Is putting God back in schools really the best thing for the country?  If so, is this only the Christian god or do we let any other god in too?  If preventing people from acquiring a marriage license based solely on their sexual orientation an American ideal?  If so, does that mean we can deny people driver’s licenses based solely on sex, race, or sexual orientation?  Does the government really have any say as to when life begins and whether a woman has the right to end her pregnancy?  If so how is a miscarriage legally defined?  If a woman smokes/drinks during her pregnancy and she has a miscarriage, would that be defines negligent homicide?  Why is it that a political group that professes to be for small government and less government spending, that you turn to this government every time to prevent or stop what you do not agree with such as gay marriage, drugs, whatever?  Is this use of government really what America is about?
Let the shit storm begin.

 That's combining EVERYTHING that trolls start in a single post...

thanks for the input, about as much as I expected.

Quoted: thanks for the input, about as much as I expected.

...but then why would you ask?

because I'm hoping for something more, but expected what I got

Well, I appologize...it's kinda late for me, and that's the best that I could come up with.  

Quoted: Is putting God back in schools really the best thing for the country?  If so, is this only the Christian god or do we let any other god in too?  If preventing people from acquiring a marriage license based solely on their sexual orientation an American ideal?  If so, does that mean we can deny people driver’s licenses based solely on sex, race, or sexual orientation?  Does the government really have any say as to when life begins and whether a woman has the right to end her pregnancy?  If so how is a miscarriage legally defined?  If a woman smokes/drinks during her pregnancy and she has a miscarriage, would that be defines negligent homicide?  Why is it that a political group that professes to be for small government and less government spending, that you turn to this government every time to prevent or stop what you do not agree with such as gay marriage, drugs, whatever?  Is this use of government really what America is about? Let the shit storm begin.

I happen to agree with you 100%, on every point....but then I don't march lockstep with the rightwing on most issues.

Religion is not a school issue, it has nothing to do with education. Parents instill values, and guide religion. I don't WANT my school doing that for me.

Government shouldn't regulate life, attempt to define it or decide medical definition thereof. Government is for defending borders and maintaining roads, oh and defending the constitution.

Gay marriage means nothing to me. Homos can be married if they want. With a 50% divorce rating, they cannot possibly wreck marriage any worse than heteros are.

I don't like government interference in anything to do with individual choice or liberties.

Sue me, I'm different.

i don't think religion in schools will help anything.  teach the kids how to read and speak english instead.  

btw, i went to a catholic school.

Quoted: I happen to agree with you 100%, on every point....but then I don't march lockstep with the rightwing on most issues. Religion is not a school issue, it has nothing to do with education. Parents instill values, and guide religion. I don't WANT my school doing that for me. Government shouldn't regulate life, attempt to define it or decide medical definition thereof. Government is for defending borders and maintaining roads, oh and defending the constitution. Gay marriage means nothing to me. Homos can be married if they want. With a 50% divorce rating, they cannot possibly wreck marriage any worse than heteros are. I don't like government interference in anything to do with individual choice or liberties. Sue me, I'm different.

+1

This is really a clash between value systems.

The liberal value system is based on the premise that I want to do anything I feel like doing but I am entitled to have any damage created paid by someone else.

Examples of shifting responsibility:

welfare and other entitlements
socialized medicine
earned income credit
abortion
minimum wage
Social Security

The conservative value system is based on self responsibility.  If I screw myself up, it is my obligation to repair the damage without doing harm to another inocent human being.  

Examples of accepting responsibility:

vouchers
right-to-work
RKBA
adoption
free markets
death penalty
individual retirement accounts
medical savings accounts

Why are liberals (commies) so damn whiney?

Most of them are still bitter about all the forced potty training they endured in high school.

