BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 09:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye had you not taken notice yet that our friend Debra does not live in the real universe?

Yes we both know that her only hope to get the "rights" she claim granted is to convince the majority that they are deserve.

However she is in this strange universe where any moment at least 5 of the nine supreme court justices will see the truth and the light of her words and order all of us to enter the pink world of gay rights.

The fact that the court is now a far cry from the 1970s court that granted abortion rights seem to not to get through to her.

Or the fact that if the court did try to do this level of social engineering that prop 8 would likely be the next US amendment shortly afterward.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 09:52 pm
@BillRM,
I am so sick of "win at any cost", intellectually dishonest, uncivil, attack dog, ideology driven hacks. We all just people here, we should be able to talk about things honestly, with the goal of reaching consensus, or as near consensus as we can get. It is not just the right wingers who are to blame for the breakdown of discourse and democracy, it is the left as well.

BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 10:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
Lord not all concerns in this society can be clearly broken down as left/right issues Hawkeye!

In any case Debra does not have the ability to used her mind in a rational manner when her axiom that gay rights is fundamental is call into question.



0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 03:05 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice."


Considering that 36 states have fetal homicide laws, and use them, Bullshit........the SC has not agreed with Scalia. You Debra are attempting to back up your argument with a Supreme court Justice who has so far lost the argument..If you know as much about the law as you claim to then you already know this. A little intellectual honesty from you would be refreshing.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm


Any small sign of intelligence on your part would be refreshing. You're a moron. We weren't discussing private parties who assault pregnant women. A third person does not have a right to assault or murder pregnant women and/or to cause unconsensual harm to their unborn fetuses. Your reference to fetal homicide laws has no relevance whatsoever because we were discussing the CONSTITUTION.

It completely escapes your comprehension that the CONSTITUTION secures individual liberty against GOVERNMENT denials or deprivations. The Constitution does not protect potential life from harm inflicted by the government. In other words, if a pregnant woman does not have a fundamental right secured by the Constitution to determine her own procreative destiny, then the State would have the power to compel her to have an abortion in order to serve some asserted state interest.

In the 1927 case posted, the Court affirmed a State order that compelled the sterilization of a woman. The Court noted, "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." The Court appeared to embrace eugenics. (We know about the atrocities committed in furtherance of the Nazi eugenics program.) That case, however, pre-dated Roe v. Wade wherein the Court held that a woman has a right secured by the Constitution to determine her own procreative destiny. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Justice O'Connor wrote the following:

Quote:
If indeed the woman's interest in deciding whether to bear and beget a child had not been recognized as in Roe, the State might as readily restrict a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term as to terminate it, to further asserted state interests in population control, or eugenics, for example. Yet Roe has been sensibly relied upon to counter any such suggestions. E.g., Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia County, Ala., 880 F. 2d 305, 311 (CA11 1989) (relying upon Roe and concluding that government officials violate the Constitution by coercing a minor to have an abortion); Avery v. County of Burke, 660 F. 2d 111, 115 (CA4 1981) (county agency inducing teenage girl to undergo unwanted sterilization on the basis of misrepresentation that she had sickle cell trait); see also In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A. 2d 647, cert. denied sub nom. Garger v. New Jersey, 429 U.S. 922 (1976) (relying on Roe in finding a right to terminate medical treatment).


Because we the people have individual right to determine our own procreative destinies and because that right is secured by the Constitution, the State does not have any power or authority to compel a program of population control or eugenics through forced sterilizations and abortions.


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 04:17 am
@Debra Law,
Hmm I had yet to hear how it feel for you Debra to had place yourself in agreement with slaveholders concerning their contempt for the average citizen or as you and they had name us the mob.

Still love that.

On the one hand you wish to denial the right of self government by the majority and on the next hand you wish to used a nine man court to add rights out of thin air for a 5 or so percent minority who only thing they happen to share in common is a sexual disorder.

Yes the mob is very dangerous as it tend to have far more common sense then you or the courts at times had shown.




spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 05:00 am
@Debra Law,
Quote:
Right or wrong: Because the Constitution does not protect potential life, the state could force men and women to be sterilized and/or force women to have abortions in order to promote the state's compelling interests in population control and conserving scarce resources.


States have done that. Forced sterilisations have been done. In numbers.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 06:03 am
@spendius,
States have done that. Forced sterilisations have been done. In numbers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not since the 20s or 30s time period had that been a true statement.

