Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Too bad those freedoms aren't applicable to gay American citizens, Jay. Our liberties and our pursuit of happiness are being actively blocked - primarily by people the likes of you.

Sorry Cara but marriage is only sacred because you choose to believe it is such. Whether or not someone is married in a church doesn't mean anything in the eyes of the law. The marriage is only legal because the government recognizes it not the church. You can say that because you were married in church it has sacred meaning, which is fine, i don't care but i am not allowed to marry a gay couple because of laws created to deny these people. Also, since i can marry a couple, straight or gay, why should i be bound by Christian beliefs or constraints? It has no meaning on my beliefs or actions but i am not allowed to follow my religious conscience and beliefs because of others. Yep, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is conditional in this country.
Gay marriage will happen and will be in all 50 states eventually. It's only a matter of time when Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness will be an honest fact in this country rather than a lie.

Cara,

"If your [sic] talking about your freedom to do what you want with your own body, as of being gay." [sic]

Apart from the fact that this isn't even a sentence, it hardly addresses the lack of liberties for gay citizens that Your Name addressed on July 2, 2009 3:08 PM. You probably don't know it, Cara, but it is still legal to fire a person for being gay (and, for that matter, for being suspected of being gay!) in 37 States. It has nothing to do with 'doing what we want with our own bodies' (though, wouldn't 'liberty' allow that?)- and for that matter, that freedom is still lacking to many American women, str8 OR gay.

"I don't see liberty taken away in those areas."

Of course you wouldn't 'see' that. Your liberty to marry the person you (mutually) wish was never put to a vote. Nor was your liberty to do so ever taken away. Unfortunately, that liberty was taken away from gay Americans in the State of California in November of 2008. You must have missed it. Go ahead and google it if you don't believe me. It's all over the 'Internets'.

"If you are talking about a gay union being a marriage." [sic]

Apart from the fact that that isn't a sentence either, you are demonstrably wrong. I have been legally married for more than 5 years now. Some 18,000 California couples are legally married (with, I'm told, some 13,000 children among their families). Gay couples can now get legally married in 6 American States. You. Are. Simply. Wrong. And you hate that, don't you? Tuff!

"To me that would be taking away the very nature of what a marriage is."

And yet, to others, it isn't. Your heterosexual marriage is still very much a marriage, even now that God's gay and lesbian children can likewise get married. Our marriages haven't 'taken away' the "very nature" of your marriage. That's just silly. I mean, have you stopped loving your husband less since I've had one too? Ridiculous. Have you lost any inheritance rights, or hospital visitation rights, or any of the other 1,176 Federal benefits of marriage (even though gay citizens still don't even have them) since we've been legally able to marry? Nonsense. As is most of the 'faith-based' drivel tht ekes out of the 'religious' 'right' these days.

"Call it what you want, but a marriage no."

If it's 'okay' with you, Massa Cara, I'll call it what it is - a marriage - a legal marriage - because it is a marriage, even if you (and Jay) don't happen to like it. It says so on my government issued marriage certificate.

Just exactly what is it about "LIBERTY (and justice) for ALL" that you disagree with anyway? Why does the 'right' wish to limit the right to the pursuit of happiness - for other people? So much for being an "inalienable right", eh?

And why are 'Christians' so mean-spirited anyway? Didn't Christ teach that 'the greatest of these is charity'? Where's yours? What do you gain from such an excluding faith?

Individually, people prefer to define just what "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is according to what would benefit themselves over what would benefit the common wealth.
If the commonwealth happens to disaggree with same sex marriage, or abortion or some other issue, for some reason the commonwealth becomes the biggot and is in tolerant.
Only in a democracy!

Quite honestly, though, the conflict of opinions come into play when God is not recognized as the final authority on any subject, and now brings the subject of seperation of church and state so that people can without guilt, do what's right in their own eyes.
And, I will be bold enough to say this...
No one can rightfully say they have a personal relationship with God almight and claim that homesexuality and abortion is okay.
And for the record,an individuals right to life, liberty and happiness can not be achieved without having a personal relationship with God.

Boris, I guess you didn't take in consideration that you came from a designer and he gave you a gift of though process as to which you could deside whether or not to love him or not. You don't care about the one who brought you to this planet and gave you a brain to make up your mind enough to reject or love him.

When you meet your maker don't be suprised as to where you are headed, since he gave a penalty to those who reject him and give honor to themselves and their ideals as being all knowing and definitive to the afterlife which is in the speed of light as to God, known as eternity.

