and equality.
They still won't be getting "married" in your church, and you don't have to like them, nor respect their union. They are still not like us, but we may not use our majority advantage to establish laws which would discriminate against them.
I do think it's stupid to call it a marriage. Gay union, Fag tagteam, whatever. It's still not a marriage.

I used to talk to a girl at work who used to regale me with sob story after sob story about how her husband beat her up. Over time I became comfortable enough to ask probing questions. Through these questions I found out that when he said something that made her angry, she would slap or even punch him. He would punch her back ONE TIME but being much larger than her she recieved the brunt of the injury from their violence.
Basically I came to realize that he wasn't abusive, she was starting fistfights with a man who was much larger than she was, and she was receiving the natural consequence of this, just as I would if I went and picked a fight with a man his size.
I asked her if he had ever struck her multiple times and she said no. I asked if he ever hit her for anything she said and she thought about it and said no. When I summarized for her and concluded to her that the only times he has hit her is after she's hit him, she was shocked, as she had never even noticed that.
How dumb does a person have to be to not notice that a guy only hits her when she hits first?
I stopped talking to her after that. The weekly drama was just too much.

Pyrzqxgl!

Come now, I think this talk of euthanasia is a bit premature. If he is not severely mentally disabled to the point of being nonresponsive, there's no precedent for euthanasia at this point for a physical deformity. Let's cut the hyperbole and just deal with the truth?

Whoa, wait a minute- you mean that some of those surveys you hear about all the time on the news are slanted for political reasons?

Oh no! Well how will we be able to tell right from wrong without accurate consensus from focus groups and random sampling?

To post a living will of a different perspective, I offer the following:

I respect my family and I am their provider. To that end, I refuse to saddle them with medical bills for services whose purpose is to artificially postpone my biological death without increasing my quality of life. In my opinion, such endeavors are wasteful of my family's resources and would be used at a time when I am obviously also unable to provide revenue.

I demand and expect that all effort be made to save me IF such effort is expected to revive or heal me to a state wherein I can continue to exist, interact with friends and family to a reasonably normal capacity, and to enjoy hobbies or activities.
If this goal is not met by a medical procedure, I consider it a burden on my family, as its benefits do not outweigh its costs. If this is the case, I explicitly deny permission for such care. I acknowledge that my body is a collection of cells with relatively simple needs which can be fulfilled artificially, but that my life is a thing which can only be satisfied by my mental and emotional existence, interaction with people to a reasonably normal capacity, and the ability to reason and think. If I am not to have the ability to reason as an adult, I would rather leave this world for whatever awaits me in the next.
I have no doubt that medical doctors would enjoy spending millions of dollars keeping my cells alive, but this does not interest me. I want my last action on this world to be consistent with my endeavors as father, husband and provider. A feeding tube is fine for paralysis, but if diminished mental capacity is responsible for my inability to feed myself, I refuse it.
Nathan Bonsal

You know, I'm not exactly a homophobe, but this action seems deliberately provocative on the part of the gays.
Jerusalem has no specialness to the gays, this action is designed to assault the specialness of Jerusalem in the hearts of the religious. Freedom is one thing, deliberate seeking of confrontation is a totally other thing.
Shame on the homosexual community for their deliberately provocative and confrontational practices. I have to assume that at least some of the reaction to homosexuals is due to these militant types who simply MUST be in other people's faces in order to be satisfied.
I think it's a bit psychotic of them, really. I mean, it seems like there's an activist community whose sole purpose is to confront and assault the sensitivities of any person who disagrees with their radical leftism.
Many of you here on FR are familiar with the fact that I'm tolerant of things people practice at home and in private. This is not one of those things. This is an affront deliberately aimed at the holiest place to three different religions. That's not free speech, that's being an a**hole.

jschald I've read your posts in all of the forums. You're transparently liberal and intentionally throw forums into turmoil. The Mini Cooper gives you away also. Here's a hint- conservatives don't worship european socialism and they don't have liberal positions on all of the major issues. You do. They have a word around here for that.

What's an ambyss?