I don't necessarily believe religion should be taught in schools or forced upon anyone. But since it isn't being taught nor has it been, at least recently, I'm not concerned. I'll tell you what I am concerned about however. That's the left seemingly wanting to take religion out of everything! For instance, they cringe and freak out because the word GOD is used in the pledge of allegiance. I mean, what's the big deal? Nobody is forcing them to do so. But if one Commie bastard's little girl is in a class full of kids who have no problem saying it, he feels the need to try to take that right to say it away from everyone! And when I say religion, I am speaking specifically of Christianity. As we all know, if you are a Muslim, the left has no problem at all with you expressing yourself religiously, anywhere in public. That greatly concerns me when it appears they fear Christianity, but uphold Islam and other religions. Especially considering this nation is and has been a primarily Christian nation. Even worse, take a look at the nations liberal manufacturing facilities, better known as colleges. Not only do they seem to want to limit Christianity, but they also want you to learn about Islam. In some cases they even try to force you into those classes to learn about "the religion of peace". Anytime someone seems to want to hold back the religion I choose to worship while forcing me to study another, that seems far worse. I don't see the right trying to limit anyone else's religion in any way. They are free to worship in their own manner. So tell me, who worries you most on the issue, the left or right?

Abortion? That doesn't even require religious thinking to answer. It's murder. Most atheists would agree that murder is wrong. So because a Republican thinks using murder as a form of birth control because some woman who had sex and didn't want the burden of having a child wants to kill it, somehow makes it a religious issue? I'm sorry, but I don't see religion as being a factor here. If a man and woman choose to have sexual intercourse, then they are engaging in an action that can result in pregnancy. This is no great revelation seeing how we've been producing for many thousands of years! That's the choice a woman has! If she chooses to have sex, then she better be prepared to give birth to a child. If she's not, then don't have sex! That's the choice here. We don't have a choice to decide whether or not we can murder someone because they are not convienent for us. Otherwise, if we did, we likely wouldn't have many neighbors!

And your pathetic attempt at natural death justifying murder is rather absurd. There is a big difference between murder and natural death. Is a man dying after choking on a piece of beef not different that stabbing him (murder) through the heart with a butcher knife? I think so. But basically what you're saying is that because some pre-born babies don't live til birth, that makes it ok to kill them anytime you choose to do so? Well I have news for you genius, not all kids that are born live to reach adulthood either. So does that mean we should just shoot them at birth....because they might not live? Think before you say stupid things, please.

What does a marriage license have in common with a driver's license? A man or a woman can drive a car. There is nothing un-natural about that. A man or woman can accelerate, brake, and put gas in the car. But gay couples can't have a child on their own. Why? Because being gay is not normal. If everyone was gay, humans would be extinct in about another hundred years or so. Marriage is about family. You unite in marriage to form a bond and create the foundations of family. You can't build a home on a shitty foundation, otherwise that home will topple. You can't build a family on a crappy foundation either, especially considering that the fact that gay couples are not equipped with the tools to conceive a child and start a family. Would the world not be a screwed up place if all connectors were male or female but not both? Could you imagine plumbing your home with same sex parts? No! I don't hate those parts for being the way they are, they can't help that. But I realize in order to get my plumbing fixed correctly, I have to use a combination of male and female fittings! Because I feel bad for the all male or female fittings not working, isn't gong to make me go and make them standard! So again, regardless of religion or religious laws, that doesn't necessarily matter. Being gay violates the laws of nature. So don't blame Republicans for that.

Besides, why is the left so hot under the collar to participate in what they describe as a "Anglo-Saxon Christian Ritual" such as marriage anyway? Especially since the thought of Christianity, values and principles sickens them to begin with. If gays and lesbians want some type of civil union that will give them much of the things that marriage does, I won't stand in the way. But let's save the title of "marriage" for people who believe in the principles and religious practices associated with that title. But the left just despises marriage and because they feel gays aren't permitted to enter it, they just want to cause a fuss and try to degrade what marriage stands for. It's nothing more.

So as you'll see, much of what you describe as Republican issues are really issues of nature. Therefore if you don't like that, maybe you should hunt yourself a planet where the laws of nature are a bit different. And take your leftists buddy with you when you go. I truely hope you find happiness when you get there and a place where you finally fit in.

-CH

Quoted: Let the shit storm begin.

YOu came here to start trouble.

I'll not give you the pleasure of me aiding your cause by responding to the tripe in your troll psot.

