Areas highlighted in RED are subject to question.

U.S Constitution preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Using Scientific Method what do you think the outcome would be?

Question: Is homosexuality unconstitutional?

Hypothesis: Homosexuality is unconstitutional

Experiment: Using two control groups

1.Place 10 straight couples in a controlled environment in this case a small island with sustainable food and water as well as shelter. With no outside influence.

2. Place 10 homosexual couples in a controllable environment as well. With the same assets as control group one. With no outside influence.

Ask both groups to grow and prosper and provide domestic tranquility.

Answer? What are the possible outcomes?

By odds the straight control group could and most likely would  last multiple generations compared to control group 2.   If the homosexual groups got lucky and gave birth to a child or two. They would progress at a much lower rate than group 1. Have a very good chance of going extinct by the end of a second generation. Unless the one or two children they might get are straight.

While group 1 would fulfill its requirements of posterity, growth, and domestic tranquility.

So from this without fully testing the hypothesis. I would say YES. Homosexuality is unconstitutional!. Now we know why some want the constitution banned from the U.S

Sorry I only have 2 minutes until I'm gone so keep that in mind.

Question: Is chocolate unconstitutional?

Hypothesis: chocolate is unconstitutional

Experiment: Using two control groups

1.Place 10 straight couples in a controlled environment in this case a small island with sustainable food and water as well as shelter. With no outside influence.

2. Place 10 chocolate bars in a controllable environment as well. With the same assets as control group one. With no outside influence.

Ask both groups to grow and prosper and provide domestic tranquility.

Answer? What are the possible outcomes?

By odds the straight control group could and most likely would last multiple generations compared to control group 2. If the chocolate groups got lucky and gave birth to a mars bar or two. They would progress at a much lower rate than group 1. Have a very good chance of going extinct by the end of a second generation. Unless the one or two children they might get aren't a food item.

While group 1 would fulfill its requirements of posterity, growth, and domestic tranquility.

So from this without fully testing the hypothesis. I would say YES. Chocolate is unconstitutional!. Now we know why some want the constitution banned from the U.S (fatties in particular)

Your premise is flawed.

Your group number 2 can have the same number of children as group number 1 you know.

If there is a male and a female of the species a child can be created regardless if the group is homosexual or not. Hence they can guarantee the guidelines of the constitution.

Yeah it's shocking but gay and lesbians can have sex for reproductive purposes with the members of the opposite sex:)

Originally posted by Tymoris

Your premise is flawed.

Your group number 2 can have the same number of children as group number 1 you know.

If there is a male and a female of the species a child can be created regardless if the group is homosexual or not. Hence they can guarantee the guidelines of the constitution.

Yeah it's shocking but gay and lesbians can have sex for reproductive purposes with the members of the opposite sex:)

Would you care to share examples? Sorry to anyone who is gay out there. I am not saying it is not o.k for you to do what you do as far as sexual preference. But if a man is attracted to other men. I would find it hard to believe that a gay man could hold a<Bleep> long enough to get a woman pregnant. Or for that matter a woman to "O" during ovulation at the same time with a opposite sex partner. Especially if she is not attracted to men. If the man is gay! My brother in-law is gay. He cannot with a woman. But then again he thinks most women are disgusting :-)

I am just throwing this argument out for debate.

Here is a link for you to read on.nbs.gmnews.com/news/2007-09-27/front_page/030.html but if you want the full scoop on this subject. Just Google "Gays having Children".

Something to think about of the 56,400,000 topics on this subject. None I have seen so far show anywhere where a gay biologically consumated. While I find the answer"it is possible". I see no evidence to change my current view. If you can give me a example I would probably be more inclined to take that in account.

IT IS POSSIBLE for me to get struck by a meteor while eating pizza. But  the odds are very high against such happening.

Originally posted by xpowderx

Areas highlighted in RED are subject to question.

 

U.S Constitution preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Using Scientific Method what do you think the outcome would be?

Question: Is homosexuality unconstitutional?

Hypothesis: Homosexuality is unconstitutional

Experiment: Using two control groups

1.Place 10 straight couples in a controlled environment in this case a small island with sustainable food and water as well as shelter. With no outside influence.

