NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
The Bear on May 08 2009 at 5:09 am | Filed under: Culture
“We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.”
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended.. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be..
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing.. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes ..
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
(Lastly…..)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!
If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don’t have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don’t. I just think it’s about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States speak out because if you do not, who will?
19 Responses to “NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree with all but two things:
1. We are a country of many languages, not just English. We have no official language, which is why, among other things, you can request voting materials in any language you choose. The people I hear complaining about the language issue the most are English-speakers, including, apparently, yourself. Therefore: You do not have the right to expect others to learn your language. If you want to communicate with someone who does not speak your language, the only reasonable course of action you have is to learn theirs. (Think of it like capitalism–There are many languages competing, and people are more likely to learn those languages that benefit them the most. I heartily believe that it would benefit just about everyone to learn English, but in the end, it’s their choice.)
2. The belief in one true God is not part of our “national heritage,” or anything close. The Declaration of Independence mentions “Nature’s God,” “Divine Providence,” and “our Creator,” but nothing even closely resembling the Christian context that was imposed upon the concept when it was added to coins in 1864 (following the Second Great Awakening) or when it become the national motto in 1956 (at the height of the McCarthy era). The Constitution doesn’t mention God in any context, and allows states to set their own laws regarding religion in an effort to distance the federal government from every possible religion in every possible way. In fact, one might argue that adding “In God We Trust” to coins or adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance or adding any number of other instances of God to American institutions was nothing less than a direct–and successful–attempt to change our “national heritage.” Therefore: You do not have the right to to change this country in any way. But you have the right to try. And God bless you if you’re successful.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a liberal bed-wetter, but neither do I have any interest in hunting them down. I consider myself a moderate, I am registered as an undeclared voter, and I can see the virtues of both liberalism and conservatism. Unfortunately, I can also see the tragic consequences of adhering strictly to one ideology or the other, and the plague of ignorance that is sweeping this polarized nation is horrifying. I don’t mean to single you out, or attack your intelligence in any way. My point is simply this: The vitriol that is exchanged between liberals and conservatives is damaging to the this great country, and the arguments that are constructive, well-reasoned, and respectful are not only more convincing, they’re also healthier for the nation.
I agree on all points. But saying this country has no “Official”language is absurd in itself, MrFang. But after reading all of what you had to say,now I see why you are an undeclared voter. Let’s say I dropped you off in a foreign country that does not speak any english. Do you run around that country telling them they need to learn english?, or do you ADAPT and learn their language to survive there? What’s a moderate to do??
On the point of English, I disagree whole heartedly. Expecting ANY country to publish it’s forms in all possible languages is ludicrous, and is just one of the attacks the liberal establishment has made to impoverish the government, just one more leg of the “everyone is equal, no matter how unequal they make themselves” argument.
I have news for you. This IS an English speaking country, and those who wish to come here and not learn English should get the same treatment they’d get in any OTHER country were they to go there and refuse to learn the local language and expect the locals to support them free of charge while complaining the whole time.
Learn English, just like you’d have to do anywhere else you went, just like you’d expect US to learn YOUR language if we were to come live in YOUR country.
And Atheists and Christians and Jews are persecuted in this country just like they were in others, hundreds of years ago. We were founded on religious freedom of choice, a lack of persecution, and that includes Satanism (abhorent to me, but, hey, your choice). But it also includes a lack of persecution for Christians, which is happening more and more every day, especially by those who call them bigots, uneducated, ignorant, and worse.
This country was founded on freedom and personal responsibility. Not religion. The pilgrims were persecuted politically as well as religiously, but it was freedom, not Christianity, that caused them to sail.
The Absurd Report ? NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION…
NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
The Bear on May 08 2009 at 5:09 am | Filed under: Culture
%u201CWe the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our …
Mr.Fang
Please, get an education. Please, read the Federalists Papers. To say this countyr was not founded with a belief in God is to not understand our founding at all. The whole premise of this country’s founding is that man is not beholden to another man, as he is in all other forms of government, (and unfortunately, ours today), but to God himself. That we are granted these rights by God and we should not seek to strip them away from other men. That core principle is what all other rights stem from.
And as far as English being our language, and you think it is ok that all forms are spoken, that is misguided as well. How can we, in a civil society gorow and expand our freedoms if we are balkanized, and words mean different things to different peple? What is it with moderates desire to “get along” that they will not stand up for their country?
