Another example of an activist judge

[kyoukan]

If it is downright criminal to you then why not agree with the judge's ruling?

because it's okay as long as it's fags.

[Atokal]

masteen is a homophope.

if it was a case of a woman woman who had a child with a white man, turned lesbian and was teaching her kid to hate straight men, you rightie shit sacks would be crying like a bunch of spoiled babies who just shat their diapers. not that you ever, ever stop fucking crying about every little fucking thing.

wow i mean wow, what a fucking great fucking post. hey hey look I can say things two times that is two times to get my awesome point across.

Perhaps the ruling should have been that the homosexual parent must never exhibit homosexual behaviour?
Then all you lefty, whining, anti-religious types could start crying like spoiled Kyoukans not that you ever, ever, ever, ever stop crying.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

But, to teach "hate" is downright criminal as far as I'm concerned.

If it is downright criminal to you then why not agree with the judge's ruling? Homophobia is hate, and he said it would not be tolerated in this case.
.

Homophobia, in itself, is the single dumbest word in exsistance. Why would anyone be afraid of someone because they are gay. Your word for someone not being totally into gay people, is homophobia and hate.

I'm think being gay is abnormal and a birth defect. But, I neither hate nor fear gay people. Throw your labels all around, but it doesn't change the fact that not everyone who disagrees with a certain lifestyle, or what have you, hate those people. Sometimes, we just disagree.

[Sirensa]

It's one thing to disagree with a group of people and their lifestyles, but it's quite hypocritcal to have been a member of said group (lesbians), adopt a child, raise it with your lesbian partner (to the extend that she would be granted custody rights upon dissolving of the partnership), and then preach that lesbianism (and homosexuality) is wrong?

The issue seems to be more whether or not the non-related, non-married, ex-partner of the christian lady should have custody rights. If homosexuals were allowed civil union/marriage rights, then the entire custody issue might have not seemed so unusual.

Regardless, what a hypocrite. If allowed to teach her anti-homosexual beliefs, which in effect is teaching the child that her other parent is bad, after having had the lesbian relationship, after the other partner was granted joint custody, is excessively mean spiritied and I'm sure would cause the child would grow up severely fucked. I'd rather applaud the judge for trying to protect the child's best interests, than condemn him for violating a psycho-hypocrites right to preach her beliefs.

[Ashur]

It's not hypocritical to change your mind, Siren. It would be hypocritical if she remained a practicing lesbian while preaching that homosexuality is wrong.

Would it be hypocritical of me to tell my daughter that smoking is bad and that she shouldn't do it because I smoked a bit in college?

Not agreeing with the woman who wants to use a law to push her personal agenda, but saying it's hypocritical isn't quite the best argument.

[Sirensa]

Would it be hypocritical of me to tell my daughter that smoking is bad and that she shouldn't do it because I smoked a bit in college?

That's not exactly an equal comparison. Smoking IS bad, it's been proven bad, and this is hardly an undisputed fact, even among smokers.

Homosexuality as wrong is a belief. (Though some religious fanatics may argue that homosexuality as wrong is fact, I disagree with them)

And it's my belief, that born-again christian enthusiasts, who were former homosexuals, are hypocrites. And anyone using their child and ex-partner, in such a twisted manner, over religion, is a useless human being.

[masteen]

And it's my belief, that born-again christian enthusiasts, who were former homosexuals, are hypocrites. And anyone using their child and ex-partner, in such a twisted manner, over religion, is a useless human being.

While I agree with that 100%, I am still very concerned that a judge stepped in and set legal precedent about what parents can and can't teach their kids.

On a side note regarding Midnyte's stand on homosexuality: it is possible to teach that something is wrong while simultaneously teaching tolerance.

[kyoukan]

wow i mean wow, what a fucking great fucking post. hey hey look I can say things two times that is two times to get my awesome point across.

haha, I wonder if you have any idea how unbelievably petty and stupid you look right now. Oh nos I used the same word twice. That's the best you can do?

[Atokal]

wow i mean wow, what a fucking great fucking post. hey hey look I can say things two times that is two times to get my awesome point across.

haha, I wonder if you have any idea how unbelievably petty and stupid you look right now. Oh nos I used the same word twice. That's the best you can do?

