you better get busy then! :)

what does the constitution have to do with any marriage?

Exactly.

lol
i was being facetious. i suggest that you go re-read it. the day the govt started giving rights to married couples, they opened this can of beans. you can't give rights to some, and not to others-THAT is what is unconstitutional. a lot of specific institutions aren't specifically mentioned-but it is specifically stated that all men (and presumably, women) are created equal.

The same thing gay marriage has to do with Islam.

:rolleyes:

most threads cover more ground than the initial post was mean to do. what's the big deal that this thread, like so many others, went off on a tangent?

No big deal! I've always felt I was a lesbian trapped in a man's body so I can relate. Also have had a Muslim cab driver or two in my day and let's not forget my donut man and the ever famous 'Piranha Man'. It all fits now.

and for those who never met Piranha Man here's a video blessing

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

I hate to say it,but all MEN weren't created equal in the eyes of the constitution. Black men were 1/5 or 2/5 of a white man so I doubt if women or gays were exactly equal either. I'm not saying I agree with it. I think it should go to the states. Vermont did it the right way. I personally don't care. My right to own a firearm is spelled out in the constitution(tangent!). Where is marriage between a man and woman mentioned in the constitution? Next to the right to get a mortgage for a home I can't afford?

so, since back in the late 1700's they decided all men weren't equal (which has since been remedied, i recall a civil war as well as a couple of amendments to the constitution regarding voting, desegregation) altho they wrote they were, we're supposed to continue to follow that?

you can't pick and choose which rights to convey-you just mentioned your right to bear arms. some don't want you to have that right. so, like them, do you want to cherry pick which ones should be given, which aren't? after all, that might just jump up and bite you in the bite regarding your guns.

take note of my signature regarding majority rule.

:{>: :tro: :{>: :{>: I've never used the hearts, but when you write something with that much function (and such poor form,) then you get my trophy of love.

Wouldn't be surpised if they came up with that way of cross-sectioning a skull.

:{> back atchya , at least we agree on one thing , Muslims and my lack of writing skills.

^^

thats two things

i think logical people know better than to lump an entire group of people into a category because of the actions of a few.

Don't be so certain, Deb! :D

I think its more than a few , a few is three , its more than three.

Hey Now.
You are the one that cant count.
Dont you go defining a few.

so, more than three means it's all of them?

Just seems that way.

People have said I seem silly, junvenile
and in no way funny, just irritating.
Does that make it true?

That was meant as a rhetorical question,
no answer required.

i guess this sample size is large enough to tell me that all teachers are irritating.

may not be true, just seems that way.


pat, i hope you know i'm just using you as a point of reference! ;)

Let me tell you why it seems that way. Who is going after the Muslims involved in 911? The leader of Turkey constantly looks for support to fight terrorism in his country. He's received logistical help from the U.S. This helps him fight the PKK Kurdish Terrorists that are in Northern Iraq. So, he has no problem sending troops of his own to kill Muslim Terrorists. Now, what about the Muslim terrorists that killed mainly Christians in New York? AHA, now we get to Honu's point. Of course not all Muslims want to blow things up etc., but they also don't have any interest in helping Christians go after fellow Muslims. This is why she probably feels Muslims aren't exactly torn up inside when terrorists kill Christians. Turkey is part of NATO. Are they sending in forces to fight the Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan? They sent a small token force, and they want it to be clear that they are a non-combat force. Whether the leader of Turkey wanted to send combat forces or not, he can't. The reason he can't, is because his Muslim population will not stand for helping Christians catch fellow Muslims. So, it's o.k. for Muslims to kill Muslims. It's absurd for a Muslim to fight fellow Muslims if it's to help Christians. That's why I agree with Honu about Muslims being quietly in favor of Muslims that blow themselves up. Moving their mouths is one thing. They are great at couching arguments to make Christians think stuff(such as Turks saying they are against terrorism.) Are they going after the Hamas terrorists? No, they encourage them. Why? This would mean Honu is mainly correct. Most Turks and other Muslims back the terrorist group Hamas. The reason they back that terrorist group is because they terrorize Jews. Why aren't Muslims willing to go after al-Qaida? It's because they terrorize Christians and Jews. Anytime the Turks and others want to help fight Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan etc. with actual blood, then I will be much more apt to disagree with HONU on this. Until then, I see nothing but a quiet encouragement by Muslims towards Muslim Terrorists that attack Non-Muslims.