My definition of a moderate/independent is a man who stands on the yellow line in the middle of the road and eventually he will get knocked down by traffic from both sides. – The Bear
Mr Fang, apparently you don’t understand the necessity for a common language. It wasn’t until in the last couple of decades and under the illogical logic of the left that multiple languages were supported outside of the mandatory path of naturalization of immigration.
You cannot have strong unity of the collective until you can all understand each other, and language (english for instance) is not about racism, but rather efficiency and understanding. Only the leftists believe that demanding qualifications of general speaking, writing and comprehension of the national language is one that is based from disingenuous intent – that’s because they always look through the filter of racism, for they are the most pro-racist group through their construction of measure, categorization, “social” equalization, etc primarily from the unconstitutional perspective of, yes … race and ethnic origin. The very values that are supposed to be excluded from the “equality” approach, for none should be measured by that standard because all are people equally. Justice is supposed to be blind to the differences, but people like you insist on it.
How? For instance, you use racism as the kingpin for your argument. You may not realize it, but the claim that we are a nation of multilingual collective can only come from the philosophy that race matters, for it is a parallel to foreign lanquage, therefore it must – in order to apply “equality” (rather, equalization which has nothing to do with the view of equality) to all because of their foreign and ethnic status.
The goal of every country is to create unity and commonality. The goal of the Immigration laws it to test the guest that seeks to remain by their commitment to become American, as opposed to simply transplanting their country, political philosophy and ethnic heritage into the land of America. Being American, by the law, means to adopt our culture to become part of our culture. Our culture honors the reflection of an individual to maintain consideration of their heritage, but they are expected to become Americans in every sense possible: Respect and adoption of our language; respect and honor of our constitution; respect and honor for our freedoms, etc. to be a part of the common view of freedom and liberties.
Political Correctness is only helping to split America along as many seams as possible – those that history of American have fought and worked to stitch up in a tight and distinctly uniform understanding that we are Americans first – and that is the test of our commitment to being a part of the most unique foundation of freedoms and liberty, as well as government, that the world has ever seen. It begins with throwing off your labels, your country of origin as a practice of politics and philosophy, and your original language – to become American in America.
You can have no melting pot, as America has been universally described, until all of the elements that are thrown into the pot become one. To remain divided by ethnicity, language and loyalty to native and foreign politics is to avoid becoming “one nation”, and to continue to fray the seams of unity until there is no “one”, but many divisions. The melting pot then becomes empty and the test of purity through the flames of commitment are doused out to result in a nation permanently divided by the very ideals that leftists are promoting as some perverted form of “unity” when it is nothing of the sort.
Becoming fully American is not a racial epithet. It is a form of commitment. The Constitution is not just a legal paper, it is also a commitment; a constitution – the will and intent – of the founders and it’s supporters and it’s people.
Think of it as joining the union. You must adopt their rules, their regulations, and commit to their philosophy to enjoy their protections otherwise known as the liberties. I could not join a union if I spoke and believed another philosophy that countered the union. Not for very long anyway, for it would create division and complications of unity. I need to believe in and speak the language of the union to really be a member of that union.
Golf cart drivers cannot be NASCAR drivers until they do everything required by NASCAR to become a qualified driver. According to your logic, that would be somehow crushing to the goals of equalization (confused as “equality”).
Right?
America is not a color or the welcome mat for all ethnic representations and multilingual divisions of the people. We must have commonality to be America, or we are just a bunch of transplants trying to reside in protections of our dividing philosophies and languages regardless of the outcome.
“United we stand – divided we fall”.
“A house divided among itself cannot stand”.
It’s a simple concept. Unity requires commitment and change. Division does not.
The Bear,
That is a great definition. I used to use the analogy of someone who is straddling the fence with one foot dangling on either side in the attempt to avoid actually touching the ground, but when issues stand out, one party grabs each leg and they yank and pull. Imagination results in a bit of chaffing, and more for the person on the fence.
Doc Neaves, I have to take issue with your perspective of the freedom verses christian view. A reasoned look at history reveals blatantly that Christianity was the foundation for the split from the corrupt Church of England and to make a new start where religion could be practiced freely (or not) in a new form of government that was not allowed to become the ruler of man, but rather the other way around.