Petty and stupid vs ignorant and hate filled?

Hrmm I think I will take petty and stupid.

Cheers

[kyoukan]

Yeah someone like you calling me ignorant really hurts my feeling. Holy christ you are so deluded.

Hate filled yes, in the sense that I profoundly dislike loudmouthed closet faggots like you.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Yeah someone like you calling me ignorant really hurts my feeling. Holy christ you are so deluded.

Hate filled yes, in the sense that I profoundly dislike loudmouthed closet faggots like you.

There you go labeling.

One of my favorite things you do is calling someone else ignorant and dumb and then laughing at them.

Kyo says , "Oh look....there's a clue.....I wonder what it could be..." Minutes pass as she ponders, then suddenly..."It's a mirror......hmmm I don't get it."

[nobody]

Smoking IS bad, it's been proven bad, and this is hardly an undisputed fact, even among smokers.

smoking is BAD!?

[Brotha]

Just had a chance to check VV, was expecting to find a dead thread with three responses of "homophobe racist."

Obviously I, and Midnyte too I'm sure, think parents shouldn't be teaching their children to hate, but the government is overstepping its bounds in this case. Again, this isn't just the judge saying a mother can't speak bad about her ex-husbands lifestyle in front of her child. This is, by extension, saying that the child cannot be exposed to parts of the bible, a pillar of the Christian religion. The government has no business trying to regulate this.

And yes, I'll say it too. Homosexuality is abnormal. If we were all homosexuals, life as we know it would end in decades. This is a simple fact. But do I hate homosexuals or whatever? Of course not.

[Karae]

And yes, I'll say it too. Homosexuality is abnormal. If we were all homosexuals, life as we know it would end in a matter of years. This is a simple fact. But do I hate homosexuals or whatever? Of course not.

I guess it never occured to you that it was a natural response to overpopulation?

"I don't hate faggots. I just think they're disgusting and wrong."

That's hate dumbshit. You, Midnyte, and everyone else with that attitude are bigoted hatemongerers. You're the worst kind to. You're totally oblivious to your prejudices. You're living in denial because you're too busy trying to convince yourself that you're a good person to even see it. Let me be perfectly clear: every sane person reading this thread sees it.

Homosexuality is not abnormal or wrong. Self-deluded bigots like you are.

[Brotha]

And yes, I'll say it too. Homosexuality is abnormal. If we were all homosexuals, life as we know it would end in a matter of years. This is a simple fact. But do I hate homosexuals or whatever? Of course not.

I guess it never occured to you that it was a natural response to overpopulation?

"I don't hate faggots. I just think they're disgusting and wrong."

That's hate dumbshit. You, Midnyte, and everyone else with that attitude are bigoted hatemongerers. You're the worst kind to. You're totally oblivious to your prejudices. You're living in denial because you're too busy trying to convince yourself that you're a good person to even see it. Let me be perfectly clear: every sane person reading this thread sees it.

Homosexuality is not abnormal or wrong. Self-deluded bigots like you are.

Where did I say it's "disgusting" or "wrong?" I said it's "abnormal." Meaning it's NOT NORMAL. I'm sorry if that is not PC enough for you or if I hurt your feelings. Really, I am.

[Jice Virago]

Homosexuality has existed in mankind for far longer than the christian religeon has. It also exists in animals in nature. There is nothing abnormal about it. Your moral code is the result of a bunch of uptight roman doom sayers borrowing a bunch of shit from greeks who themselves swiped it from the jews. The jews grabbed it from zoarastrianism who probably got it from someone else. Homosexuality existed well before any of these civilizations and was accepted in many societies. The fact that it exists in the animal kingdom makes it likely that it predates even man himself. Oh wait, I forgot you fucking morons still think the earth was created 3000 years ago and is in fact flat.

I am not sure what offends me more, the ignorance at work in some people, the intollerance, or the bald faced stupidity. If you are going to pass off opinion as fact, you had better research it and provide conclusive reasons and backing. If you want to state an opinion, you had better be prepared to argue it when it is picked apart, especially if the opinion has its root in bigotry and ignorance.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

And yes, I'll say it too. Homosexuality is abnormal. If we were all homosexuals, life as we know it would end in a matter of years. This is a simple fact. But do I hate homosexuals or whatever? Of course not.

