patrick.net

there are codes for proper use of land. I am thinking it's tuff to get a missle launch pad permit. lol

Bap33 says

there are codes for proper use of land. I am thinking it’s tuff to get a missle launch pad permit. lol

OK--stick to the bomb then. Would that be OK?

Bap33 says

there are codes for proper use of land. I am thinking it’s tuff to get a missle launch pad permit. lol

OK--stick to the bomb then. Would that be OK?

Bap33 says

there are codes for proper use of land. I am thinking it’s tuff to get a missle launch pad permit. lol

Permits shouldn't matter. My 2nd Amendment rights need protecting. I want my nuclear silo complete with a multi-warhead ICBM with each warhead yielding 5 megatons of nuclear terror. It's my right and I want it, I want it, I want it!

simchaland says

Permits shouldn’t matter. My 2nd Amendment rights need protecting. I want my nuclear silo complete with a multi-warhead ICBM with each warhead yielding 5 megatons of nuclear terror. It’s my right and I want it, I want it, I want it!

Good point. That permit is really a violation of my 2nd amendment rights too.

permits came from the socialist minded leftists as a form of income.

Not an easy issue, huh? All I know is, target shooting is fun. Especially on those rare occasions that I hit something, and those even rarer occasions that I hit the target.

Never underestimate a woman with a gun.

Tenouncetrout says

the Government shouldn’t have a say in the matter.
The Church has every right too, it’s called a religion, not a club where rules are augmented to suit the times. Or adultery, theft, murder, and worshiping idols wouldn’t be a sin by now.
I don’t have a problem with Gays getting married, how ever if their gripe is about what religion is checked on the application or form, and they can’t accept box just labeled “Civil Union” then they are asking to much. Atheists should also marry under the same description.

...but if a religion has churches that are willing to marry these people then the government should uphold and honor their right to marry. If I remember correctly the PROTESTANTS came here because they were running away from the rules of the Catholic Church that they did not wish to follow. So our government was founded on a church that was against its own rules and regulations.

Now your saying that because the members of this "GAY" protestant church are same sex loving the government shouldnt uphold their beliefs.

Bap33 says

@marcus,
my problem is with my vote being tossed away by an activist judge. Same thing they did with my vote on Prop 187. And since folks mentioned rights, I’d love to have my 2nd amendment rights put back into effect. Or, maybe we can get a vote on that too, and just have an activist judge toss out the results?

...because you are voting based on RACE/SEX of the individuals we dont really care that the judges overturned your vote. It would be similar to someone who were against EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION acting as if they were wronged when in fact the bills were aimed at correcting social injustices.

Whites who hate Mexicans voted for: California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to create a state-run citizenship screening system in order to prohibit illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other social services

Ohh really, just what are you saving your state from? Mexicans you say?

People who hate gays are for: Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008, state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Hmm, marriage between a man and woman you say....why? Are all the homosexual priests against marrying one another?
In both instances BIGOTED people voted against the other groups preference not because it would help anyone but because they were simply different.

The common factor in all of this is the hatred that is shared by both types of voters.

Clarence 13X says

Whites who hate Mexicans voted for: California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to create a state-run citizenship screening system in order to prohibit illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other social services

Illegal means exactly as you state. Foreign nationals living or visting who are here illegally are "under the jurisdiction of the foreign powers", not the US government. We have no obligation to provide health care, education or other social services.

Clarence 13X says

“only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Marriage is centuries old institution, since time itself, where the children carry their family name in blood --- blood relatives. There are no blood relatives, family lineage, or ancestry in gay marriage.

Clarence 13X says

If I remember correctly the PROTESTANTS came here because they were running away from the rules of the Catholic Church that they did not wish to follow

No, it was one faction of the Protestants fighting over the other. England wasnt Catholic.

Clarence 13X says

If I remember correctly the PROTESTANTS came here because they were running away from the rules of the Catholic Church that they did not wish to follow

No, it was one faction of the Protestants fighting over the other. England wasnt Catholic.

Bap33 says

permits came from the socialist minded leftists as a form of income.

Let's get back on track then. BAP--what is your view on a private citizen buying nuclear bombs?

lol .. Clarence .... such a silly silly lib. Racebator Extraodinare.

tat,
this may shock you, but all of America's bombs - both nuke and non-nuke - are purchaced by private citizens. lol. Cool huh?