2. Place 10 homosexual couples in a controllable environment as well. With the same assets as control group one. With no outside influence.

Ask both groups to grow and prosper and provide domestic tranquility.

Answer? What are the possible outcomes?

By odds the straight control group could and most likely would  last multiple generations compared to control group 2.   If the homosexual groups got lucky and gave birth to a child or two. They would progress at a much lower rate than group 1. Have a very good chance of going extinct by the end of a second generation. Unless the one or two children they might get are straight.

While group 1 would fulfill its requirements of posterity, growth, and domestic tranquility.

So from this without fully testing the hypothesis. I would say YES. Homosexuality is unconstitutional!. Now we know why some want the constitution banned from the U.S

First off, well made though flawed.

                  You are asking them to prosper under controlled moderated forms.

You cannot biodome Gay folks the same way you biodome Hetro.

Different cultures and the such. Gay couples make a huge percentage in adoptions. Obviously there are straight folks out there adopting their children out.

So is the straight group who adopts out being counter to tranquility? After all giving your kids up isn't very civic minded (regardless of if you think it's for the best).

Anyhow, the Gay folks would either need to breed or adopt.

Both are popular and by no means a reduction in the "gay culture".    

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------         

On Topic Entirely.

You are defining prosperity,tranquility, and general welfare on BREEDING.

Everything that promotes these things can be found amongst both straight and gay, as well as the counter to this.

Your experiment is flawed by this greatly. You are placing too much on bio engineering baby's (which is what our bodies do).

You fail to mention the culture, the growth and so forth. Only that these ten people won't have babies.

Furthermore in such a small scale as you have demonstrated you've also made it entirely unrealistic for Gay folks to actually have children. Now is that a bad thing that gay folks slow population? Definately.

To me properity means more than just kids. It's the entire suit. 

See in my mind. You've scaled this experiment to win for hetro as naturally 5 men and 5 females the chances of population growth is there.

However you failed to mention parts about food supplies, so forth. A larger population means more food.

Your experiment isn't about constitutional rights or wrongs, it's based on populas.

Back to the drawing board for you.

That was a short break from the forums....

Originally posted by xpowderx

Originally posted by Tymoris

Your premise is flawed.

Your group number 2 can have the same number of children as group number 1 you know.

If there is a male and a female of the species a child can be created regardless if the group is homosexual or not. Hence they can guarantee the guidelines of the constitution.

Yeah it's shocking but gay and lesbians can have sex for reproductive purposes with the members of the opposite sex:)

Would you care to share examples? Sorry to anyone who is gay out there. I am not saying it is not o.k for you to do what you do as far as sexual preference. But if a man is attracted to other men. I would find it hard to believe that a gay man could hold a<Bleep> long enough to get a woman pregnant. Or for that matter a woman to "O" during ovulation at the same time with a opposite sex partner. Especially if she is not attracted to men. If the man is gay! My brother in-law is gay. He cannot with a woman. But then again he thinks most women are disgusting :-)

I am just throwing this argument out for debate.

Here is a link for you to read on.nbs.gmnews.com/news/2007-09-27/front_page/030.html but if you want the full scoop on this subject. Just Google "Gays having Children".

Something to think about of the 56,400,000 topics on this subject. None I have seen so far show anywhere where a gay biologically consumated. While I find the answer"it is possible". I see no evidence to change my current view. If you can give me a example I would probably be more inclined to take that in account.

IT IS POSSIBLE for me to get struck by a meteor while eating pizza. But  the odds are very high against such happening.

You're kidding right?

Guys have sex with cows.

Have you been living under a rock? Men will put their penis in just about anything, and have.

Historically speaking, the straight island would have a few murders before stabalizing. If the dispersal of women to men is equal then the men will kill eachother off until there are more woment than men. With enough time, this would happen anyway, since more women are born than men. But there have been more than a few times where men and women have been left in isolated areas and the men killed eachother off.

The staight Island would continue for several (inbred) generations but the gay population would be more stable even though it would die out.

So it's a tie.

Even if some 30% of the nation was unbreedable to what you call a "disease" the stance that the founders would have had would have been "the govt. shouldn't care".   And probably would have said something about social morality being the job of the state, meaning that constitution could have never been drug into something as retarded as this.