I guess it never occured to you that it was a natural response to overpopulation?

"I don't hate faggots. I just think they're disgusting and wrong."

That's hate dumbshit. You, Midnyte, and everyone else with that attitude are bigoted hatemongerers. You're the worst kind to. You're totally oblivious to your prejudices. You're living in denial because you're too busy trying to convince yourself that you're a good person to even see it. Let me be perfectly clear: every sane person reading this thread sees it.

Homosexuality is not abnormal or wrong. Self-deluded bigots like you are.

ROFL

Point proven. I accept gay behavior, but you can't accept my feeling about them. You have to call me a hatemonger. It's really funny as hell.

[Bubba Grizz]

All the homosexuality and religion aside, I see this as the court telling someone how to raise their children. I disagree with that. We may not agree on how a person is raising their child but it is not our business and it certainly shouldn't be dictated by the court on how someone is to raise them.

If we allow that to happen then what is next? You are not allowed to raise your child as anything other than republican or democrat? Once we let the government take over in this regard our freedom is in danger.

I am not talking about extremes that people will undoubtedly post after this. It is already bad enough that you can't swat your child on the butt for acting up without risking be reported to social services who want to take your kids away. (remember in Florida this happend)

[Aaeamdar]

The amount of delusion the bible bangers have amassed here is stagering as they have managed to produce this:

All the homosexuality and religion aside, I see this as the court telling someone how to raise their children. I disagree with that.

Once again. This happens mulitple times (probably in the hundreds nationwide) every day and has happened just like that in teh US and aboad for a very very very long time. Jesus Crispies protests to the contrary, there is nothing at all remarkable about this decision. For those that think there is, please answer the following:

What should limit the scope of discretion of a Family Court judge who must issue a decision and order regarding the custody and other rights of the parents of a Child once a marriage (or other pre-existing joint custody relationship) is terminated?

Currently, in almost every jurisdiction in the US the answer is "Best interest of the Child."

Either: 1. tell me why that standard is wrong and what the standard should be, or 2. tell me why the judge abused his discretion under that standard.

So far all I see is a much of mindless ramblings about the courts intruding on the "rights" of a parent. Please feel free to outline your brillent system in which custodial rights are distributed among two, now seperated, parents that is both good policy and does not "intrude" on those "rights."

[Xzion]

In the 40's I could hear Midnyte saying this:

I dont hate black people, they were born that way biologically and happen to be less developed and civilized then the white man, almost like a birth defect. In order to help them conserve there culture they should have there own schools, own waterfountains and special seats on the bus.

It is plain wrong and an insult to liberty to allow a white mother, who got divorced from her black husband to not allow her to teach her kid to hate black people becouse her fanatical christian religion teaches that one should not mix up the races.

Your argument holds NO merit if your looking for a progressive, free society. If your a conservative asshole who wants to go back to the way this were in the 1940s when evolution wasnt taught and predutice was at large, then your going down the right path.

Gays are ALMOST an equivilant to african americans in the 1940s, people hate, discriminate, and treat gays differently, they do not have the same rights as the majority and are clearly oppressed in more then one manner.

[Xzion]

All the homosexuality and religion aside, I see this as the court telling someone how to raise their children. I disagree with that. We may not agree on how a person is raising their child but it is not our business and it certainly shouldn't be dictated by the court on how someone is to raise them.

If we allow that to happen then what is next? You are not allowed to raise your child as anything other than republican or democrat? Once we let the government take over in this regard our freedom is in danger.

I am not talking about extremes that people will undoubtedly post after this. It is already bad enough that you can't swat your child on the butt for acting up without risking be reported to social services who want to take your kids away. (remember in Florida this happend)

Look at the FCC and the Patriot act if your afraid of our freedom being in danger. Register, support and vote independant or libertarian if you believe our freedom is in danger, dont sweat bullshit like this.