The Nazis gave such behaviors a bad name after that.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 09:15 am
@BillRM,
I only pointed it out to show that it was considered "constitutional" at some point.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 12:07 pm
@spendius,
As far as I know it is still consider constitution but I never research the subject one way or another.

It just stop after the example the nazis created place it in a bad light.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 12:11 pm
Nazis also gathered up homosexuals and killed them. I guess they had the right since they were the majority... Rolling Eyes

I mean, they were just killing sexually disordered people who wouldn't breed. Society has no need to promote that. Isn't that right Bill?

T
K
O
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 12:32 pm
@Diest TKO,
In THAT Society, they felt it was necessary to do away with homosexuals, Jews and Blacks. That was their choice. They fought wars over that. They lost. Now their Society acts differently.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 12:35 pm
@Diest TKO,
Hmm it we could only get that unlisting of homosexuality as a disorder in 1971 reverse it look like we could still sterilely them.

Now where is our law expert when you need her?

But do not worry TKO as I am sure it will not hurt at all<smile>.

The law is amazing.................Still shaking my head in disbelieve


1. uire care, supeDOC]
STERILISATION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
Seventeen US states still retained sterilisation laws on their statute books as .... of having forced sterilisation or abortions without proper consent. ...
www.qai.org.au/documents


In the USA, by the middle of the 20th century, thirty seven states had passed sterilisation laws, the first being in 1907. It has been estimated that 70,000 people with disability were sterilised by 1960 following a failed constitutional challenge in 1927 set by the legal case Buck v Bell. (Bates, 1987) The outcome of this case ensured that anyone residing in State Institutions having an intellectual disability, or anyone with a mental illness, or any woman who was congenitally deaf, would not be seen as eligible to reproduce. Such moves were supported by the Human Betterment Foundation with substantial support in California, where around 8,000 sterilisations happened within the first five years following the case. (Park and Radford, 1998) Later the pseudo scientific IQ tests were used as the basis for determining intellectual disability and deeming which people were eligible for sterilisation. (Bates, 1987)
The mid 20th Century
Seventeen US states still retained sterilisation laws on their statute books as late as the 1980s. Between 1969 and 1989, in one institution in Virginia, 212 sterilisations were performed on 87 men and 125 women, (Smith and Polway, 1993) and in another institution in the US, 656 castrations were performed to stop men with disability from masturbating. (Mauer, 1991)
This situation also confirmed the belief that people with disability are morally defective. In fact this term was used to define those ‘in whose case there exists mental defectiveness, coupled with strong vicious or criminal propensities and who reqrvision and control for the protection of others’. (BFI, 2003)
The Australian Scene
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 12:38 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

In THAT Society, they felt it was necessary to do away with homosexuals, Jews and Blacks. That was their choice. They fought wars over that. They lost. Now their Society acts differently.

Yep, they lost the war. Fact. Guess What, they would have still been wrong if they had won.

Might does not make right.

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 12:44 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Hmm it we could only get that unlisting of homosexuality as a disorder in 1971 reverse it look like we could still sterile them.

Wow. So you don't support gay couples having children because it requires science/biological intervention, but you'd use science/biological intervention to sterilize gays?

You make a grand fool of yourself every time your fingers touch the keys.
BillRM wrote:

But do not worry TKO as I am sure it will not hurt at all<smile>.

Oh no! He insinuates that I am in fact a homosexual! He uses it as if it was an insult! Calling me gay isn't an insult, it's only evidence of how unintelligent you are.

Listen Bill, I'll volunteer to get a vasectomy. I'd still be more sexually potent than you'd be intellectually potent.

T
K
O
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 01:07 pm
@Diest TKO,
No sense of humor or ability to read at all it would seem!
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 01:13 pm
@Diest TKO,
Oh no! He insinuates that I am in fact a homosexual! He uses it as if it was an insult! Calling me gay isn't an insult, it's only evidence of how unintelligent you are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but you let the cat out of the bag and yourself out of the closet with the strong undertones of love in your postings direct at Hawkeye.


Listen Bill, I'll volunteer to get a vasectomy. I'd still be more sexually potent than you'd be intellectually potent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are trying to hurt my feelings what a cattie/gay thing to do. shame on you.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 03:45 pm
@Diest TKO,
Might does not make right.
-----------------------------------

The winners write the history and we did level whole cities both in Germany and Japan.