What scientific method was used to soundly refute Intelligent Design and after life? How did science disprove the existence of God? Not so long ago science taught the speed of light was constant and was used to measure the universe. Recently they have discovered that light speed can be changed and even stopped and we are to accept they have proven there is no God or after life. Atheists make bold claims without any real proof; if they are truthful atheists would be agnostics claiming that the existence of God or the after life is unknown.

Believers look at the complexity of life as proof that it could not have just happened.

Science contradicts itself when it comes to the origin of life. One group says life started from a one cell ameba formed in the primordial goo and another group says non-life can not spontaneous generate life. Only one of these opposing thoughts can be true.

==Too bad those freedoms aren't applicable to gay American citizens...==

Nobody denies a man who claims to be homosexual from marrying in the same way that heterosexual men may. There is no difference.

==Our liberties and our pursuit of happiness are being actively blocked...==

No, they aren't.

A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual. ALL men and ALL women may marry, or choose not to marry.

==...all the claims of Christianity are false.==

You haven't proved it yet.

==Our liberties and our pursuit of happiness are being actively blocked...==

You are a man, or a woman.

If a man, the law that defines "marriage" as being the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, applies to you, too.

If a woman, the law that defines "marriage" as being the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, applies to you, too.

Who's left out if the law includes all men and women and you are a man, or a woman?

Weldon
July 16, 2009 6:14 PM
Boris says: The facts of evolution ...
--------------------------------------
I wonder what "facts" of evolution have been observed at a time when nobody was around to observe them. Lack of observation eliminates a critical element for scientific conclusions.

Fact is that they speculate, and speculation ain't Science.

Here are a few articles that the resident creationists are apparently unaware of:
Biologists have demonstrated, in a study of the songs and genetics of a series of interbreeding populations of warblers in central Asia, how one species can diverge into two. Their description of the intermediate forms of two reproductively isolated populations of songbirds that no longer interbreed is the "missing evidence" that Darwin had hoped to use to support his theory of natural selection, but was never able to find.

Salmon in a US lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 60-70 years, researchers have revealed. Until now, it was believed that new species took hundreds or thousands of years to appear. The research paper by Hendry et al., appeared in Science 290 (5491)::516-518. It generated some interesting debate within the scientific community in later correspondence in that journal. News media reports about this paper typically overstated the case as demonstrating observed speciation. What it really demonstrated is the establishment of mating reproductive isolation (as yet incomplete) and genetic divergence reflected in measurable changes in body form. Thus, two of the three critical steps in the process of formation of new species has been and continues to be observed in these salmon.

Boris
July 16, 2009 6:30 PM
Creationists also like to argue that Evolution cannot be observed.
---------------------------------------------
Nobody was around to see what you people say happened to start what you people say is the whole process.

Boris
July 16, 2009 6:30 PM
Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and observe the results.
---------------------------------------------
Nobody was around in the beginning to observe the beginning of what you people say is the evolutionary process.

Boris
July 16, 2009 6:30 PM
Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it.
-----------------------------------------------
Nobody was around to observe ANY of it, and observation is key to Science. You people are trying to pass specualtion off as "Science."

Boris
July 16, 2009 6:30 PM
This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of.
----------------------------------------------
Nobody was in the position, from the beginning, to see one cell develop into everything else.

Boris
July 16, 2009 6:30 PM
There's a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can't be witnessed. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record.
---------------------------------------
No fossil record shows that humans "evoluted" from sand fleas.

Boris
July 16, 2009 6:30 PM
...every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over. - Brian Dunning
-------------------------------------------------
What has been observed is the result of human manipulation of speculations.

Mr. Incredible
No one ever said anything ever "evoluted" nor did any say humans evolved from sand fleas. Isn't it funny that the least evolved of us always have a problem with evolution? That's because they know if evolution were efficient they wouldn't exist. Take your arguments to any Christian college and see what they say. After they're done laughing in your face.

==No one ever said anything ever "evoluted" ==

YOU have. You have presented the "concept."

When I use the word, "evoluted," I included quotation marks around the word to indicate that I am playing around with the word.

In the interest of misrepresenting my argument -- again -- you quote the word as though I used the word seriously, instead of surrounding the word with single quotation marks, then surrounding that construction with double quotation marks.

Murders and other crimes happen all the time with no one around to witness them. According to Mr. Incredible's line of anti-logic none of the criminals that commit these crimes should be in jail because unless there are eyewitnesses to the crime we can't prove the crime happened or who did it.

FYI evolution is like a tree with many branches. Evolution doesn't occur in the linear fashion creationists think it does. Well creationists don't actually think, but ....