Bap33 says

tat,
this may shock you, but all of America’s bombs - both nuke and non-nuke - are purchaced by private citizens. lol. Cool huh?

OK--you obviously don't want to engage in this discussion. I imagine it's because you see that you don't really have a 2nd amendment argument at all. Of course you don't think the Bill of Rights guarantees you unlimited rights to "bear arms" at all. Nobody in their right mind does. So, you can argue that you want to have the right to carry a loaded weapon in your car--but just don't bring the 2nd Amendment into it...

thomas.wong1986 says

Marriage is centuries old institution, since time itself, where the children carry their family name in blood — blood relatives. There are no blood relatives, family lineage, or ancestry in gay marriage.

Using this reasoning, marriage should be limited to people who are of child-bearing age, who pledge to have tons of children (like that couple in the TV Show "19 kids & counting), and who only have sex for procreation. The day that they're done having kids, we should shoot 'em.
And using that reasoning, there's nothing wrong with procreating the day you're able. Warren Jeffs (polygamous leader in prison for marrying 14 year old girls against their will) should be let out of prison and we should let him loose at the elementary schools. Let's make divorce illegal, extra-marital relationships would be just ducky fine as long as the woman has good lineage...

But that's not realistic. We're legislating behaviors and sexual orientations that don't have anything to do with most of us. We don't like the idea of two men having sex, but most men I know wouldn't mind watching two women having sex.

Welcome back, Clarence. Good to see ya.

tat,
You can find logic in the votes of millions being tossed away by a lone, activist, judge. Yet, you can not support a logical right to arms. We will just disagree and continue a fine relationship from here.

Ellie,
if you review my posts on this thread I really tried to stay on my point. My point was the removal of voting rights by a lone judge when the results did not match the wants of the left. I'll move into the topic now. The only reason I can see for Gov to have any say in what/who/where/when marrige is ok, is for the function of a healthy society. If the guideline is moved to include marrige that is not healthy for society, then where does the Gov draw the line for unhealthy marrige? Please note, I did not specify any particular act or group, I just said unhealthy for society. The logical next step would be to group marriges into healthiest, healthier, healthy, less healthy, unhealthy, very unhealthy. I think we all would agree that the only reasonable function of Gov, as far a marrige, should be to promote a healthy society. Can we at least agree thus far? How would the Gov go about choosing the health ranking of potential couples? For example, a son - mom marrige would be unhealthy for society (right?) but it would need to be called such in a legal manner? How does that happen? That's right, a vote. So lawmakers don't mind their vote being used, but they allow a lone judge to remove ours. And my use of 2nd A rights to show this is the same deal. Ofcourse there are logical limits on gun rights, just as there are logical limits on marrige rights .. and those limits were placed by votes. On one hand the votes of the lawmakers absent the vote of the people, and on the other hand the vote of a lone judge DESPITE the vote of the people.

My point has been, all along, that the same thought process that allows for absolute limits on the 2nd A gun rights should work just fine for limits on marrige rights. Nothing about gay or God or whatever. Just a simple logic that there are limits on personal liberty with regard to what is best for society. And a scan of this topic shows that both sides agree with logical limits for the good of society, at the expense of personal liberty. Agreed?

Bap33 says

Ellie,
if you review my posts on this thread I really tried to stay on my point

I don't recall saying that you couldn't stay on-point. In fact, there are distinct parallels with both these issues. The vote on Prop 8 was highly influenced by the millions of dollars spent on both sides, and the 52% vote to pass showed how deeply polarizing the issue was. I can see both sides of the arms issue.

But I can't see both sides of the gay marriage initative. You said thait would be detrimental to society for a mother to marry her son - but it wouldn't be. It wouldn't be healthy if they were to have children, and there are all sorts of Freudian issues involved - but society wouldn't stop functioning if it were to happen.

Marriage is a personal issue. It's also a legal issue. I'm sure that there are gays who wouldn't get married even if it were legal, just as there are heterosexuals who choose not to marry. But the issue of legalizing gay marriage is simply about recognizing the union of two people who love each other and would like to be recognized in the eyes of the law. To have rights of survivorship, to have the right to be considered a family member in every way just as do other people, including being able to have healthcare benefits from their partner's employment if they choose to pay for it.