Originally posted by paulscott

Even if some 30% of the nation was unbreedable to what you call a "disease" the stance that the founders would have had would have been "the govt. shouldn't care".   And probably would have said something about social morality being the job of the state, meaning that constitution could have never been drug into something as retarded as this.

You are correct that the constitution should not have been dragged around for the past 40 years or so by Gay activist's and supporters. I concur!

If the founders had to make a stance I doubt they would say what you said. As the majority of the founders were both Protestant and Free Masons.

Originally posted by xpowderx

Originally posted by paulscott

Even if some 30% of the nation was unbreedable to what you call a "disease" the stance that the founders would have had would have been "the govt. shouldn't care".   And probably would have said something about social morality being the job of the state, meaning that constitution could have never been drug into something as retarded as this.

You are correct that the constitution should not have been dragged around for the past 40 years or so by Gay activist's and supporters. I concur!

If the founders had to make a stance I doubt they would say what you said. As the majority of the founders were both Protestant and Free Masons.

Actually, most of the founders were deists who paid lip service to Christianity for political reasons. But even under the tenents of Protestantism, a person's sex life is between them and God and no business of other mortals. Protestant theology stresses that one should foster a personal relationship with God rather the institutionalized relationship that was put forth by the Catholic Church. Likewise, it is impossible under Protestantism for mortal men and women to know with any certainty who is elect and who is damned. Good works are not a measure of salvation in the Protestant theology. 

In short, Protestants believed that you should worry more about your own soul than your neighbor's.

The constitution gives them every right to be Gay.
The founders did not want anyone to be forced in to a religion they did not agree with.
(for the Religious people out there. God does not want anyone forced to Obey his way, the commandments are for the ones that want to follow Gods ways.)

Now its not unconstitutional for them to be Gay or live as they want.

What is unconstitutional is for them to try to force us to say they there lifestyle is OK and acceptable by us.

If you want to live your life that way it’s the will of God and also your rights given by the creator and in the USA protected by the constitution.

That the state government can not take away your God given rights (at least not the ones listed in the bill of rights.)

And the Federal government is what should be protecting your rights that the constitution tells them they- (the federal or state Government) can not take away.

Yet it seems that it’s the federal government that is trying to take the freedom from the people.

Just as its their right to be Gay, it our right to not support them in their lifestyle.
 

Federally recognized marriage is unconstitutional.  It doesn't matter if you are straight or gay, the constitution clearly states religion is suppose to be separate from state affairs.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by xpowderx

Originally posted by paulscott

Even if some 30% of the nation was unbreedable to what you call a "disease" the stance that the founders would have had would have been "the govt. shouldn't care".   And probably would have said something about social morality being the job of the state, meaning that constitution could have never been drug into something as retarded as this.

You are correct that the constitution should not have been dragged around for the past 40 years or so by Gay activist's and supporters. I concur!

If the founders had to make a stance I doubt they would say what you said. As the majority of the founders were both Protestant and Free Masons.

 

Actually, most of the founders were deists who paid lip service to Christianity for political reasons. But even under the tenents of Protestantism, a person's sex life is between them and God and no business of other mortals. Protestant theology stresses that one should foster a personal relationship with God rather the institutionalized relationship that was put forth by the Catholic Church. Likewise, it is impossible under Protestantism for mortal men and women to know with any certainty who is elect and who is damned. Good works are not a measure of salvation in the Protestant theology. 

In short, Protestants believed that you should worry more about your own soul than your neighbor's.

what Founders are you talking about?
 

the ones of the constitution? or the Pilgrims?

but yes they did not want anyone to be forced in to a religion like they had been back in England.

how would anyone in the USA like being forced to be Muslim?

Originally posted by xpowderx

Areas highlighted in RED are subject to question.

 

U.S Constitution preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

what is our Goverment doing to insure domestic tranquility? walking all over the constitution promoting,

Tea partys all over the USA.

what are they doing to promote the general welfare? spending more money then we can repay. bankrupting the country. and giving themselfs a pay rase.

well this will put us on welfare but wait they do not have any money for welfare there Broke.

what are they doing to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?