If, as the evolutionists claim, one cell started it all, that cell would have had to evolve from an earlier version [of course, if it evolved, it wouldn't be the first cell].

So, from what cell did the first cell evolve, and how and from where did the first cell get the instructions to do what the evolutionists say it did?

Boris
July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
The first cells had no DNA...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaaand you were there to observe this?

The fact of the matter is that cells, the way we understand them today, in order to pass along their living characteristics, must have DNA. Otherwise, they don't "know" what to do.

If evolution from one cell is a fact, that cell had to have everything necessary from the very beginning of its existence. Everything in it had to work perfectly from the get-go. That couldn't have happened without a Designer, Programmer and Creator.

Boris
July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
... and reproduced by simply dividing, falling apart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
How did it "know" to do that?

Boris
July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
The complexity of cells and DNA are the result of 4 billion years of cellular evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We're not talking about 4 billion years of cellular evolution. We're talking about what you people claim to be is the first cell of everything. How was it created without a creator? How did all the parts come together so that it would "know" what to do, unless the creator put it all together?

Boris
July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
Prove this false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
No one can prove a negative. It's YOUR assertion. YOU prove it. I can't prove it's false; you can't even prove it's true.

Boris
July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
Who was around to observe the magical beginning you think the world had?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
God -- that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Boris
July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
Who OBSERVED the first man being made from dirt?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
God -- that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Boris
July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
Who OBSERVED the first woman being made from his rib...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
God -- that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Boris
July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
... Or OBSERVED the magic snake talk to the first woman?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
God -- that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, not to mention Adam, Eve and Satan.

Boris
July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
What eyewitness wrote that story?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
God -- that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit -- gave His Deposition to men who wrote it down.

Boris
July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
I have to stop now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Goin' in for more shock therapy, huh.

Boris
July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
What eyewitness wrote that story?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2Pe_1:20
Rom_4:23
Rom_15:4
Joh_14:26
Heb_4:12
1Co_7:35
Gal_1:11
1Co_2:13
1Co_12:3
1Co_1:20
1Co_2:10-14
Isa_28:10
1Jn_2:20
2Pe_1:20-21
1Ti_1:12
Psa_23:3
Psa_5:8
Psa_25:10
Pro_2:8
Pro_2:12-13
Pro_2:18-20
Pro_8:20
Joh_6:44
The draw of God is in the Power -- the Word -- of Christ.
Rom_1:16
That the Man of God be perfect, thoroughly-furnished unto all good works
w/:17
Act_2:4
1Co_1:5
Pro_18:21
2Co_8:7
Eph_6:19
Col_4:3
1Th_2:13
Heb_4:2
Pro_6:23
1Co_1:18
1Co_2:7

==The first cells had no DNA and reproduced by simply dividing...==

What programming told them to divide and when to divide?

Did the first cell simply appear out of thin air, or did it "evolve"?

If the first cell "evolved," it wasn't the first cell.

No, we mean you don't think nor do you come to valid conclusions. Instead unthinkingly you accept absurd religious dogma and doctrine because you are afraid not to. Plus there is no God anyway.

Oh damn that self-replicating RNA. If it wasn't for that I could have been a contenda! - God.

Boris
July 18, 2009 11:05 PM
No, we mean you don't think nor do you come to valid conclusions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: "You don't think like us, and, therefore, you don't think, nor do you come to valid conclusions."

The Pharisees said the same thing about Jesus.

Boris
July 18, 2009 11:05 PM
Instead unthinkingly you accept absurd religious dogma and doctrine because you are afraid not to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so. However, you're free to choose to think any wrong thing you choose to want.

Boris
July 18, 2009 11:05 PM
Plus there is no God anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(Psa 14:1) To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

(Psa 53:1) To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

There wishful -- -- > Their wishful

These so-called "evolutionists" also ignore a glaring inconsistency in their arguments.

They claim that ALL life began with one cell, though they never explain where that cell came from, and, as I say, they never apply their standard of "evolution" to that one cell.

If ALL life began with one cell, why doesn't life begin in the womb with one cell?

If ALL life began with one cell, then ALL life begins with one cell.

The trouble they had is that, like life in the womb, the so-called "evolutionary life" that began with one cell had to be stimulated by something. Fertilized, so to speak. Who "fertilized" the first cell of life?

How did that first cell know what to do? How did it know to know what to do?

Don't worry. You won't get any answers to those points from these self-styled "know-it-alls." All you get is attempts at distraction.