It was true Christian values that created the alternative view to the original version of “Church and State”, which America has never really experienced. However, the founders did, and that is why they abhorred a government that ruled over religion and vice versa. You cannot have freedom of conscience when either is the dictator of power over mankind. Secularism cannot be the dictator of conscience any more than religion in this country. But, that is exactly what came from the honest view of Christianity, which is why even Jefferson himself (which is mistaken as a highlight of atheism), defended Christianity and religious worship as well as the use of government establishments of buildings to share with religious reflection. Why? Because there could be no force of practice or force of prohibition if we were to be truly “free”.
This country was established by the freedom views directly from Judeo-Christian values. If you read the laws of the bible on the practice and treatment of decency and handling of either being or having slaves, you will find that this greatly enhances the defense for the fact that this country was founded on principles of Christianity and JudeoChristian values.
However, I believe the fear of people (superstition, as I call it) is that admitting such a truth somehow implies that all Americans must be “christian” if America is shown to be founded on such principles. That is not logica thinking. A builder of a house who has some rules for behavior in that house does not equate to the resident becoming like the builder. I know, it’s a loose analogy, but relative.
Let’s just say it’s like the rules of driving. Many see the stop sign and understand the purpose of that sign, but they are not compelled to freeze in their tracks and never move – in fact most don’t even do what the sign says – but it’s still there. Proof that there was a religion of ideas that led to the sign being placed, but though the people enjoy the safety of that sign, it does little to change them as a person. Yet they somehow exist and are fine regardless of it’s presence. Those that honor it more, improve their odds of safety. Those that ignore it, improve their odds of danger.
The concept is easy. Yes, we are a Christian nation by majority and by founding history as well as principles. But it is those same principles of freedom of conscience but rules of conduct that created the pathway and the very existence of this very unique (and sadly eroding) nation.
jd….I am an atheist, by almost any definition but mine, and *I* could make a better argument FOR religion and a Christian background for this country than you did. I’m sure you’re a believer, because you sure don’t seem to understand it. That’s some evidence of faith, man, I wish I had it still.
I didn’t say that they weren’t Christian, but, ask yourself this…why does Christianity own “Christian values” like an opposition to theft, dishonesty, adultery, disrespect for personal property and privacy? Why can’t someone who, say, doesn’t believe in whichever religion you believe in come up with these values himself? Possibly raised this way, or in the case of Muslims who’ve converted, come to a better understanding of life, let’s say? A person can have the exact same values as a Christian, and not be a Christian. I have been called a good and faithful christian by many who later found out I was an atheist, and they had to ask, so I knew who’d said what. Some never talked to me again, but, they never noticed that we’d never talked about it before, even though they’d talked about God and the bible, I spoke of it about what I knew, and asked about what I didn’t, and didn’t really offer any opinions unless asked, and then I never shied away.
Our forefathers knew this argument would happen, and wanted to make sure that anyone with any axe to grind was limited by the law. As much as you think you want religion in government, ask yourself…would you let Islam be the religion and live by it? Because if your answer is no, then you better make a law keeping Christianity out of it, too. Our forefathers knew this, and wanted to separate the Church and State. You can say it was founded by Chrhistians, and I’ll give you that, since it was dangerous not to be in the church, or to be seen as denying God in any way. There was more tolerance for shamans and witch doctors than atheists at the common level. But their purpose was to take religion out of the equation, making the government not atheist, but non-aligned, protecting all equally. You only think I’m saying it was atheist. I’m also not saying that it wasn’t founded on Judeo Christian principles, but you have to ask yourself which Judeo Christian principle says that “You shall worship no God before me” is considered optional? I mean, if the government isn’t ALLOWED to worship one God over another, doesn’t that make your idea of a Christian government sort of, well, a fantasy? Just because the basis of our laws is the Ten Commandments doesn’t make us a Christian nation. Hammurabi’s code was earlier, if I’m not mistaken, and considerably similar. There is much evidence of morality long before Jesus, jd, and there will be evidence of it long after Christianity has faded away, if it ever does. Personally, I’ve spent most of my life in defense of Christianity, at times Baptist, Southern Baptist, Assembly of God/Pentacostal, and numerous Bible/Community/Non-denominational churches, all of which eventually failed to answer questions, all of which seemed to have rich pastors who gave the same sermons I’ve heard for forty years. When I was in the Air Force, at basic training, I was probably (and still to this day, I’ll bet) the only atheist chapel guide allowed.