We use the first two weapons of mass destruction in the history of the human race on two of those cities full of women and children.

With atom weapons there was no more need to place two thousands heavy bombers over cities to do the same thing.

Our partner the former USSR wipe out whole nations and ethic groups that more then match in numbers anything Hitler did during his fairly short period in power.

Stalin however die in his own bed of natural causes even those the blood of far more victims were on his hands then Hitler had.

Might may or may not mean right but it does allow you live out your normal life span.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote more then one of the leaders of the Nazis party was gay and fairly openly gay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 03:54 pm
@Diest TKO,
Nazis also gathered up homosexuals and killed them. I guess they had the right since they were the majority...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 15, 2008

The truth about homosexuality and the Nazi Party

By Bryan Fischer


In his book, "The Pink Swastika," Lively exposes a secret homosexual activists don't want you to know about Nazi Germany: that although the Nazis did persecute homosexuals, the homosexuals the Nazis persecuted were almost exclusively the effeminate members of the gay community in Germany, and that much of the mistreatment was administered by masculine homosexuals who despised effeminacy in all its forms.

Ludwig Lenz worked at the Sex Research Institute in Berlin, which was destroyed by Hitler's Brown Shirts in 1933 likely because its records, including 40,000 confessions from members of the Nazi Party, would have exposed the sexual perversions of Nazi leadership. Lenz said that "not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal."

In fact, the Nazi Party began in a gay bar in Munich, and Ernst Roehm, Hitler's right hand in the early days of Nazism, was well-known for his taste in young boys. William Shirer says in his definitive "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," not only that Roehm was "important in the rise of Hitler," but also "like so many of the early Nazis, (he was) a homosexual."

Hitler eventually had Roehm shot, not because he was a homosexual but because his influence over the Brown Shirts made him a political threat to Hitler's control. The Roehm Purge, or "Night of the Long Knives," was largely implemented by homosexuals.

Hitler's Brown Shirts, the dreaded SA, better known as "Storm Troopers," were the creation of another homosexual, Gerhard Rossbach, and Storm Troopers were almost exclusively homosexual. They also, sadly, comprised most of the leadership of the Hitler Youth, resulting in frequent instances of sexual molestation.

The Brown Shirts were Hitler's enforcers. According to Nazi historian Louis Snyder, Roehm recruited homosexuals into the SA because Roehm felt Germany needed "a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in (Roehm's) eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homosexuals."

Of the Brown Shirts, historian Thomas Fuchs says, "The principle function of this army-like organization was beating up on anyone who opposed the Nazis, and Hitler believed this was a job best undertaken by homosexuals."

Historian H.R. Knickerbocker writes, "Roehm, as the head of 2,500,000 Storm Troops, had surrounded himself with a staff of perverts. His chiefs were almost without exception homosexuals. Indeed, unless a Storm Troop officer were homosexual, he had no chance of advancement."

Most of Hitler's closest aides were homosexuals or sexual deviants. This circle included not only Roehm but the Hitler Youth leader, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Economics, Hermann Goering (who may not have been homosexual but who liked to dress in drag, paint his nails and put rouge on his cheeks), his personal attorney and his bodyguards. Hitler himself likely functioned as a male prostitute in the days of his youth in Vienna.

Heinrich Himmler, second in power only to Hitler, was publicly opposed to homosexuality but may have been a closet homosexual himself, and served Roehm faithfully and loyally until Roehm fell out of Hitler's favor. Himmler was deeply immersed in the occult, as was Hitler, which led them ultimately to replace every Christian holiday on the German calendar with a pagan counterpart.

In fact, Jews and clergy alike were targets of Nazi wrath. One of the favorite tunes of the Brown Shirts contained this line, "Storm Trooper Comrades, hang the Jews and put the priests against the wall."

In sum, as Lively points out, the masculine homosexual movement in Germany created the Brown Shirts, and the Brown Shirts in turn created the Nazi Party.

There of course is no question that the Nazis rounded up effeminate homosexuals and a great many of them died in slave labor camps as a result of mistreatment and disease. Historians estimate that less than one percent of Europe's homosexual community died at the hands of the Nazis. While even one such death is too many, this pales in comparison to the 85% of Europe's Jews who, unlike homosexuals, were sent to gas chambers.