I simply don't see the problem, here. To me, it's granting equality to people. Others see it differently. But I also recognize that others feel differently. I do know one thing - if Prop 8 is unconstitutional, it won't stand regardless of what the voters say. That'll all be figured out in the future.

But I sincerely don't recall demeaning you for your views, nor can I wrap my mind around the supposed detrimental consequences of two people joining in marriage. 18,000 homosexual people are currently married in the state of Calif, according to signsonsandiego.com. I haven't noticed any difference and the sky didn't fall.

just sayin' my piece.

thomas.wong1986 says

Marriage is centuries old institution, since time itself, where the children carry their family name in blood — blood relatives. There are no blood relatives, family lineage, or ancestry in gay marriage.

Actually the traditions of marriage are millenia old. And they weren't always just between one man and one woman in antiquity or even as recent as the Middle Ages. Many cultures including some Native American cultures have had same sex marriage for millenia. Why choose a Christocentric view on morality to guide this country since we have separation of church and state? The state has no business in legislating religious morality and chosing one religion's set of traditions and hang ups over those of another religion.

And beyond that, this country wasn't even founded by Christians. We were founded by Deists, Free Masons, Universalists, Unitarians, and Quakers, mainly. Very few of the people who signed our founding documents would be considered Christian under today's standards and they didn't even consider themselves to be Christian. Our country was founded on secular humanist principals that were to be considered universal and untethered to any one religion/faith/moral tradition. These men were idealists and envisioned rights protected simply because of the fact of being born as a human being, not as a creature of some deity.

Bap33 says

The only reason I can see for Gov to have any say in what/who/where/when marrige is ok, is for the function of a healthy society.

And the issue is, on what basis do you define as healthy? Do you do it from a Christocentric or Judaic lens? No, because our government is vehemently secular. Therefore, you go with reason and logic.

You don't judge "healthiness" of relationships based on the irrational fear of "butt sex" and ancient biblical pronouncements made through a select chosen few who allegedly had these "laws" spoken to them by some sort of allegedly all-powerful Ancient Middle Eastern sky god.

Our government is secular. Reason and rationality are the guiding principals of our secular humanist form of government.

All good thoughts sim, and ellie I did not mean for my post to sound that way, this is great debate. ... I submit that for an act to be considered healthy for society it would be ok, and even desirable, for all members of the society to engage in said act. Being careful with fires is a healthy act for all society to engage in. Wearing a safety belt in a car is a healthy act for all of car operating society. Using cross walks and street lights are a good idea. Brushing teeth. Regular showering. Using clean food practices. Cooking pork well. Taking a bath. Standing in line and not cutting. Raising your hand/waiting your turn to speak. Opening the door for someone else. Not yelling fire as a prank. Not playing music loud. Not talking on your cell phone while others try to listen to a speaker. Walking across the road as quickly as comfortable when cars give the right-away. Putting the gas despenser back in the saddle. Returning the potty key to the shop owner. Wiping your feet off before walking in. Treating pets with kindness. Teaching your children how to act in society. Following requests like, staying off the grass, wet paint, wet cement.

THere is no law for most of these, but they are all things that make for a healthy society. Proper actions.

Improper actions should be called unhealthy for society. If everyone in society were to engage in an action -- and IF everyone doing so would undoubtedly harm society -- then would you agree that said action should be deemed unhealthy for society?

I think I have a crush on you Simcha, though I know it would be an unrequited love.

You're spot on, as usual, about our founders. I'd like to add though that even if our founders were Christians, the constitution still clearly delineates church and state. Whatever their personal views on the higher being, or lack thereof, they mostly didn't want us spiralling into a theocracy.

Bap33 says

Improper actions should be called unhealthy for society. If everyone in society were to engage in an action — and IF everyone doing so would undoubtedly harm society — then would you agree that said action should be deemed unhealthy for society?

Sure, a harmful action is harmful whether perpetrated by one person or all people. But I fail to see the harmful action of which you speak. Someone's sexual orientation isn't harmful, as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights. What happens between two consenting adults is none of my business. Some heterosexual people are into some pretty kinky acts - but if they do so willingly it's fine by me. I don't want to know the specifics.

If we were to pass a law that said sex can only be performed in the missionary position, and someone used another position, would that make it harmful to society?

If everyone in our society were to be gay, they would possibly view heterosexuals and their sexual practices as abhorrant and unhealthy. Would that make my sexual orientation wrong?