This country was founded on freedom from persecution, jd, plain and simple. The intentional seperation of Church and State proves that.
For all those of you who disagree with me on the matter of language, I’m really not quite sure what to say. The United States has no official language, and no one living in this country has ANY legal obligation to learn English. That’s a fact. The US has NEVER had an official language. Until someone passes a law giving the US an official language, it will remain that way. Thirty STATES have passed laws making English the official language, but even in my native California (which is one of those thirty), you can request voting materials in any language so long as that language is spoken by 5% of the people in your elections district. In retrospect, I’m not sure if that’s true across the states, so it’s an admittedly bad anecdote. Nevertheless, the fact remains: The United States has no official language. If you’re frustrated with that fact, contact your local congressman. I would also urge you to re-read my original post; it applies to non-English speakers as well. If you speak ANY language and you wish to communicate with ANYONE who does not speak your language, your most reliable course of action is to learn theirs. That applies to Mexican immigrants and Vietnamese immigrants and all the other immigrants who wish they were able to communicate with the English-speaking majority. If they want to communicate with me, they’d best learn English, because that is the language I speak.
Secondly, I didn’t make myself clear on that second point. We are a country made up of–mostly–Christians, founded–mostly–by Christians, and to try to deny either of those points is really futile. We could sit here and argue the extent of Christianity’s involvement in the country’s formation all day; suffice it to say that Christianity affected the country’s origin, and it’s still affecting the country today. However, the distinction between church and state was written into the Constitution; God wasn’t a part of our government at its formation, and that was intentional. The introduction of God to our money and our national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance is not part of our “national heritage,” rather it, like the recent and much-maligned stimulus package, is simply the result of a bill making its way through the legislature. I in no way mean to argue the values of our nation, only the phrase “In God We Trust” and its related concepts. I was merely responding to the point of the OP.
(As terrible as I might be as a moderate, I take joy in the fact that both you guys and the hardcore liberals spend huge amounts of time, money, and effort trying to win me over every election. Far from being pulled apart or run over, I feel kind of powerful.)
Mr. Fang
We don’t disagree with you on how it is, we disagree with you on how it should be. We think, like it used to be, that immigrants should show a command of the English language before they are granted citizenship, and that those that are NOT granted citizenship, i.e., are here illegally, should be deported forthwith, not in a few months, but in a matter of hours of being found out to be illegal.
Anyone wishing to stay must show a proficiency in English, and must be able to conduct business in English to expect to have, much less hold, a job.
Not how it is, how we think it should be.
[...] NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION [...]
@MrFang
I have to agree with you on the whole on both subjects you brought up but I see Article II as hypocrisy from those on the right as their religious sensibilities are seemingly constantly offended whenever liberty is extended to their fellow American who is an anathema to their religious beliefs. They’d prefer liberty be withheld so their religious sensibilities are not offended because G-d forbid this American Government not pay at least lip service to the Christian majority by declaring gay citizens and lesbian citizens are more like half citizens not entitled to equal rights and equal recognition under law.
Other than that I agree with this preamble though the original is vastly superior.
@Libertarian Jew
“They’d prefer liberty be withheld”
The truth is that gays ask for a right that no one else has. They say they just want the right to marry someone of the same sex, but that’s a lie. What they want is to make everyone else have to call homosexual marriage “normal”, which it’s not, and never will be. This is the same argument that the Communists want to force upon us, in order to confuse our ability to make moral judgements.
“so their religious sensibilities are not offended”
It has nothing to do with religion, and you know this, but you have to be intellectually dishonest, or your own arguments will sound weak.
“because G-d forbid”
MY religious sensibilities?
“this American Government not pay at least lip service to the Christian majority”
You don’t pay “lip service” to the majority, the majority is the way things work in a democratic nation, or have you forgotten? Or maybe you’d like it to be different? Maybe you’re a communist, you hate religion so bad, eh?
“by declaring gay citizens and lesbian citizens are more like half citizens not entitled to equal rights and equal recognition under law.”
