Republicans really do hate gay people

[giblets]

Your "domestic terrorist" is Thomas Jefferson's liberator, and I'm not even joking. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to enable the violent overthrow of the federal government.

With biological weapons that could kill millions of civilians? You must be joking if you think terrorists are merely freedom fighters.

[Wiglaf]

A good point, and since I'm not a JSC it's not my job to divine intent so I'll stop speculating there. Those with better credentials have determined that the rights to have WMDs isn't protected, so I guess I'll go along with that for now.

Why do you think any living person is qualified to 'divine intent' of people who died hundreds of years ago?

That's why words and their meanings are so important. They shouldn't change overnight. They should send a signal to future generations so they can abide by them and have stability in society.

'Arms' doesn't mean WMDs because 'Arms' means firearms. Period.

Um, yes they did. President Lincoln and Republican Congressmen undid thousands of years of tradition.

They did not change the definition of slavery.

With biological weapons that could kill millions of civilians? You must be joking if you think terrorists are merely freedom fighters.

Millions of civilians may be pushing it. I think your logic would support home ownership of a bomb big enough to take down at least one federal building, though.

[Elok]

Now, we've discussed this subject for far too long without consulting the appropriate expert.

'And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

[giblets]

I think they used the word "arms," meaning firearms, and that is the meaning we should stick with.

If you try to read willy-nilly into the founders' "intent," then, as regexcellent points out, you must allow people to have biobombs and things. In the 18th century, allowing people to have firearms gave them a very good chance of overthrowing their government.

So your defense of owning biological weapons is a reference to how the law would be interpreted in an 18th century context? I don't think 21st century society accepts biological weapons as part of "the right to bear arms".

[giblets]

President Lincoln and Republican Congressmen treated the centuries old tradition of slavery with so much DISRESPECT. For shame.

No. Lincoln used his war powers to free slaves belonging to traitors. Then an amendment was passed banning slavery. Nothing was redefined.

[Wiglaf]

So your defense of owning biological weapons is a reference to how the law would be interpreted in an 18th century context? I don't think 21st century society accepts biological weapons as part of "the right to bear arms".

Of course it doesn't. Because our justices take 'arms' to mean 'arms' as it has been defined for centuries. Unlike you, they don't try to determine the constitution's intent, then make up new definitions of arms to suit the times.

[rah]

They shouldn't change overnight.

As I said, I'm on the conservative side and agree with this 100%

But the gay marriage debate hasn't just been happening for a few days or years. The discussion has been going on for decades (over more than one generation) It's finally gotten to the point where around half the people support it. So while people just laughed it off 20 years ago, they just can't do that anymore. To say this is a recent phenomena just proves that you haven't been paying attention.

[giblets]

Of course it doesn't. Because our justices take 'arms' to mean 'arms' as it has been defined for centuries. Unlike you, they don't try to determine the constitution's intent, then make up new definitions of arms to suit the times.

Justices don't need to make up definitions. Just interpret the right to bear arms the way most people in the 21st century do.

[Wiglaf]

But the gay marriage debate hasn't just been happening for a few days or years. The discussion has been going on for decades (over more than one generation)

Two decades is nothing compared to the history of the definition of traditional marriage, which predates recorded history.

Justices don't need to make up definitions. Just interpret the right to bear arms the way most people in the 21st century do.

So every word in the Constitution has a meaning, and that meaning is whatever 51% of Americans think it is at any given time?

[Elok]

If we're to go gradually, we should start by giving gays the right to get engaged. They already have the right to the intermediate step of interminable boring discussions about flower arrangements and napkins and such--or so I assume--so to compensate we should wait twenty years before the final step of letting them get married. Sounds good to me.

[giblets]

Two decades is nothing compared to the history of the definition of traditional marriage, which predates recorded history.



So every word in the Constitution has a meaning, and that meaning is whatever 51% of Americans think it is at any given time?

Sure, why the hell not. It makes more sense than trying to figure out what 51% of the founding fathers meant by it when it found its way into the Constitution and trying to figure out how that applies now. I guess we could assume free speech means you can't censor the internet, but who really can say for sure what the founding fathers meant on the subject.

[Dinner]

HA! I love this. Hateful Christian bigots demand purity pledges and their staff tells them to stuff it and quits in droves. I ask you why should these bigots get special tax free status? They should be free to hate gays all they want but they should also have to pay their damn taxes like everyone else.

More than two dozen faculty members have resigned from Shorter University, a Baptist school in Georgia, after it required them to sign a “personal lifestyle statement” that condemns homosexuality, premarital sex and public drinking.

An online campaign called “Save Our Shorter” says that the lifestyle pledge, adopted in the fall of 2011 along with a statement of faith, has led to dozens of resignations. University president Donald Dowless on Friday (May 18) confirmed that 36 faculty have resigned and at least 25 cited disagreement with either the personal lifestyle statement or the faith statement.

The school usually has about 100 full-time faculty.

“The Shorter Board of Trustees is slowly destroying the reputation of our beloved school and causing irreparable damage to the cause of Christ,” the Save Our Shorter website says.

Dowless said Friday that some of those who resigned did not state the reason for leaving.

In a Wednesday statement, Dowless said he and the university board recognized there are “strong feelings on both sides” about the new employment rules but the board decided to “reclaim our Christian roots” even if the consequence was a loss of faculty and staff.

“Our University was at a crossroads to either take steps to regain an authentic Christian identity in policy and practice or we would become a Christian University in name only,” he said.

The university, in Rome, Ga., now requires faculty to sign a personal lifestyle statement that says they will not engage in illegal drug use or drink alcohol in restaurants, stadiums and other public locations.

“I reject as acceptable all sexual activity not in agreement with the Bible, including, but not limited to, premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality,” the statement reads.

The Georgia Baptist Convention began appointing all trustees of the school’s board in 2005 after a ruling in the state convention’s favor by the Georgia Supreme Court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/faculty-leave-baptist-school-shorter-university-over-lifestyle-statement/2012/05/18/gIQAX5f8YU_story.html

[rah]

Two decades is nothing compared to the history of the definition of traditional marriage, which predates recorded history.

How can we know the definition of traditional marriage, prior to recorded history?
Yeah, when is how long, long enough? I think changes happening over decades is slow enough that stability is still assured.

[Wiglaf]

Sure, why the hell not. It makes more sense than trying to figure out what 51% of the founding fathers meant by it when it found its way into the Constitution.

The beauty of definitions is you don't have to 'figure out' what is 'meant' by words. The definitions are right there for you.

The obvious problem with your approach is that it permits essentially modifying the Constitution without going through the Constitution's own specified process for modifying the Constitution. It also leaves the law of the land completely in flux, including all case law, which could be overturned the moment society slightly disagrees with an ages-old interpretation of a word.

That makes contracts and laws almost impossible to reliably enforce.

How can we know the definition of traditional marriage, prior to recorded history?
Yeah, when is how long, long enough? I think changes happening over decades is slow enough that stability is still assured.

Because the notion was there as soon as history came about, strongly implying it was around even before the first recorded history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage "Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage."

[Dinner]

“I reject as acceptable all sexual activity not in agreement with the Bible, including, but not limited to, premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality,”

Does that mean they can practice marriage by capture like happened in the Bible? What about forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, like in the Bible? Also their alcohol ban isn't in the Bible so what should we do about that?