Many of the guards and administrators responsible for concentration camp horrors were themselves homosexuals. Famous Nazi hunter Elie Weisel was sent to Auschwitz, where he discovered that the head of his part of the camp "loved children," and observed that "there was a considerable traffic in young children among homosexuals there."

A Nazi administrator at Treblinka, according to one historian, "had a harem of little Jewish boys" and "sought in Treblinka only the satisfaction of his homosexual instincts."

In some camps, SS guards would actually sponsor lotteries to see which of the "young attractive homosexuals" would go to whom, while at the same time, according to one historian, they "lashed out with special fury against those who showed effeminate traits." A Pink Triangle survivor said, "The ones who were soft were the ones who suffered terribly."

The "Butch" homosexual guards and capos were capable of unrestrained cruelty, sadism and savagery. A guard at Auschwitz, for instance, strangled, crushed and gnawed to death as many as 100 boys and young men a day while raping them at his leisure.

Historian Frank Rector writes of a film made by the SS "that was secretly made for the enjoyment of a select coterie of Nazis showing a wild drunken orgy of beautiful boys and handsome young men being whipped, raped and murdered by the SS."

Even today in America, it is chic in some homosexual circles for individuals to wear replicas of Nazi Germany uniforms, complete with iron crosses, storm trooper outfits, military boots and even swastikas.

Some parts of the American Nazi movement are explicitly homosexual. The National Socialist League, in fact, at last word restricts its membership to homosexual Nazis.

What's the point here? Simply that there is another side to the constant refrain from homosexual activists who frequently mention the Nazi persecution of homosexuals and in so doing imply that Christians who oppose the normalization of homosexuality are in effect crypto-Nazis.

The truth is that Christians and certain portions of the homosexual community alike had much to fear from the Nazis.

As has been famously said, those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it. Nazi Germany became the horror that it was because it rejected both Christianity and its clear teaching about human sexuality. These are mistakes no sane culture should ever make again.

(Source: The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively, Founders Publishing Foundation, 1995.)

© Bryan Fischer


Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 04:45 pm
@BillRM,
This must be your gay conspiracy wet dream!
I'm not sure if you read it first before posting it however. Effeminate gays were not the only ones targeted. Lesbians were targeted too. This guy Fischer would have us believe not only that there was a presence of gays amongst the Nazis but that in fact the Nazis were exacting a gay agenda.

Quote:
Some parts of the American Nazi movement are explicitly homosexual.
This is like saying that something works 10% of the time all the time.

Nice attempt to dodge though. Unless you plan to deny that gays were targeted by the nazis, my original point remains: A majority such as the Nazis acted to oppress a disfavored minority.

T
K
O
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 04:51 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

I love you Debra as you turn to the high flying and mean less words of a preamble that was written by 50 percent slaveholders and that have a number of clauses dealing with and supporting slavery within it.


BillRM wrote:
Hmm I had yet to hear how it feel for you Debra to had place yourself in agreement with slaveholders concerning their contempt for the average citizen or as you and they had name us the mob.

Still love that.



You are ill-informed as usual. What you really love is wallowing with unjustified pride in your own ignorance.

Of the thirteen original states, TEN states had outlawed slavery long before the Constitutional Convention took place in 1787. Most convention delegates were deeply opposed to slavery. Only THREE states, (Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina), allowed slavery. Of the 55 delegates present, only 13 came from slave states (far LESS than the 50 percent that you ignorantly alleged). Those three slave-holding states refused to participate in the convention if the slave trade was banned. In order to obtain the cooperation of these three states, compromises were made. Congress was granted the power to ban the slave trade, but that power could not be used for twenty years.

The oppression of black people by the slave states caused considerable contention. Because many citizens of the southern states believed that their cherished institution of slavery was under constant attack, they eventually seceded from the Union. See Declaration of Causes of Seceding States:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Here's what the people of Georgia said:

Quote:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. . . .

The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact.


After slave-holding southern states seceded from the Union, the CIVIL WAR took place. The southern states eventually surrendered and the northern non-slave-holding states WON the Civil War. The Civil War Amendments to the United States Constitution changed our constitutional landscape forever. The federal government acquired the constitutional power to secure and enforce our rights against STATE infringements. The States were constitutionally forbidden from depriving any person of equal protection of the laws.

You weren't paying attention in your elementary school history classes. That, however, does not excuse your current ignorance.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 54
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 11:23:29