[Brotha]

Homosexuality has existed in mankind for far longer than the christian religeon has. It also exists in animals in nature. There is nothing abnormal about it. Your moral code is the result of a bunch of uptight roman doom sayers borrowing a bunch of shit from greeks who themselves swiped it from the jews. The jews grabbed it from zoarastrianism who probably got it from someone else. Homosexuality existed well before any of these civilizations and was accepted in many societies. The fact that it exists in the animal kingdom makes it likely that it predates even man himself. Oh wait, I forgot you fucking morons still think the earth was created 3000 years ago and is in fact flat.

I am not sure what offends me more, the ignorance at work in some people, the intollerance, or the bald faced stupidity. If you are going to pass off opinion as fact, you had better research it and provide conclusive reasons and backing. If you want to state an opinion, you had better be prepared to argue it when it is picked apart, especially if the opinion has its root in bigotry and ignorance.

Is there anything wrong in what I stated: if everyone was a homosexual, life as we know it would cease to exist within decades? If your parents were homosexuals, would you be alive? In my opinion it simply isn't natural for two males to get "married."

You speak of intolerance as if someone who says that homosexuality is abnormal is guilty of it. I've said over and over and over I have no problems with homosexuals. I've had good friends who are homosexuals, I've had good friends who are black and right now I'm hanging out with two hispanics who I'll be going to bootcamp with. All of them know my political views very well. If you seriously suggested to any of them that I'm a racist or homophobe they'd laugh their asses off. I see a lot more "intolerance" on this board by self-proclaimed "tolerant" people than by the evil republicans. By the way, here's a newsflash for all of you: I'm not a Christian. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into your narrowminded stereotypes.

And while you're up there on your high horse, why don't you show me a single example of intolerance in this thread by me or Midnyte. Then, when you're utterly dumbfounded and realize you throw around bigotry and intolerance worse than Mccarthy threw around "communist," find me five intolerant quotes by everyone else in this thread, including yourself.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

In the 40's I could hear Midnyte saying this:

I dont hate black people, they were born that way biologically and happen to be less developed and civilized then the white man, almost like a birth defect. In order to help them conserve there culture they should have there own schools, own waterfountains and special seats on the bus.

Gays are ALMOST an equivilant to african americans in the 1940s, people hate, discriminate, and treat gays differently, they do not have the same rights as the majority and are clearly oppressed in more then one manner.

ROFL, you guys are getting funnier and funnier with this shit.

Blacks are a race of people. Being gay transcends all races. Being born gay is a defect. Being born white, black, etc. is your friggin race dude.

Being gay has nothing to do with being of a certain race.

Yes gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. But, they rest of us have the right to recognize it's abnormality.

But, you go ahead and keep making these grand claims of hatred, bigotry and racism and keep tyign them to other terrible things so you can garner more support. It will work for the idiots and the world surely isn't in short supply of those.

[Jice Virago]

Being homosexual does not remove your ability to reproduce you fucking shell shocked homophobe. You are, presumably, heterosexual Brotha. If the fate of the race were at stake, I am pretty sure you could knuckle down and smoke the pole once in a blue moon. Humanity requires farming to survive and not everyone in modern times is a farmer, in fact itts a lower percentage than at any point in human history.

Christ on a fucking cross with nails, mankind is not going to cease to exist because any portion of it engages in same sex relations, even if it is 100%, because people will still procreate for reasons other than sexual pleasure. Or are you afraid that given the option every single guy out there is going to smoke da pole instead of poke the beaver? If that is the case, then you have realized subconciously that people are never 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual If you don't believe me, then ask yourself the following:

When you are whacking off to porn (and given your repressive social and political views, I think we can conclude that you do whack off, although you probably beg Jesus for mercy every time you do it) do you prefer that the guy in the video have a huge rock hard penis, or a little wilted floppy penis? Ask yourself why you even care if your not checking out his shit.

As for intollerant things you and Mid have spouted, your refusal that one mother who granted joint custody of her child to her partner teaching their daughter that homosexuality is evil and wrong amounts to teaching her child to hate fits the bill. Just because the church beat her back into the closet, does not give her the right to hide behind freedom of religion to use her child as a tool of revenge. Just because something is in the minority does not make it abnormal, just unusual. After all, I think if you counted all the catholics in the world and all the gay or bi people in the world (really counted, including all the boy groping priests) I think you would be suprised at who was in the minority.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

As for intollerant things you and Mid have spouted

And which things would that be?