This will be my last ever post to Free Republic and your post, " I didn't give a .....dime." is one of many reasons why.
I had thought once that being conservative meant that I was against COERSED charity (tax dollars going out of my pocket involuntarily) and I fully support that to this day. Lately posts like yours and others allowed me the insight to the truth: that it's not about the coersion, it's about selfishness and narcissism just like the limousine Left.
Although conservative values are alive and well in many freepers, there are just enough of those whose feelings are based in selfishness and self-rightousness to make it no fun anymore.
I gave 200 dollars to UNICEF to provide clean water and medicine to small children who didn't have the advantage of being born anywhere other than a sh#thole country on the wrong side of the world. I am obviously a dirty hippie.
I believe God calls us to care for the world and not rain judgement upon them. I must be some sort of communist.
I want to show someone the beauty of the Gospel instead of beating them half to death with the Law. I must be some sort of lefty liberal. Why, as a conservative, I am disgusted with myself and my amoral ways.
Now, I am not going so far as to visit DU or anything, but I find that I have less in common with other conservative personalities than I do with their actual political goals of individualism. Politics has gotten ugly and hostile, mostly on the radical left, but lately, even in FR forums. Spite and hatefulness are not uncommon here anymore. It's like we all forgot to be people first.
This shows itself in the desire not just to preserve democracy, but to have "our" guy win. The left is in full swing with this ideology, but just a short while ago it was us toeing this line.
Bumper stickers saying "Not MY President" are not new. Unfortunately, we started this attitude and now it's being used against a genuinely decent president simply because the other guys don't like his policies. It sounds too eerily familiar.
Goodbye and God Bless, Freepers.
I've had it.

Here comes the apostate pope, the new Borgia.

I think your comment on the jewelry was based on the indignity of dying and then also being robbed on top of that.
It's really not silly.

Dear Apple Computer:

If you build this, I will purchase one. If you build me a much much nicer one for 800 bucks I'll buy that too.
I won't dump my linux and windows boxes for it but I will buy a Mac at this price.
GET SOME FREAKING GAMES FOR IT AND YOU GOT A DEAL.

I love it when these people express their "Democratic right to protest". There IS NO DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO BREAK STUFF AND GO ALL HIGGLEDY-PIGGLEDY WHENEVER THE MOOD STRIKES YOU!


Article VZ:

The right of the People of the Several States to go all Higgledy Piggledy when offended or disenfranchifed, breaking things and destroying property wherever the mood strikes them, shall not be infringed by Congress.

Article V@

The right of the people to be free of offense, injustice real or percieved, imaginary or otherwise, shall not be infringed in any way even if the damage is your fault.

My parents make VERY adequate money and are in excellent health. Their income is twice my family's and if they're having financial difficulty I can't see how it would be anything but gross mismanagement of their resources.
We're middle to upper middle class for our state and both of our families tend to avoid debt.
No, unfortunately, my parents picked a favorite early in life for a number of reasons. My mother expected a daughter and instead had twins- a boy (me) and a girl. She had a life threatening tumor early in life. Later, she chose their "Christian" fundamentalism of chastity and self righteousness, while I have made mistakes but grown up to be a bit more charitable and a lot less gossipy.
Needless to say, my parents made their choices and I've made mine. My mom is a bit cheap but usually doesn't do this. Lately though she's been very distant because I don't go to her church.
Who cares. After all the nasty crap she's said to me over the years I should be glad she got anything for me at all.

I so wish that you were right and that my parents are having difficulty. I really do. But it wouldn't explain why she got decent presents and I got THIS.

I got this from my mother for Christmas and thought it was a poorly thought out but well intentioned gift. That was until I found the reciept in the box from 2002 made out to somebody neither I nor my parents know. This means my major present from my parents is a hunk of junk and it was purchased at a yard sale.

It seems like in the USA, instead of a lawyer being brought in to bring forth those facts which will not be helpful to and not mentioned by the prosecution, the defense's task is to come up with some unlikely scenario of lies and guesses which could provide you with "reasonable doubt". I would think that a reasonable doubt which can only be provided with false assertions, false "expert" witnesses, and unsupported conjecture is not truly reasonable.