What posterity the only ones making money are our elected representatives and there buddies,

as our Government goes bankrupt

Vote everyone Out. we need a real change clean the white house out.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Federally recognized marriage is unconstitutional.  It doesn't matter if you are straight or gay, the constitution clearly states religion is suppose to be separate from state affairs.

Cleffy can you tell me where in the Constitution it says that?

just please point it out. oh its not in there is it. lol you do not even know do you.

now i am picking on you some. but i not attacking you ok.

i want you to look it up and then message me ok. to many people think that its in the constitution but that is not.

but i agree that no state can declare that you have to be of the state religon.

Originally posted by DeadDOG

Originally posted by Cleffy

Federally recognized marriage is unconstitutional.  It doesn't matter if you are straight or gay, the constitution clearly states religion is suppose to be separate from state affairs.

 

Cleffy can you tell me where in the Constitution it says that?

just please point it out. oh its not in there is it. lol you do not even know do you.

now i am picking on you some. but i not attacking you ok.

i want you to look it up and then message me ok. to many people think that its in the constitution but that is not.

but i agree that no state can declare that you have to be of the state religon.

Try reading the first amendment.

Originally posted by DeviousInc

Originally posted by DeadDOG

Originally posted by Cleffy

Federally recognized marriage is unconstitutional.  It doesn't matter if you are straight or gay, the constitution clearly states religion is suppose to be separate from state affairs.

 

Cleffy can you tell me where in the Constitution it says that?

just please point it out. oh its not in there is it. lol you do not even know do you.

now i am picking on you some. but i not attacking you ok.

i want you to look it up and then message me ok. to many people think that its in the constitution but that is not.

but i agree that no state can declare that you have to be of the state religon.

 

Try reading the first amendment.

Amendment I - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

so tell me where it said "constitution clearly states religion is suppose to be separate from state affairs."

from what i see it said that The state and federal Government are to stay out of religion. Not that religion or religious people are to stay out of the state.

but then again i did Read it.

maybe you need to Read it also.

Originally posted by DeadDOG

Originally posted by DeviousInc

Originally posted by DeadDOG

Originally posted by Cleffy

Federally recognized marriage is unconstitutional.  It doesn't matter if you are straight or gay, the constitution clearly states religion is suppose to be separate from state affairs.

 

Cleffy can you tell me where in the Constitution it says that?

just please point it out. oh its not in there is it. lol you do not even know do you.

now i am picking on you some. but i not attacking you ok.

i want you to look it up and then message me ok. to many people think that its in the constitution but that is not.

but i agree that no state can declare that you have to be of the state religon.

 

Try reading the first amendment.

 

Amendment I - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

so tell me where it said "constitution clearly states religion is suppose to be separate from state affairs."

from what i see it said that The state and federal Government are to stay out of religion. Not that religion or religious people are to stay out of the state.

but then again i did Read it.

maybe you need to Read it also.

It clearly says make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What this means is that no law shall be passed with the intention to satisfy the agenda of any religion or religious organization.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by DeadDOG

Originally posted by DeviousInc

Originally posted by DeadDOG

Originally posted by Cleffy

Federally recognized marriage is unconstitutional.  It doesn't matter if you are straight or gay, the constitution clearly states religion is suppose to be separate from state affairs.

 

Cleffy can you tell me where in the Constitution it says that?

just please point it out. oh its not in there is it. lol you do not even know do you.

now i am picking on you some. but i not attacking you ok.

i want you to look it up and then message me ok. to many people think that its in the constitution but that is not.

but i agree that no state can declare that you have to be of the state religon.

 

Try reading the first amendment.

 

Amendment I - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

so tell me where it said "constitution clearly states religion is suppose to be separate from state affairs."

from what i see it said that The state and federal Government are to stay out of religion. Not that religion or religious people are to stay out of the state.

but then again i did Read it.

maybe you need to Read it also.

It clearly says make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What this means is that no law shall be passed with the intention to satisfy the agenda of any religion or religious organization.

I am amused. Went from a Scientific Hypothesis to talking about religion and its constitutional value. I think the religion thing came up when I mentioned in opposing argument that our forefathers may not have said what Paul said they would say. Still leaves my basis for the hypothesis. I still have not seen any evidence that a gay couple can reproduce naturally without the use of a external source. BBL off to work.