Oh and by the way, where the fuck in that article is there any mention the mother has been teaching hatred towards gays? hmmmmm? Where? Hello? Anyone?

Oh, I see it was you spin doctors at work again, assuming most people wouldn't re-read the article, or perhaps, not even have read it at all, and would have just bought into your rhetoric.

As Penn & Teller would say.......BULLSHIT !

[Sylvus]

how about

Being born gay is a defect

for starters?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

how about

Being born gay is a defect

for starters?

How is that intolerant wiseguy? Keep fishing.

Hmmm let's see......most people are born normal and a small percentage like the same sex. Appears to be abnormal and defective. Disprove me. Show me how we all were intended to be born gay. I'd love to here this one.

[Karae]

Midnyte reminds me of the phrase "Never get argue with a moron. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you on experience."

Now matter how much sense any of us make, he's too fucking stupid and stubborn to give in. It's a wasted effort.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Midnyte reminds me of the phrase "Never get argue with a moron. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you on experience."

Now matter how much sense any of us make, he's too fucking stupid and stubborn to give in. It's a wasted effort.

Yep, you continue to label, name call, and spin, instead of discussing the topic at hand.

[Sylvus]

Fishing? The word "defect" implies that they lack something, when the only thing that is "wrong" with them is that they engage in a type of activity that you don't agree with. A homosexual is no more ill-suited to surviving in the world than you are, other than the fact that they have to constantly be denied freedoms and put up with shit from people like you who are by no means bigots, right?

I'd say that your obstinate and unreasoning attachment to your beliefs is pretty much the textbook definition of bigotry, but then again I understand what the word means.

[Sueven]

I think you're confusing "abnormal" with "minority."

Do you consider it abnormal to have blue eyes?

If so, do you advocate discriminating on these grounds?

[Brotha]

Hahahahaha that has to be the most INTOLERANT post I've ever seen Jice. It's pretty tempting to just pass it up as the innacurate, hateful musings of a stereotypical insecure, "socially repressed" individual, which it obviously is and you obviously are (no intolerance there, just the blatant truth), but really this is too much.

Being homosexual does not remove your ability to reproduce you fucking shell shocked homophobe. You are, presumably, heterosexual Brotha. If the fate of the race were at stake, I am pretty sure you could knuckle down and smoke the pole once in a blue moon.

Being homosexual doesn't remove your ability to reproduce? How is that exactly? You mean a homosexual could temporarily CHANGE his or her sexual behavior so that he or she could fit into the NATURAL scheme of things, if only for a few fleeting moments? You're making my case so well for me, I don't know why I'm even pointing this out.

When you are whacking off to porn (and given your repressive social and political views, I think we can conclude that you do whack off, although you probably beg Jesus for mercy every time you do it) do you prefer that the guy in the video have a huge rock hard penis, or a little wilted floppy penis? Ask yourself why you even care if your not checking out his shit.

I would beg Jesus for mercy? Did you not see what I JUST said? I'm not a Christian. I've never made any references to being a Christian. I know long held stereotypes are hard to get rid of, but with me as your guide I'm sure we can make it through this together. Wow the thought of that really turns me on...maybe you were onto something there. Or wait, I'm still envisioning a DE female, not an overweight internet addict who's figuratively, if not literally, shackled to his computer.

And hell yeah I love porn. What do you think, that I'm gay or something?

As for intollerant things you and Mid have spouted, your refusal that one mother who granted joint custody of her child to her partner teaching their daughter that homosexuality is evil and wrong amounts to teaching her child to hate fits the bill.

Obviously I, and Midnyte too I'm sure, think parents shouldn't be teaching their children to hate, but the government is overstepping its bounds in this case.

So what you meant to say was: "Your refusal to agree that a judge has the right to restrict what parts of the bible a child can learn fits the bill." What can I say to that sound logic? You found the smoking gun that I didn't even know existed. Now you and Karae can form a coalition of the fags, catch AIDS, and die. Oops, that might have been just a bit intolerant.