Show me ONE place where anything remotely LIKE this ever happened, I’ll help you litigate it, protest your right to litigate it, and help you raise money for the cause. But it didn’t happen. What happens is a right YOU invented, one neither YOU, nor ANYONE ELSE has EVER had, which is the right to act abnormally and force others to call it normal, is denied you just like it is denied everyone else. Gays (and anyone else) are allowed to marry, just not someone of the opposite sex. You’re not allowed to marry your sibling, your dog, or a tree and call it marriage, either, but I don’t see you fighting for that, so you must simply be fighting to distort marriage itself to include homosexual marriage.
@DocNeaves
“The truth is that gays ask for a right that no one else has. They say they just want the right to marry someone of the same sex, but that’s a lie. What they want is to make everyone else have to call homosexual marriage “normal”, which it’s not, and never will be.”
I’m sorry, I’ve never seen gays say they want your First Amendment right to say and think whatever the hell you want gone. They want this government (they honestly could care less about you, since you see your fellow American as a “threat”) to let them do something that harms no one’s life, liberty or happiness.
Secondly, I don’t care if you view homosexuality as “normal”. I don’t view it as “normal” either. I also don’t view eating a pig a “normal”, I don’t view heterosexual anal sex as “normal”. Unlike you I can at least nod my head and understand that eating a pig and what you may do with your wife (as long as she consents) is none of my business and it shouldn’t be the government’s business either as it harms no one.
“This is the same argument that the Communists want to force upon us, in order to confuse our ability to make moral judgements.”
Nice, compare me to a Communist (a word so over and misused it has almost lost all meaning, such as here). Actually if you knew anything of the Libertarian points of view, you’d know that we believe in the public sector to create jobs and commerce, whereas Communists don’t. We also believe in maximizing liberty and small government. Something the GOP used to represent but have been so fowled by religion they have forgotten all about that age honored mantle they used to hold. Get your facts straight before you make a charge.
“It has nothing to do with religion, and you know this, but you have to be intellectually dishonest, or your own arguments will sound weak.”
Actually it has everything to do with religion. Where in the world do you think we even get the idea that homosexuality is wrong? *points to self* My people, in fact we get it from Moshe (Moses).
“Maybe you’re a communist, you hate religion so bad, eh?”
Again with the Commy charge? Is this your only way to argue a point? Use an old fear based word such as this to describe me when it hardly even fits? For the record, no I don’t hate religion. I’m horribly distrustful of Christianity on the whole and if you’d take a day and educate yourself WHY I might find Christianity disturbing and how many Jewish deaths are on the hands of Christianity (We “supposedly” kill your man-god, and we suffer millions of deaths….all’s fair huh?) you might understand why in the hell I’d only ever support a secular government besides the literal kingdom of G-d.
“Show me ONE place where anything remotely LIKE this ever happened”
I don’t need your money, nor do I need your help. Nor is it a right I invented. Honestly, I barely understand your question since you don’t even use punctuation very well. So, I’ll try answer in many formats:
“Show me ONE place where anything remotely LIKE this ever happened…. in the world”
Okay, Greece, Egypt, and Rome all had openly gay marriages, many of them polygamous with the man married to both men and women.
“Show me ONE place where anything remotely LIKE this ever happened…where gays and lesbians are held as half citizens”
Easy as pie, you can marry anyone your attracted to, and since your heterosexual (assuming) it’s relatively easy for you to do so. Gays and lesbians can’t. You pretty much force them either into unhappy relationships because they have to marry someone of the opposite sex that they don’t find attractive since they find people of the same sex attractive or not able to marry at all. Read the words: “Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!” Laws against gay marriage intrudes on your fellow American’s right to pursue happiness while you get it’s full benefits because the laws are stacked in your favor. Gay can’t. You can. That simple, I can think it’s wrong. So can you. Your first Amendment right is still there. You can even go to their gay weddings and protest like hell. So I don’t see how they FORCED you to do anything. They sure as hell aren’t forcing me to do anything.
“You’re not allowed to marry your sibling, your dog, or a tree and call it marriage, either, but I don’t see you fighting for that, so you must simply be fighting to distort marriage itself to include homosexual marriage.”
Because marriage is between two consenting adults, and that marriage should harm no one. Hence why you can’t marry your sibling because they child born of such a union would suffer physical effects. A dog, and a tree can’t consent. So there you go Einstein.
Lastly, they only thing I could possibly distort is the THEOLOGICAL definition of marriage. If I end up doing that promoting Liberty for my fellow American so be it. I do it with no remorse or shame I signed up to die for my fellow American and his liberty. I’m surely not going to stop just because some theocrats want to destroy his liberty also.
