Taking Bets
The more antics of judges I see, the more sympathetic I am to King Alfred’s method of putting them in their places.
"It is recorded in the “Mirror of Justices” that King Alfred the Great, the Saxon King hanged forty-four judges in one year for reasons of violating the code of conduct prescribed for the judges.” A GOOD BEGINNING.
Kansas also was for creation “science”
.
Next—flat earth, stork theory, Noah’s Ark, Bigfoot, pregnancy in swimming pool, and killer cockroaches in bouffant hairdos.Posted by Oink
04/06/2005 at 09:47 AM
And the last paragraph of hte story on PMSNBC says it all:
Meanwhile, Connecticut’s Senate was prepared to vote Wednesday on a bill that would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. The bill has broad support in both Democratic-controlled chambers of the Legislature.
You’ll find specific references to party affiliation throughout the story. Kansas’ Attorney General? A Republican. Kansas’ Governor? A Democrat. Kinda tells the whole story doesn’t it?
OCM, if it’s boring, don’t comment.
As to why? Homosexuals make up 3% of our population. Why is it the other 97% have to kowtow to their demands?
As for what 2 people do, I don’t care. But don’t go around demanding legislation to endorse or legalize/sanction your lifestyles.
Would that King Alfred the Great lived today!
I don’t bet on sure things.
Posted by Annoying Little Twerp
04/06/2005 at 05:43 PM
Vilmar, do you think the 97 percent should not have to kowtow to the demands of the 3 percent even if the 3 percent were morally right and the 97 percent were morally wrong?
Posted by Anthony Neville
04/07/2005 at 01:28 AM
Sorry, we do not live in a world where 97% are wrong.
Silly question.
Try again.
We don’t live in a world where all heterosexuals ( the 97 percent) are against gay marriage, either. Some of us support it. I’m asking do you think the majority (irrespective of size) should not have to kowtow to the minority even if the minority were morally right and the majority were morally wrong?
Posted by Anthony Neville
04/07/2005 at 02:53 PM
Sorry, does not matter. Your question is without merit because I have yet to encounter a situation where anyone has been able to prove that 3% were right and 97% opposed them. Civil rights? Nope? Hitler? Nope? Other global atrocities? Nope.
So until I have some frame of reference you are attempting to engage me in a discussion that has no merit. The hypothetical is too far fetched.
However, if we go to civil rights/integration, we’d see that there were more people (in the general public) against it back in the 60s (at least if my memory serves me right) than were for it----but it got passed anyway in Congress. The percentages were closer to 50/50 than 3/97, though.
Plus, what you think to be morally right may differ from what I think---and you may be in that 3%. So what right do you have to say YOU are right? --point--game--match
"--point--game--match"--Vilmar. Cobblers. Get the 97% out of your head because it includes people who support gay marriage. I’m trying to figure out if you’re a moral relativist or believe might makes right. I just can’t decide which one fits you. Would I be right to assume that it depends on the issue being discussed?
OLDCATMAN, most likely a bunch of religious maroons who believe homosexual acts are evil. But then I know of one or two Christians who post pictures of lusty women on their websites. Not only that, but their eyes are still not gouged out. Hypocracy reigns when one believes in absurdities.
Posted by Anthony Neville
04/08/2005 at 01:28 AM