You said that's what you expected.

Then you got what you came for  - now go away.

Quoted: Is putting God back in schools really the best thing for the country?

No!  Let's stick to acedemic basics.  Religious imagery is fine in literature, but otherwise lets keep it secular.  The problem with most who want to rid schools of religion (which I'm fine with by the way), is that they want to replace it with socalist leanings as opposed to more acedemics.

Does the government really have any say as to when life begins and whether a woman has the right to end her pregnancy?  If so how is a miscarriage legally defined?  If a woman smokes/drinks during her pregnancy and she has a miscarriage, would that be defines negligent homicide?

 Of course the law (ie: government) should be involved as a life or potential life is being eliminated.  I qualify as pro choice.  Abortion is a horrible thing, and shouldn't be illegal nor should it be like getting a tatoo.  It's one thing to eliminate a  3 month old fetus, but rather another to have the legal ability to eliminate a fetus at 8 1/2 months (rare, but it happens).  

It's the same thing with justifiable homicide.  You killing a guy who's about to cut your throat is different than you killing a guy that pushed you out of the way while competing for the most popular toy of this christmas season.  The law provides for 'justifiable'.

An intersting thing to note is that pro choice people are for complete unrestricted freedoms because they feel that any restriction is just the foot in the door of the relentless pro-lifers.  They would simply use it as a launching point for their next narrowing effort.  WHO DOES THIS SOUND LIKE?

Why is it that a political group that professes to be for small government and less government spending, that you turn to this government every time to prevent or stop what you do not agree with such as gay marriage, drugs, whatever?

I've said it before, and I'll say it agiain.  Republicans and Democrats share the thought that government should be a guiding force in the lives of citizens.  The only differences are the goals themselves, the methods are similar.

Quoted: Quoted: I happen to agree with you 100%, on every point....but then I don't march lockstep with the rightwing on most issues. Religion is not a school issue, it has nothing to do with education. Parents instill values, and guide religion. I don't WANT my school doing that for me. Government shouldn't regulate life, attempt to define it or decide medical definition thereof. Government is for defending borders and maintaining roads, oh and defending the constitution. Gay marriage means nothing to me. Homos can be married if they want. With a 50% divorce rating, they cannot possibly wreck marriage any worse than heteros are. I don't like government interference in anything to do with individual choice or liberties. Sue me, I'm different. Swingset - spoken like a true libertarian.  I'm beginning to think I'm a libertarian also. I like your points of view.

But goddamnit if I would have posted that exact same thing, people would have called me a DU troll...

Quoted: But goddamnit if I would have posted that exact same thing, people would have called me a DU troll...

You made your own bed. Now lie in it.

Its all about context.

You can post a contrary opinion here, and all is well, UNLESS you are a well-known crap stirrer.

Then people just get tired of you.

Quoted: Quoted: Is putting God back in schools really the best thing for the country?  If so, is this only the Christian god or do we let any other god in too?  If preventing people from acquiring a marriage license based solely on their sexual orientation an American ideal?  If so, does that mean we can deny people driver’s licenses based solely on sex, race, or sexual orientation?  Does the government really have any say as to when life begins and whether a woman has the right to end her pregnancy?  If so how is a miscarriage legally defined?  If a woman smokes/drinks during her pregnancy and she has a miscarriage, would that be defines negligent homicide?  Why is it that a political group that professes to be for small government and less government spending, that you turn to this government every time to prevent or stop what you do not agree with such as gay marriage, drugs, whatever?  Is this use of government really what America is about? Let the shit storm begin. I happen to agree with you 100%, on every point....but then I don't march lockstep with the rightwing on most issues. Religion is not a school issue, it has nothing to do with education. Parents instill values, and guide religion. I don't WANT my school doing that for me. Government shouldn't regulate life, attempt to define it or decide medical definition thereof. Government is for defending borders and maintaining roads, oh and defending the constitution. Gay marriage means nothing to me. Homos can be married if they want. With a 50% divorce rating, they cannot possibly wreck marriage any worse than heteros are. I don't like government interference in anything to do with individual choice or liberties. Sue me, I'm different.