“I’m sorry, I’ve never seen gays say they want your First Amendment right to say and think whatever the hell you want gone.”
There here’s a link:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTFiMjkxNTg2Y2IzZWI5YWZiOWY3Y2U2YjE2YjAwZjU=#
“They want this government (they honestly could care less about you, since you see your fellow American as a “threat”)”
I know they could care less about me, or anyone else who disagrees with them, or the moral fabric of America, that much is plain.
“to let them do something that harms no one’s life, liberty or happiness.”
Yeah, except that it DOES take away our liberty, our ability to speak truth to the issues. That harms our way of life, and takes away from our general happiness. WRONG on all three counts.
“Secondly, I don’t care if you view homosexuality as “normal”. I don’t view it as “normal” either.”
Then why are we even having this argument? Because you lie right here when you say you don’t view it as normal. You think it’s abnormal, but within a range that you consider normal, since you ask everyone else to treat you as though you’re normal. This is what’s implied in your demands.
“I also don’t view eating a pig a “normal”,”
I’m thinking a majority of people eat pork and pork products every week, so if you don’t think this is normal, then maybe you should get some psychological help to reassess your ‘normal’. Or else, you’re just not aware of normal, American life. Or, maybe since YOU don’t eat pork, you think it’s abnormal for EVERYONE to eat pork. Either way, this statement alone shows just some of your deficiencies.
“I don’t view heterosexual anal sex as “normal”. Unlike you I can at least nod”
gibberish
“my head and understand that eating a pig and what you may do with your wife (as long as she consents) is none of my business and it shouldn’t be the government’s business either as it harms no one.”
People aren’t trying to make “hetero anal sex” normal. They aren’t trying to make everyone tell their kids it’s normal. Nobody is going to jail or paying fines for telling their kids that hetero anal sex is NOT normal. This is called a non sequitur, an example that is so irrelevant it is ludicrous.
““This is the same argument that the Communists want to force upon us, in order to confuse our ability to make moral judgements.”
Nice, compare me to a Communist (a word so over and misused it has almost lost all meaning, such as here).”
In the first place, I didn’t compare you to a communist, YOU did. I said that it was the same ARGUMENT. If you’d like to compare yourself to a communist, I think you’ll find you have MANY things in common with them, except that they tended to KILL GAYS. And you can talk about the “overuse” and “misuse” all you want, but your argument is still exactly the same as the communists. Here’s a link:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
But the best part is this:
“24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.””
“Actually if you knew anything of the Libertarian points of view, you’d know that we believe in the public sector to create jobs and commerce, whereas Communists don’t.”
This is called a strawman argument. I never said anything about Libertarians. I don’t care if you are one, I agree with many of their platforms, but I disagree with this one especially. Just because you call yourself a libertarian doesn’t mean that you believe in every plank of their platform.
“We also believe in maximizing liberty and small government.”
Except, of course, where you want government to step in and rule in your favor.
“Something the GOP used to represent but have been so fowled by religion they have forgotten all about that age honored mantle they used to hold. Get your facts straight before you make a charge.”
And just exactly which “fact” did I get wrong, since you don’t deign to inform me. All these are strawmen arguments again. However, you make several assertions with NO EVIDENCE, OR FACTS, AS WE LIKE TO CALL THEM. Since when did religion make the GOP want bigger government? Never, this is just your hatred of Christianity coming through. And it’s FOULED, not fowled, idiot.
““It has nothing to do with religion, and you know this, but you have to be intellectually dishonest, or your own arguments will sound weak.”
Actually it has everything to do with religion. Where in the world do you think we even get the idea that homosexuality is wrong? *points to self* My people, in fact we get it from Moshe (Moses). “
Oh, that’s right, I forgot, YOUR people, the gay jews, decided that homosexuality was wrong….wait, that makes no sense. The truth is simply this…people knew homosexuality was wrong long before the Jewish faith was invented, much less Christianity or Islam. It is abhorrent to nature, which requires procreation for survival. It is NOT religion that decides homosexuality is wrong. It IS religion that decides homosexuality is immoral, since moral is essentially a religious argument. However, this was just another strawman argument, since my statement “It” meant getting the government to make gay marriage legal, or forcing the public to call gay marriage normal. THIS is what I said has nothing to do with religion.
