not in your country I don't....

in Canada, the liberals are in control.... and it is screwing up Canada....

but thanks anyway.... not everyone on this board is American

HAHAHA... where do i start?

Ok...
1. Liberals play the minority card all the time... more then this so called 'disenfranchised majority card' you speak of.

2. 'We' control everything cuz THE MAJORITY voted for us. Do you think that the minority of a vote should be elected?

3. Liberals b**** and moan (for the most part) about everything. To me they seem to be VERY pestimistic people.

4. Liberals have already shooved their agenda down our throughts. Bowling for columbine? Ferienheight 9/11? All the other hippie movies and books?

5. In no conceivable way is the media conservatively biast. It would be sweet if it was, cuz it would be much more optimistic... but it simply isn't that way.

6. Bush doesn't have to try to push this country anywhich way. He is keeping it at a nice right (or correctness) level.

7. I'm a neoconservative, so bite me

People like Nasus could probably find a way to argue about breating air. Pro or Con.

hahahahahahaha

that has got to be one of the damn funniest things I've heard all day.... it's so true though

That is the way it appears at times

You can find people like that everywhere though.

Originally posted by Skyline

---

People like Nasus could probably find a way to argue about breating air. Pro or Con.

---

Well I had a math teacher who proved 2+2=4 as a false statement.. Anything's possible...

Originally posted by Belial

---

Originally posted by Skyline

---

People like Nasus could probably find a way to argue about breating air. Pro or Con.

---

Well I had a math teacher who proved 2+2=4 as a false statement.. Anything's possible...

---

How exactly can you even prove that?

it's possible.... same with 1 + 1 = 2 can be proven to be false.... it just depends on how you do it

It tis possssible i can prove kerry is a woman and michael moore is thee antichrist...hell that aint be hard at all.

hooray for that!

you didn't prove Kerry is a woman or that michael moore is an antichrist.... and yes, I know about the other threads.... they were dumb!

Originally posted by Davideo7

---

Originally posted by Belial

---

Originally posted by Skyline

---

People like Nasus could probably find a way to argue about breating air. Pro or Con.

---

Well I had a math teacher who proved 2+2=4 as a false statement.. Anything's possible...

---

How exactly can you even prove that?

---

All you have to do is go to a number system that is not base 10. That would make 2+2 not equal 4.

Yea, thats just stupid. People find little things that try to make themselfs appear uinque or original.

I think the question of the seperation between church and state is a good one. We should talk about it without name calling and flaming though So anyways here is what I think.
The united states already has many many laws respecting religion if we go by Nasus's definition. So that counts as ANY LAW as you put it.

Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960).

The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.

We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive.

The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably. - I don't know if thats true but in school I took some tests they had to take in the 1960's and half the words they used I didn't understand.

In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.


OKOKOIK ok I copied most of this after I looked around for a while. Most of it is corraborated

1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

2. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.

3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.

4. John Witherspoon, "Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men" May 17, 1776; quoted and Cited by Collins, President Witherspoon, I:197-98.

-- sorry this is so long and boring. On a side note, try not to scare the left so much you might argue them of the board then who would we have to talk to?

Ok....umm about those reasons Geeogree gave (here are some selected favorites),

well, about #1, if they don't have the authority to CHANGE the definition of marriage, then how do they have the authority to set the definition at all.

#2. Same-sex marriage is not a human right? By that logic, heterosexual marriage isn't a human right. I don't see why they're denied the same right you yourself took advantage of. (PS: This issue really isn't about religious terms, etc. Marriage is a blanket term used to describe a union of two people. It started out religious, but has sinced morphed.)

#4. Why does anyone have to DEFINE their marriage? If they want someone to know, then they'll tell them. What practical purpose does describing your marriage have?

I wish i could ridicule more but dinner awaits....

keep talking... it just shows how ignorant you are about what I'm adovocating

[edit]about #1 - the government never decided what marriage was first of all, the courts did... and you know what else the courts did (in Canada at least) they decided that they were not going to make a judgement about SSM. Therefore, they do not feel that it is a human rights issue since the courts decide those things.

about #2 - I agree, heterosexual marriage is not a right, I don't have the RIGHT to get married.... I have the privilege if I can fulfil the requirements.... I found a girl that wanted to marry me.... and I'm over 18 or I had my parents permission....

about #4 - wouldn't it be much simpler to be able to say "I'm married" which means I have a spouse of the opposite sex, or "I'm unioned" (or whatever other term someone wants to come up with) and that would mean that they have a spouse of the same gender... it would make things simpler[/edit]