I don't care if gay people get married, because it doesn't affect me. It does, however, affect me if they're not legally afforded the same rights as I. That's because they're human, they deserve equality just as do women, minorities, and people with disabilities. They're the same as you and me, except that we don't want to recognize it.

Bap33 says

All good thoughts sim, and ellie I did not mean for my post to sound that way, this is great debate.

Thanks Bap33, you have been a good debater in this thread. I greatly appreciate your arguments around the 2nd Amendment above, even if my responses border on the ridiculous sometimes and don't show my appreciation or respect for your opinions.

LowlySmartRenter says

I think I have a crush on you Simcha, though I know it would be an unrequited love.

Awwww... Why does it have to be unrequited? :) Love is love, even if it doesn't lead to romance.

LowlySmartRenter says

You’re spot on, as usual, about our founders. I’d like to add though that even if our founders were Christians, the constitution still clearly delineates church and state. Whatever their personal views on the higher being, or lack thereof, they mostly didn’t want us spiralling into a theocracy.

And you are spot on too, I must say. I try to remember that the founders were trying to escape religious oppression in England and Europe where only state sanctioned religions had a protected status and any other religion was persecuted mercilessly by the state. They wanted to create a form of government that would be entirely free from religious influence so that we would never descend into a theocracy.

elliemae says

If everyone in our society were to be gay...

Then our species would cease to exist just as the Shakers are no more because they required chastity. Someone has to reproduce. I believe in evolutionary reasons for homosexuality. I believe that having a homosexual or two in a tribe allowed the tribe to conserve resources to care for their offspring with greater abundance than if everyone reproduced. Homosexuals contributed to the tribe, strengthening it, and often offering childcare without burdening the tribe with more offspring that would need to be supported. And you could only have a few homosexuals otherwise the tribe would decline in numbers.

Maybe that alleged 10% of the population having a homosexual orientation is a sustainable evolutionary percentage of the population. I believe that homosexuality has a genetic component as well as an environmental component. I'm not entirely convinced that if homosexuals were to never reproduce (as they have in our history because marriage and reproduction have been the enforced expectation) because we don't prevent same sex marriage that there would no longer be homosexuals in our population. Not only would some homosexuals choose to reproduce, as we do now through artificial insemination or through sex with the opposite sex, but somehow in our evolutionary history homosexuality has always been present to some degree. Maybe it's just naturally encoded into our DNA as a species for our survival. (All of this is supposition and I don't have scientific studies to back any of this up.)

Simcha:
we were speaking in hypotheticals, not literally. Although, with our modern technology, we'd have little kids. Surrogates, test-tubes... and a gay guy could always get drunk and experiment with a lesbian.

happens everyday (in the reverse, with hetero's accidentally sleeping with a same sex partner) somewhere in America, or at least that's the story they tell after it happens.

elliemae says

Simcha:
we were speaking in hypotheticals, not literally. Although, with our modern technology, we’d have little kids. Surrogates, test-tubes… and a gay guy could always get drunk and experiment with a lesbian.
happens everyday (in the reverse) somewhere in America, or at least that’s the story they tell after it happens.

I know, I was continuing the hypotheticals to their logical conclusion as I saw it. :) Again, these are my observations and opinions based on my observations and they are not meant to be offered as scientific certainty.

elliemae says

Sure, a harmful action is harmful whether perpetrated by one person or all people. But I fail to see the harmful action of which you speak. Someone’s sexual orientation isn’t harmful, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s rights.

I carefully avoided any particular action. But ... extrapulating this a bit .... if ALL members of a society were to engage in this particular behavior that is 100% harmful to that society (as sim sez) it would kill the group off. That fact makes non-productive coupling less than a healthy choice for society - just because everyone can not do it and society continue - and this is not for any health reason or mental reason,(there may be some issues there) but rather just the bio-mechanics of the issue.

Unhealthy actions tolerated within society may not destroy society, but that does not make them healthy for society. It may be that tolerating unhealthy actions takes a toll on society. My example here would be drug/alky use. Porn may be another example. Both personal, and tolerated, and considered a sign of an unhealthy society by many.

So, I think we all can we agree that when a society allows a particular behavior that is unhealthy for society, that doing so should not result in that unhealthy behavior being made equal to healthy behavior. I am being general on purpose, because that is the only way it can be fair. It can not, and should not matter if it's about sex or sport or hygene .. behavior that is not healthy to society should be labled as such. Sure, the Bible called most of the unhealthy actions sin .. but, we are not talking Bible here. We are talking about any action that if done by all members of society results in harming the society.