[Truant]

Midnyte reminds me of the phrase "Never get argue with a moron. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you on experience."

Now matter how much sense any of us make, he's too fucking stupid and stubborn to give in. It's a wasted effort.

Exactly, and because he seems to sit in the current events forum and press f5 all day and spam every topic with his ignorance, I find myself even bothering to read it, less and less.

[Thess]

Exactly, and because he seems to sit in the current events forum and press f5 all day and spam every topic with his ignorance, I find myself even bothering to read it, less and less.

/agree Truant

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Exactly, and because he seems to sit in the current events forum and press f5 all day and spam every topic with his ignorance, I find myself even bothering to read it, less and less.

I only refresh on the topics I have an interest in.

And you keep on reading past my posts, that way you stand no chance of altering your current opinion of me. Being open minded would definitely go against your norm.

[Xzion]

A "social conservative"(thats a good oxymoron) anti-gay rights supporter is calling someone else close minded?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

A "social conservative"(thats a good oxymoron) anti-gay rights supporter is calling someone else close minded?

Who is anti-gay rights?

[Atokal]

Yeah someone like you calling me ignorant really hurts my feeling. Holy christ you are so deluded.

Hey, I have only proven your ignorance on a dozen threads or more. So if it doesn't hurt I suppose the old saying "Ignorance is Bliss" holds true in your little corner of the universe. Admit it I turn you into a frothing, key slamming retard.

Hate filled yes, in the sense that I profoundly dislike loudmouthed closet faggots like you.

Yeah, you hate intolerance.
Yeah, you aren't ignorant " whats up with the closet faggot term or are you going to tell us it is ok to use such a biggotted term cause your husband is a faggot? Wouldn't surprise me at all being married to you.

Aaeamdar is another of the Tolerant preaching shitheads who is himself as intolerant as they come. Straight up kids if you are going to go after the Bible Bangers because they don't like your lifestyle or your opinions don't you think you could find another way to prove your arguements than shouting inflamatory, biggotted, hatefilled bullshit. I mean this is the stuff you hate about the other side of the arguement right?

Kids... sheesh.

[Voronwë]

just want to interject a poitn about the term "activist judge".

right wing propaganda (Hannity et al.) has used this term to associate with liberal ideals etc. There are just as many "activist judges" who are conservative as well, but of course you won't find the daily talking points addressing those.

[archeiron]

A "social conservative"(thats a good oxymoron) anti-gay rights supporter is calling someone else close minded?

Who is anti-gay rights?

Ok, I am going to straddle the fence here.

Midnyte, you were serious against gay marriage or any legal status in the early phases of the thread on that topic not more than two months ago.

Kyoukan, admittedly he did agree that he had changed his opinion and was willing to concede that there were legitimate reasons why gay couples should get some legal standing.

[Siji]

Is there anything wrong in what I stated: if everyone was a homosexual, life as we know it would cease to exist within decades?

Like that's a bad thing.

[Arundel Pajo]

just want to interject a poitn about the term "activist judge".

right wing propaganda (Hannity et al.) has used this term to associate with liberal ideals etc. There are just as many "activist judges" who are conservative as well, but of course you won't find the daily talking points addressing those.

Thank you, Voro....that's exactly what I was wanting to point out when I baited some of the right-wingers to define "activist judge." Nobody took the bait, though.

Folks, the job of the judiciary is to interpret the law. These interpretations are subject to human judgment from all sides of the spectrum. You may not agree with one judge's interpretation, but that doesn't mean that it'll stand forever. Stupidity in the judiciary has a long history of being struck down in time.

Judges of all backgrounds and ideologies are out there, interpreting the law how they best see fit. As Voro pointed out, the term "activist judge" is, in the current usage, a straw man used by conservatives.

Now I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this particular judge's decision, but he was doing his job - interpreting the law as he saw it applying to this given situation. You don't have to agree with that decision.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

A "social conservative"(thats a good oxymoron) anti-gay rights supporter is calling someone else close minded?

Who is anti-gay rights?

Ok, I am going to straddle the fence here.

Midnyte, you were serious against gay marriage or any legal status in the early phases of the thread on that topic not more than two months ago.
.