“Maybe you’re a communist, you hate religion so bad, eh?”
“Again with the Commy charge? Is this your only way to argue a point?”
First, I’m not arguing the point by calling you a “commy”. Second, I said “MAYBE” and “(since) you hate religion so bad”. This is a conditional statement that says SINCE you are like THIS, maybe you are like THESE OTHER PEOPLE WHO TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s why I said MAYBE you’re a communist. After all, I agree wholeheartedly with most of the Libertarian platform, but I’m not a libertarian.
“Use an old fear based word”
First, it’s not old, but this is part of the language you use to ridicule someone’s argument…”that’s so old, you’re behind the times, get with it, grandpa”…just another way of slyly ridiculing my argument. Second, there’s no fear associated with that word that’s not true. Third, I’ve shown where it applies, so ridiculing me doesn’t change the facts.
“such as this to describe me when it hardly even fits? For the record, no I don’t hate religion.” I’m horribly distrustful of Christianity”
Ah, I see I was wrong, and I apologize. You don’t hate religion, just any religion that tells YOU you are WRONG, right? So it’s Christianity you hate, got it.
“on the whole and if you’d take a day and educate yourself WHY I might find Christianity disturbing and how many Jewish deaths are on the hands of Christianity (We “supposedly” kill your man-god, and we suffer millions of deaths….all’s fair huh?)”
Uh, educate myself on all the horrible things Christians have done? How about all the horrors that Jews have done, pal? Maybe you’d like to talk about the unparalleled horrors inflicted by the Muslims? The Jews DID kill Christ, not supposedly, and thanks for being so disdainful of my religion, I’ll make sure to tell you how stupid YOU are for believing in YOUR religion. Oh, but of course, you’re right and I’m wrong, I forget, you have all that moral authority on your side, being Jewish and Gay. Putz.
“you might understand why in the hell I’d only ever support a secular government besides the literal kingdom of G-d.”
Anyone who supports a religious government deserves what they get. But this has nothing to do with gay marriage, since secular governments refuse to honor it as well.
““Show me ONE place where anything remotely LIKE this ever happened”
I don’t need your money, nor do I need your help. Nor is it a right I invented.”
No, you didn’t invent it, but gays did, and when I said YOU, in that context, I obviously meant GAYS, not you personally, but of course, your intellectually dishonesty knows no bounds.
“Honestly, I barely understand your question since you don’t even use punctuation very well.”
Show me my punctuation mistakes, butthead, go ahead. After that, go back and grade your own paper, I think you’ll find I made fewer mistakes than you did. And if you’re having trouble with reading comprehension, I’d suggest, uh, oh, I don’t know, maybe GOING BACK TO SCHOOL AND ACTUALLY LEARNING THIS TIME.
“So, I’ll try answer in many formats:”
For a punctuation expert, you obviously don’t know what format means, or how to use punctuation yourself. You’re looking stupider and stupider as you write.
““Show me ONE place where anything remotely LIKE this ever happened…. in the world”
Okay, Greece, Egypt, and Rome all had openly gay marriages, many of them polygamous with the man married to both men and women.”
This is a bad example, since they all fell due to decadence and moral decay, just exactly what we predict for America or any country that allows a lack of moral authority to creep into their decision making. Sparta, the city-state that was homosexual by law, died out simply because there was no way to replenish it’s warriors fast enough without a standing family base.
““Show me ONE place where anything remotely LIKE this ever happened…where gays and lesbians are held as half citizens”
Easy as pie, you can marry anyone your attracted to, and since your heterosexual (assuming) it’s relatively easy for you to do so. Gays and lesbians can’t. You pretty much force them either into unhappy relationships because they have to marry someone of the opposite sex that they don’t find attractive since they find people of the same sex attractive or not able to marry at all. Read the words: “Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!”