Nice points Scuds and I thank you for having such good writing skills .
If you look on a world map where the densest Mulism populations are you will see that is where there is almost all the violence. When Muslim people live in an area where they are the minority there isnt as much violence , maybe its because they become assimilated to their enviroment or they realize once being out of their hostile enviroment that it is easier to live in peace.
I can honestly say that I hold a grudge against them , they attacked us for no good reason , they harmed so many people that never had touched their lives in anyway. They brought this upon themselves and I dont see enough of their leaders calling an end to it , its like they just dont care that the people who are most seen in the public eye are the one's killing innocent people and until then I most likely will view middle eastern Muslims as being of the terrorist nature. This is most likely a fault of mine and everyone else has the right to believe what they want.

you're confusing an entire group with a few sick, twisted individuals. in other words, you're giving right back what the few criminals gave to us- blind, unthinking hatred. some of them want all of us dead, apparently some of us feel the same way.
isn't that just grand...

you guys are getting as bad as Morty and Cowgirl

Are you talking about Timothy McVeigh?

Yes but he is dead and therefore no longer a threat to anyone , everyone has a right to believe what they want and feel how they feel.
It took a very longtime for people to forgive the Japanese for attacking us , but they have shown themselves to be worth forgiving , Im not seeing that in this situation. To be honest we most likely should pull all of our troops out of those middle eastern countries right now because we arent going to win because they have no desire to change. It might be best to just let them blow each other up and spare us Americans and the next time they attack us just full on throw everything we have at them from the air and ask questions later.

Its not grand but they sure as hell dont represent themselves well , you know the peace loving one's , the ones we never hear from. Where are they ?Why arent they standing up against the people that they are allowing to speak the loudest for them ?
It didnt just start at the twin towers , it started long before that and we didnt do anything to stop them from becoming more brazen , we just let it go as issolated inccidents instead of showing some force on the subject.
They would do themselves a great bit of good to start showing some people in the news , people of clout amongst them denouncing and calling and end to violence , but instead they let "a few" as you call them speak for all.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam...d_terrorism_2/

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/

http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1052203.html


that's just for starters. i suggest you do searches from now on on topics, rather than just taking whatever bad news you hear as gospel. also, keep in mind what sells newspapers and tv ads-usually blood, guts, gloom and doom.
and of course it helps 'us' fight a war when we demonize and dehumanize the enemy, right?

I will return to the meteorology
board where I am treated with honour
and referred to as Dr. Dewpoint.

"They" are just like the overwhelming majority of their Christian or Jewish or Buddist or atheist fellow humans on this planet: they are going about their peaceful, moral lives, raising families, putting food on the table, working.

Honu, you've created great clutter and disruption with this "all" word. I care. So, I have put a reminder note for myself n' you, and used it as my signature. I hope it helps. Just remember Chocolate M&M (MOST & MANY.)

No, most Muslims see Muslims as superior. This is why they have no interest in going after Muslim terrorist groups that attack Non-Muslims. This is why Nato member Turkey will not send men into combat to catch AL Quaeda etc. Their words are as you say. Their actions always show their actual beliefs. We care about catching those that killed innocent people on 9-11. If they were "just like the overwhelming majority of their Christian or Jewish or Buddist or atheist fellow humans on this planet" then they would also want to go after al Quaeda, but I see almost no interest in it coming from these people.

Funny.

My experience has been that it's some Christians who have the grandest superiority complex.

So how are we supposed to view the enemy ? Are we to just view them as misunderstood people ? I most likely can find just as many or more websites that condone Jihad . Do you think your outlook would have won us WW2 , I mean surely not all Germans , Japanese or Italians were bad guys right ?

Well it doesn't surprise me, because you just ignored an obvious case where Muslims refused to go after Muslims that killed thousands of New Yorkers. You're gunna ignore what you want to ignore. The fact is Muslims typically see other Muslims as superior to others. They are refusing to shed blood to bring them to justice.

Where's the help in catching the scum that was in charge of the 9-11 killings? Talk is cheap. I will believe it when I see Muslim forces die fighting those who were in charge of 9-11.

yeah, you probably could find ones that condone and promote jihad. no doubt in my mind, just like here during ww 2 you could find nazi sympathisers-such as charles lindbergh. or you could go to britain and talk to the duke of buckingham, the former king of england who abdicated. he liked hitler. i'd imagine i'd hate all nazis-that doesn't mean i'd hate all germans however.

my contention is that not all muslims are the terror-promoting, bomb-toting killers you think they are. as for ww 2, i would have wanted us to do any and everything necessary to defeat our enemies. my issue with you on THIS matter is that you view an entire group of people as our enemy. muslims aren't a country...are they? they're found everywhere, including here.
and keep in mind, i'm not a 'dove' by any means. i even joined the navy, and would go back if necessary. luckily there are younger and stronger folks who can do so for me, i'm afraid i'm past my prime.

The first thing would be to learn who the enemy is.

It's not "Muslims".