Ummm yep. It's called being open minded. It's when you listen to all sides and reassess your opinion.

[Sueven]

Hey I'm just curious: Why doesn't anyone ever respond to Aaeemdar, Arundel, or Voronwe?

I'm going to repost what Aaeemdar said earlier:

Either: 1. tell me why that standard is wrong and what the standard should be, or 2. tell me why the judge abused his discretion under that standard.

How about one of the conservatives here considers answering the CENTRAL QUESTION OF THE THREAD?

[kyoukan]

Hey, I have only proven your ignorance on a dozen threads or more. So if it doesn't hurt I suppose the old saying "Ignorance is Bliss" holds true in your little corner of the universe. Admit it I turn you into a frothing, key slamming retard.

lol, do you really mistake me getting upset at how fucking stupid you are as some sort of clever manipulation on your part? that is so awesome.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Hey I'm just curious: Why doesn't anyone ever respond to Aaeemdar, Arundel, or Voronwe?

I'm going to repost what Aaeemdar said earlier:

Either: 1. tell me why that standard is wrong and what the standard should be, or 2. tell me why the judge abused his discretion under that standard.

How about one of the conservatives here considers answering the CENTRAL QUESTION OF THE THREAD?

How about you re-reading the responses from us conservatives. Our opinions have been stated numerous times throughout this thread.

[Sylvus]

That homosexuals are defective, you're not a bigot and the rest of us need to become more open-minded like you are?

That's what I've taken from it so far.

[Pahreyia]

Declaration of Independance wrote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

American Constitution wrote:
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

The judge in this case had no legal grounds by which to challenge the mother's fanatical christian belief system that she was imparting on the child.

I see it almost the same as a child being raised by 2 parents. One went to jail for a time and the other taught the child to hate people who go to jail because they're bad/wrong/evil people. It's a simplistic view and doesn't take into account the underlying faith structure being imposed on the child, but it's sufficient, in my mind, as an example.

No judge would make a ruling declaring that parents couldn't teach their children that people who go to jail are evil. For the fact that this nation was settled, founded and currently run by some pretty extreme right christians just affirms that the case for judicial oversight by non-partisan, non-appointed (by presidents) judges has merit.

Also I truly believe that a smaller interest by the federal government into the lives of the people of the states could not be a bad thing. Flooding the federal government with beureaucratic watchdog groups undermines the states' right to govern their citizens and places far too much authority into far too few hands.

I that sense, I'm a republican and probably a pretty conservative one from the side of national politic. However, I believe strongly in the rights of individuals and keeping government interventions and protections in the places that are appropriate for them to be. I don't subscribe to any established or recognized or labeled belief system. I will respect the god or gods of the people I associate with, but I don't believe that I owe allegiance to any of them on any level.

Although I don't believe in the god that the founders did, the moral code that the founders adhered to, that's so strongly rooted in the christian psyche also drove them and allowed them the clairty of vision and acceptance of all kinds of people to found a nation whose principles were that all men are created equal and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I won't entertain an argument stemming from people who want to point out how the founders kept slaves or that it was life, liberty and happiness for any white person... etc. The constitution is deliberatly and vaguely specific. It's an encompassing statement. This is 2004 and I think that any reasonable person reading those documents now would not designate who is and isn't protected by those statements.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

That homosexuals are defective, you're not a bigot and the rest of us need to become more open-minded like you are?

That's what I've taken from it so far.

LOL, well whatever man. It's a fucking simple analogy. If you can't grasp it or refuse to understand it, I'm sorry for you. You obviously need to believe that people were intended to be born gay.

I'm sorry but common sense tells most intelligent people that being born gay, is abnormal. It's no different than me typing, ummm:

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

If you see above, the norm is the letter n. the letter a is abnormal. n=normal opposite sex loving people
a=abnormal same sex loving people

Both can live together, but I prefer not being told that being born gay is totally normal, when it obviously is not normal.

See you people lose us when you refuse to recognize the simple truths. If you would just use reason you would get a lot less resistance.

[kyoukan]

way to break the tables. I would say that being born stupid is a lot more abnormal than being born gay.