+1

Quoted: Quoted: But goddamnit if I would have posted that exact same thing, people would have called me a DU troll... You made your own bed. Now lie in it. Its all about context. You can post a contrary opinion here, and all is well, UNLESS you are a well-known crap stirrer. Then people just get tired of you.

LOL...

Quoted: I don't necessarily believe religion should be taught in schools or forced upon anyone. But since it isn't being taught nor has it been, at least recently, I'm not concerned. I'll tell you what I am concerned about however. That's the left seemingly wanting to take religion out of everything! For instance, they cringe and freak out because the word GOD is used in the pledge of allegiance. I mean, what's the big deal? Nobody is forcing them to do so. But if one Commie bastard's little girl is in a class full of kids who have no problem saying it, he feels the need to try to take that right to say it away from everyone! And when I say religion, I am speaking specifically of Christianity. As we all know, if you are a Muslim, the left has no problem at all with you expressing yourself religiously, anywhere in public. That greatly concerns me when it appears they fear Christianity, but uphold Islam and other religions. Especially considering this nation is and has been a primarily Christian nation. Even worse, take a look at the nations liberal manufacturing facilities, better known as colleges. Not only do they seem to want to limit Christianity, but they also want you to learn about Islam. In some cases they even try to force you into those classes to learn about "the religion of peace". Anytime someone seems to want to hold back the religion I choose to worship while forcing me to study another, that seems far worse. I don't see the right trying to limit anyone else's religion in any way. They are free to worship in their own manner. So tell me, who worries you most on the issue, the left or right? I'm an atheist who has no problem with the God in the pledge.   I said it every day until it went out of style in the early 80's.  Today I'm an agnostic, so I don't buy the "pushing religion" argument.   The only issue I would have is if someone leaves out the "under God" and is punished by the school authorities.  We had a boy from some splinter Christian religion leave it out and he was paddled for it 3 days in a row until his parents pulled him from the school. Abortion? That doesn't even require religious thinking to answer. It's murder. Most atheists would agree that murder is wrong. So because a Republican thinks using murder as a form of birth control because some woman who had sex and didn't want the burden of having a child wants to kill it, somehow makes it a religious issue? I'm sorry, but I don't see religion as being a factor here. If a man and woman choose to have sexual intercourse, then they are engaging in an action that can result in pregnancy. This is no great revelation seeing how we've been producing for many thousands of years! That's the choice a woman has! If she chooses to have sex, then she better be prepared to give birth to a child. If she's not, then don't have sex! That's the choice here. We don't have a choice to decide whether or not we can murder someone because they are not convienent for us. Otherwise, if we did, we likely wouldn't have many neighbors! Actually atheists/agnostics are just as divided as the religious folk.  It all depend on your views on when life begins and the rights of the woman to control her body snipped the rest of it since it was mainly gay bashing by someone with obvious homo-erotic tendencies -CH

Quoted: An intersting thing to note is that pro choice people are for complete unrestricted freedoms because they feel that any restriction is just the foot in the door of the relentless pro-lifers.  They would simply use it as a launching point for their next narrowing effort.  WHO DOES THIS SOUND LIKE?

As someone who is both pro-choice and pro RKBA this has always been amusing for me.

I don't just feel that though, I have heard pro-lifers speak of baby steps to outlawing all abortions.     Several such comments when Bush was doing the partial birth abortion ban.

A solid spiritual foundation is important and desirable. What I'd like to see change is when somebody complains about the ten commandments being illegal on government property. They ought to get told to stuff it. Whiners have too much say in too many petty issues in this country.

How is that trolling?  I guess I really don't understand the definition of troll - it seems that anytime someone says something that offends the politics of another, the offender is labeled a troll...

I guess we believe in the 2nd amendment, but don't really need the 1st?

Quoted: Is putting God back in schools really the best thing for the country?  If so, is this only the Christian god or do we let any other god in too?

Yes it would.  There is only one God and people don't have to pray if they don't want to.