Yes, making laws that try to enforce private morality is stuuuupid. That does not mean that the requirements for a healthy society are changed. Does it? The requirements for a healthy society, and the distinction of unhealthy actions of society members from healthy actions, are necessary in my opinion.
We all agree with personal liberty being checked for the good of society. If you see above I copy/pasted it about 6 times for effect - but I did not say it first.

I mentioned sex, sport, and hygene. I gave examples of sex and hygene, but I skipped sport. The killing of Cows, just for sport, if done by all of society would not be healthy, so it should not be tollerated. Our Indian brothers miss the Buffalo due to this action.

How am I doing thus far?

Bap33 says

I carefully avoided any particular action. But … extrapulating this a bit …. if ALL members of a society were to engage in this particular behavior that is 100% harmful to that society (as sim sez) it would kill the group off...

And if everyone were married heterosexually (one man to one woman) and reproduced indiscriminately, as we are doing now, we will run out of resources and kill not only ourselves off but we would take 90% of the other species with us. So, taken to the extreme, reproduction is harmful to society too.

If you take any action and replicate it to an outrageous degree it's harmful to society.

Having a certain segment of the population that doesn't reproduce works to keep our population in check, which we sorely need in today's world. Homosexuality is one way to keep the population in check. And since homosexuality is only present in allegedly 10% of the population and doesn't increase over time (really there is no such thing as "conversion" as some would like to claim) I don't see homosexuals overwhelming the population. Therefore, homosexuality is actually a benefit to society in the correct proportion. In fact I would argue that with over-population exploding all over the place we could use more homosexuality to control the rampant breeding that is going on that is harming our survival as a species.

So, Sim has never said that homosexuality was/is/will be even the least bit harmful to society ever. The post to which you may be referring actually argued the opposite. I was arguing that homosexuality is integral to the human experience and necessary for our survival as a species. Using your language, homosexuality is healthy for society and our species.

I submit that for an act to be considered healthy for society it would be ok, and even desirable, for all members of the society to engage in said act

spoken like a true conservative. Everybody HAS TO CONFORM TO ME AND MY NORMS. No exceptions!

Troy says

I submit that for an act to be considered healthy for society it would be ok, and even desirable, for all members of the society to engage in said act
spoken like a true conservative. Everybody HAS TO CONFORM TO ME AND MY NORMS. No exceptions!

I hate to bring this up but I will. The Nazis argued that killing off "undesireables" in their population was about the hygiene, health, and strength of the Aryan race. They killed off entire wards of the mentally challenged, mentally ill, disabled, Jews, Gypsies, priests, homosexuals, the blind, promiscuous women etc. all in the name of "hygiene" and "health." This is known as eugenics. It was all done in the name of creating a "healthy society."

Wow, Bap - your argument is good-ish.

Anything, when taken to the extreme, can be detrimental to society. Take drugs, for example. (tee hee, just reread that and it's funnyish). Seriously, pain medications are meant to control pain and are integral to many treatments. However, if one takes too much there could be dire circoumstances. Doesn't mean we should ban all medications. How's about tylenol? lovely medication for minor pain & headaches, but excessive dosing can ruin your liver and land you on a transplant list or mortician's table.

You used porn as an example. Pornography has been around since man has been around. Many people are just fine with it. Many are not. But I guarantee you, if I stick a photo of a naked woman in front of a man, he'll at least glance at it and it's doubtful he'll become addicted.

Bap33 says

Unhealthy actions tolerated within society may not destroy society, but that does not make them healthy for society. It may be that tolerating unhealthy actions takes a toll on society. My example here would be drug/alky use. Porn may be another example. Both personal, and tolerated, and considered a sign of an unhealthy society by many.

Bap33 says

We all agree with personal liberty being checked for the good of society.

We don't all agree, tho. The definition of "the good of society" is open to interpretation.
My point is that, while many consider something a sign of an unhealthy society, many others might not. That's what is super cool about the USA, we can be who we want and as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else in the process it's not a problem.

Our country is deep into a recession, with millions out of work and/or broke. We've got a massive oil slick in the gulf, immigration issues divide us and we continue to send our young men and women into a conflict that may very well get them killed.

