My conservative perspective on gay rights
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File
James Lee's testimony
On 17 April 2001, James Lee testified, before the McKinney panel, that the state had given DBT the directive to add to the purge list people who matched at least 90% of a last name. DBT objected, knowing that this would produce a huge number of false positives (non-felons).[7]
Lee went on saying that the state then ordered DBT to shift to an even lower threshold of 80% match, allowing also names to be reversed (thus a person named Thomas Clarence could be taken to be the same as Clarence Thomas). Besides this, middle initials were skipped, Jr. and Sr. suffixes dropped, and some nicknames and aliases were added to puff up the list.
"DBT told state officials", testified Lee, "that the rules for creating the [purge] list would mean a significant number of people who were not deceased, not registered in more than one county, or not a felon, would be included on the list. DBT made suggestions to reduce the numbers of eligible voters included on the list". According to Lee, to this suggestion the state told the company, "Forget about it".
"The people who worked on this (for DBT) are very adamant... they told them what would happen", said Lee. "The state expected the county supervisors to be the failsafe." Lee said his company will never again get involved in cleansing voting rolls. "We are not confident any of the methods used today can guarantee legal voters will not be wrongfully denied the right to vote", Lee told a group of Atlanta-area black lawmakers in March 2001.[8]
James Lee's testimony
On 17 April 2001, James Lee testified, before the McKinney panel, that the state had given DBT the directive to add to the purge list people who matched at least 90% of a last name. DBT objected, knowing that this would produce a huge number of false positives (non-felons).[7]
Lee went on saying that the state then ordered DBT to shift to an even lower threshold of 80% match, allowing also names to be reversed (thus a person named Thomas Clarence could be taken to be the same as Clarence Thomas). Besides this, middle initials were skipped, Jr. and Sr. suffixes dropped, and some nicknames and aliases were added to puff up the list.
"DBT told state officials", testified Lee, "that the rules for creating the [purge] list would mean a significant number of people who were not deceased, not registered in more than one county, or not a felon, would be included on the list. DBT made suggestions to reduce the numbers of eligible voters included on the list". According to Lee, to this suggestion the state told the company, "Forget about it".
"The people who worked on this (for DBT) are very adamant... they told them what would happen", said Lee. "The state expected the county supervisors to be the failsafe." Lee said his company will never again get involved in cleansing voting rolls. "We are not confident any of the methods used today can guarantee legal voters will not be wrongfully denied the right to vote", Lee told a group of Atlanta-area black lawmakers in March 2001.[8]
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
unbelievable. why in the world are you SPAMMING this thread with your stupid black vote issue? you do this on USMB and now here. seriously, what is wrong with you?
dixon76710
New member
From BC Roman law. Has NOTHING to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with the biology of procreation
"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_semper_certa_est
Marriage limited to heterosexuals has as much to do with religion as all the birds pairing off into heterosexual couples to build nests has to do with religion. Nothing whatsoever.
dixon76710
New member
Soooo why is it only "gay rights" that you advocate for? Kel suggested he should be able to marry whomever he wants, REGARDLESS of whether he is gay or not.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
1. it is not truth, you have been debunked hundreds of times on both boards. you're a laughing stock at USMB for constantly posting this garbage in nonrelated threads. the mods have to constantly move your crap.
2. if you want to tell the truth, start your own thread and stop spamming this one with completely non related issues.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
because homosexual relations are not illegal.
dixon76710
New member
Neither are platonic relations between two closely related adults. Not sure of your point. Other than revealing your true agenda.
i agree, same for all 'holy' books
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
apples/oranges. try to come up with a true analogy instead of false one.
dixon76710
New member
How so, they both are "not illegal", which was the ONLY justification you offered for special treatment for gays.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
99% or more of people do not get married because they want a platonic relationship. and it is NOT "special" treatment at all. it is the EXACT same treatment that two people of different sex get. how in the world you call allowing two people to get married, engaging in a legal relationship...."special"....is mind boggling. they get no extra rights that heterosexual get. right now, heterosexual have the "special" right to get married. it is unequal and clearly violates the constitution.
you probably support interracial marriage bans.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
How is it special treatment?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Its not a religious argument, Yurt. And I know no Christian personally who bashes gays.
dixon76710
New member
Where you getting lost. If its not made available to any two consenting adults its special treatment, yet you have no justification for such special treatment.
Equal protection requires at a minimum, that any distinction that discriminates between people, must be rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest. Marriage limited to heterosexual couples is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest in more kids with their mom and dad together to provide and care for the kids they create and fewer kids dependent on one or neither of those parents.
You want to limit marriage to sexual couples. Whats your legitimate governmental interest that is only served in the case of sexual couples? Youve offered nothing other than your personal desire that it be so.
dixon76710
New member
Special, as in not available to any two consenting adults. Marriage is made available to heterosexual couples, the only couples who procreate. If you only want to extend the current marriage limited to heterosexual couples, to gay couples, NOT to any two consenting adults, Youll need some justification for doing so. Any suggestions.