Ah, I see, so there IS NO PLACE ON EARTH IN HISTORY where lesbians and gays were considered half-citizens, except of course, the current America according to you. Again, you prove my point, because your assertions of it don’t make it true. Also, if I find happiness by stealing, it’s okay, then, right? How about if I found happiness by killing people who are gay? Your happiness isn’t a concern of ours, the constitution only allows you to PURSUE it. YOU are the one who says there is NO happiness unless you get to redefine marriage. Again, you’re taking your eye off the ball. Nobody is telling you you can’t live with your partner, call yourself married, make that commitment. We’re just saying you don’t get to make me tell my children that you are normal in doing so. THAT’s the argument here, not whether or not you have a right to be gay, but whether or not you have the right to force your homosexuality on my life. If your happiness depends upon telling me and my family what to think, then it’s NOT guaranteed by the constitution. And that’s guaranteed. Not to mention people constantly (even the Supreme Court) use the PREAMBLE to find rights that were never meant for them, like the Welfare “Clause”. It’s not even IN the constitution, it’s in the preamble, as a REASON for the constitution, i.e., “We are making this constitution for the purpose of allowing everyone to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Now, show me where it says gay people get to marry, and I’ll switch sides. Not mentioned directly? Then sorry, it’s NOT in the constitution.
“Laws against gay marriage intrudes on your fellow American’s right to pursue happiness while you get it’s full benefits because the laws are stacked in your favor. Gay can’t. You can.”
Yeah, laws against stealing intrude on my right to pursue happiness, too, so we should abolish those, right? I think gay laws are gone, or on their way out, and if they’re not, they should be. But this isn’t the same as gay marriage, and you know it.
“That simple, I can think it’s wrong. So can you. Your first Amendment right is still there.”
Which first amendment right are you talking about here?
“You can even go to their gay weddings and protest like hell.”
Ah, so you’re wrapping me up with those hateful people from that church. Great, then from now on, YOU are guilty of EVERYTHING ANY GAY PERSON HAS EVER DONE, GOT IT?
“So I don’t see how they FORCED you to do anything. They sure as hell aren’t forcing me to do anything.”
Right, we’re NOT forcing YOU to do anything, but YOU ARE forcing ME to acknowledge your lifestyle as being okay, normal.
“You’re not allowed to marry your sibling, your dog, or a tree and call it marriage, either, but I don’t see you fighting for that, so you must simply be fighting to distort marriage itself to include homosexual marriage.”
“Because marriage is between two consenting adults”
YOUR definition. The current definition is between two consenting adults of the opposite sex.
“and that marriage should harm no one. Hence why you can’t marry your sibling because they child born of such a union would suffer physical effects.”
Just to make you look stupid, ALL children born “suffer physical effects”. What you’re talking about is the higher incidence of birth defects, but there’s also a higher chance of enhancement. But it has long been established for good reasons not to marry too close to your blood line. The same reasoning is true for homosexuals, it is derogatory to the procreation of mankind.
“A dog”
I dare say communication with dogs is considerably further along than you imagine.
“and a tree can’t consent. So there you go Einstein.”
And you ridicule me? Only by redefining marriage is YOUR way okay, but the other ridiculous suggestions (I guess you don’t understand sarcasm, since your comments lead me to believe you thought I was making the case FOR dog marriage and tree marriage) are just there to show you how ludicrous it could get when you start redefining words.
“Lastly, they only thing I could possibly distort is the THEOLOGICAL definition of marriage.”
No, the LEGAL definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. And you wouldn’t be “distorting” it, you’d be abolishing it, going counter to it’s purpose.
“ If I end up doing that promoting Liberty for my fellow American so be it.”
Good, let’s go on a word redefinition spree, and before we’re done, I’ll be able to legally deprive you of anything I want, because I’m simply promoting liberty, the liberty of me to do as I wish, because it’s not stealing, it’s simply liberating things.
“I do it with no remorse or shame I signed up to die for my fellow American and his liberty.”
So, you’re ex-military? Did they kick you out for being gay? They should have if they didn’t, because people like you are a detriment to order and discipline. We have enough problems with women in the service (nothing on their capabilities, though that is another argument to have, but simply because of the social tensions caused…something that would be ten times worse with gays, since most of THEIR attentions would be unwanted) and the lowering of standards done just to make that reality seem like it works, even though it’s just a big lie.
“I’m surely not going to stop just because some theocrats want to destroy his liberty also.”
Really? Well, I’m a fellow vet, and YOU’RE trying to destroy MY liberty, so go do whatever you’re threatening to do to yourself, okay?
slight correction, I would hope, from the words following it, you would realize I meant “Pursuit of Happiness” instead of “Welfare”, since that’s the argument we were discussing.
[...] http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2009/new-preamble-to-the-constitution/ [...]