 

If preventing people from acquiring a marriage license based solely on their sexual orientation an American ideal?

No, but by definition a marriage can ONLY be between a man and a woman.

Does the government really have any say as to when life begins and whether a woman has the right to end her pregnancy?

Life is life.  The government should hold murderers accountable.


And I have no idea what the point of this post is about.  We need government, otherwise we would have anarchy.


SGtar15

comeon Tortfeasor you know the drill.  Anyone who spouts opinions contrary to what Garandman, SGtar15, or OP think is labelled a troll.

Quoted: How is that trolling?  I guess I really don't understand the definition of troll - it seems that anytime someone says something that offends the politics of another, the offender is labeled a troll... I guess we believe in the 2nd amendment, but don't really need the 1st?

Trolling - a post or a thread for the purpose of starting trouble.

ALot of it has to do with context. Some poeple  have a LONG history of trouble making. It has more to do with motives than actions.

Quoted: Quoted: i don't think religion in schools will help anything.  teach the kids how to read and speak english instead.   btw, i went to a catholic school. It might not HELP anything - but I don't disagree with having it.  Scholastic religious integration would not be harmful IMO.  I believe one would only gain from such an experience.

Meantioning GOD in schools is NOT the same as  mention religion in schools!!

Quoted: comeon Tortfeasor you know the drill.  Anyone who spouts opinions contrary to what Garandman, SGtar15, or OP think is labelled a troll.

Waaahhh.

take grandmaboy here for example, he's been nothing but a troll in any thread which I respond since he came to the conclusion that I wasn not going to convert to his religion.

Quoted: Quoted: Is putting God back in schools really the best thing for the country?  If so, is this only the Christian god or do we let any other god in too? Yes it would.  There is only one God and people don't have to pray if they don't want to.   SGtar15

for those who are confused the post above is why putting God Christianity in schools is being  fought so vehemently.   You have a large group of people who think a generic mention of God is an endorsement for THEIR god.

Quoted: Quoted: comeon Tortfeasor you know the drill.  Anyone who spouts opinions contrary to what Garandman, SGtar15, or OP think is labelled a troll. No, if you have an opinion and post you at least owe us the entertainment factor to try to defend it.

Oh Christ man,  perhaps he's at work and won't have time to read responses until lunch or this evening.   Speaking of which heading out the door now :)

Quoted: take grandmaboy here for example, he's been nothing but a troll in any thread which I respond since he came to the conclusion that I wasn not going to convert to his religion.

beating you down has become a bit too much sport for me.

You are kinda like dandelions in the lawn. Snuff  'em out in one place, they just pop up another.

But hey - if you start a thread with one of my posts in it and and my name specifically mentioned, one would THINK you are adult enuf to not mind me responding, and to handle my  opinion..

But one MIGHT be wrong.

I guess I'm just spozed to NOT respond to your posts, even when you call me out???

Beating me down? A sport?

Man, you've got an awfully big opinion of yourself and your effect on me.

Son, you aren't but a puss filled pimple on my ass.

Quoted: Beating me down? A sport? Man, you've got an awfully big opinion of yourself and your effect on me. Son, you aren't but a puss filled pimple on my ass.

I don't look at it as a reflection on you. I think you are prolly a fine person.

You just post some really insipid stuff here. Like "Republicans are Talibanesque"  and stupid stuff like that.

No merit to me - ANYONE could beat you down.

snipped the rest of it since it was mainly gay bashing by someone with obvious homo-erotic tendencies

Where was I gay bashing? I was just pointing out the obvious. If you can't see it, it's not my fault. The simple fact is, nature doesn't cater to nor show sympathy to homosexuality. As was pointed out, homosexuals can't reproduce. Is this somehow untrue? If so, please prove where I am wrong. And nowhere did I say I disliked gays or hated them. I just think their sexuality is not natural. If you will stop to think about how human reproductive organs are made and how reproduction takes place, you will see how people weren't designed to be homosexuals. Just like my plumbing exmple, parts of the same type were not meant to fit together. That's not bashing, it's just reality. Of course reality is a concept too few seem to be able to grasp these days.