We have so many other things upon which we could focus, and expend our resources. But we're arguing over whether two people's union is more precious than two other people.

In my opinion, the declaration of independence, constitution, and bill of rights are so broad that they give us all and any rights- even those that haven't been thought of yet. This was the miracle our founding fathers bestowed on us. The only restrictions on those rights are those placed on us by our elected officials.

Essentially,the whole gay marriage thing started when a gay couple went to a California city hall to get a marriage licience. When the clerk saw they were both the same sex, a supervisor was consulted and the supervisor decided that a same sex marriage was improper. In other words a bureaucrat didn't know what to do because a box didn't exist for that particular choice.

So San Francisco decided to perform the marriage because there was no law against it(yet). So now we have prop 8, and it's adjudged unconstitutionality. If, as I have opined in first paragraph, have any and all right not specifically restricted by legislative process, can someone explain to me without using personal moral or religious arguments why this particular right should be denied?

thomas.wong1986 says

Clarence 13X says

Whites who hate Mexicans voted for: California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to create a state-run citizenship screening system in order to prohibit illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other social services

Illegal means exactly as you state. Foreign nationals living or visting who are here illegally are “under the jurisdiction of the foreign powers”, not the US government. We have no obligation to provide health care, education or other social services.

Yet the underlying message that whites were sending to Mexicans is: We dont want you here, go back home.

thomas.wong1986 says

Clarence 13X says

If I remember correctly the PROTESTANTS came here because they were running away from the rules of the Catholic Church that they did not wish to follow

No, it was one faction of the Protestants fighting over the other. England wasnt Catholic.

My point still stands, its ok for christians to fight for their rights but not others.

Bap33 says

lol .. Clarence …. such a silly silly lib. Racebator Extraodinare.
tat,
this may shock you, but all of America’s bombs - both nuke and non-nuke - are purchaced by private citizens. lol. Cool huh?

Is liberal code word for N****R?

Because the only thing I think you dont like about liberals are the people that make up their constituency.

elliemae says

thomas.wong1986 says

Marriage is centuries old institution, since time itself, where the children carry their family name in blood — blood relatives. There are no blood relatives, family lineage, or ancestry in gay marriage.

Using this reasoning, marriage should be limited to people who are of child-bearing age, who pledge to have tons of children (like that couple in the TV Show “19 kids & counting), and who only have sex for procreation. The day that they’re done having kids, we should shoot ‘em.
And using that reasoning, there’s nothing wrong with procreating the day you’re able. Warren Jeffs (polygamous leader in prison for marrying 14 year old girls against their will) should be let out of prison and we should let him loose at the elementary schools. Let’s make divorce illegal, extra-marital relationships would be just ducky fine as long as the woman has good lineage…
But that’s not realistic. We’re legislating behaviors and sexual orientations that don’t have anything to do with most of us. We don’t like the idea of two men having sex, but most men I know wouldn’t mind watching two women having sex.
Welcome back, Clarence. Good to see ya.

Race baiting my way to the top!

Bap33 says

So, I think we all can we agree that when a society allows a particular behavior that is unhealthy for society, that doing so should not result in that unhealthy behavior being made equal to healthy behavior. I am being general on purpose, because that is the only way it can be fair. It can not, and should not matter if it’s about sex or sport or hygene .. behavior that is not healthy to society should be labled as such. Sure, the Bible called most of the unhealthy actions sin .. but, we are not talking Bible here. We are talking about any action that if done by all members of society results in harming the society.

I think this slipped past on accident. Do you agree with any of what I say in this paragraph?

sim,
I'm pretty sure you know I am not NAZI-ish, I'm just trying to share my view in a constructive way. I do like how your mind works. "Use your powers for good, Luke." lol

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says
permits came from the socialist minded leftists as a form of income.
Let’s get back on track then. BAP–what is your view on a private citizen buying nuclear bombs?

Before you came here Tat, everyday people were packing heat in Sunnyvale.
Murder rate back in the day was close to zero as it can get.

elliemae says

Using this reasoning, marriage should be limited to people who are of child-bearing age, who pledge to have tons of children (like that couple in the TV Show “19 kids & counting), and who only have sex for procreation. The day that they’re done having kids, we should shoot ‘em.

Tisk Tisk Tisk! It is not my reasoning, it is a fact shared by many cultures, else we all be fornicators.