And BTW, if I am displaying "homo-erotic tendencies" as you claim, why would I be gay bashing, since I would be bashing myself? That doesn't make any sense, just like the position that homosexual sex is normal or natural. It isn't. But that doesn't mean I bash gays, fear them, dislike them or want to see them wiped off the face of the earth. No. It  just means I disagree that teaching that abnormal behavior is normal or acceptable. Because for the population as a whole, it isn't. And it means I disagree with the thought of allowing people of the same sex to enter into a bond reserved for people of the opposite sex, set forth by nature. If you think it is natural, I suggest the next time you buy a pair of shoes that you get two intended for the left foot only and wear them a week. Then report back as to us and let us know how well it works out. Though you can wear them that way, you'll likely find that it isn't a natural fit. That doesn't make your two left shoes bad shoes. They just aren't suited to the task at hand, like two people of the same sex in a marriage.

-CH

Does the government really have any say as to when life begins and whether a woman has the right to end her pregnancy?

That is just the whole point that people who support abortion don't seem to get. Nobody has a right to choose to murder someone because they aren't willing to face up to their responsibility to care for someone they have created! Let me ask you this. If you are driving down the street in a 45 mph zone and you're doing 75 mph, you know there's a risk of getting a ticket, right? So to avoid the inconvienence of a ticket, are you going to shoot the cop as he approaches your vehicle? Or are you gonna suck it up and face your responsibility for the consequences of your actions?

This horsehsit about a "woman's right to choose" makes me sick. As pointed out, we don't have a right to kill just to avoid being inconvienenced. If that was the case, we could just blow away anyone for any reason if we felt like it. That would be a right to choose would it not? Would that be a good idea?

Here is what choice is really all about. Now let me go slow so it will be easy to understand. The CHOICE must be made beforehand. We know that the act of sexual intercourse can result in pregnancy. We have contraceptives that lessen this chance, but they still aren't 100%. Condoms break. Pills sometimes are ineffective. Things happen. Therefore, when you commit to an act of sex, you have made the choice at that point. Therefore if you get pregnant, it is at that point the responsibility of that mother (and father) to take care of that life they just created. OTOH, if caring for a child is not something you want or ready to accept, then you have another choice. That chouce is to keep your legs closed or your vienna in the can, depending on your cicumstances. If you do not have sex, I can 100% guarantee you that you cannot get pregnant or get someone pregnant. That is a choice.

Now once you've made your choice, you have an obligation to see to it that you are responsible for those choices. If you have sex and pregnancy results, then carry that child and give birth to it! If you still do not want to give it a home and care for it until it becomes an adult, there is a thing called adoption. But you don't have to kill it! If you rob a bank, you may go to jail. If you speed, you may be issued a ticket. If you smoke, you may get cancer. If you have sex, you may get an STD or get pregnant. This is stuff we all know. Therefore the only choice you have is whether you do the things that can bring about those realities or not. It's too late to get a traffic citation when the blue lights are flashing in your rearview mirror. It's also too late to choose whether you have a kid or not when that seed has been planted. But the one thing adoption does, it allows someone else to pay your speeding ticket for you and bear your burden, so to speak.

Therefore abortion is not necessary. And it's wrong. That simple folks. I can understand it if a woman is raped and pregnancy results. I still don't like it, but I can at least accept it somewhat, since the woman obviously didn't choose to be raped. But outside of that exception, there is no justification for it. And even with that exception lies the burden of killing a baby who had no part in the rape or aftermath, so it's still a heavy moral burden. Afterall, what about it's choice? It was just along for the ride and was never given a choice. Is it's right to life any less than anyone else's? Even if your daddy was a scumbag, would you want to blamed for his shortcomings? Would you not want the chance to live? If the issue is a woman's right to choose, then this is the only scenario that exists in which abortion is even a debatable topic, as it's the only case where the woman is not given a chance to choose. The others are clear cut. That's what 98% of abortions are anyway, just post-conception birth control by death.

Therefore if abortion is to remain legal, we may as well just turn all the murderers out of prison and make that legal too, since we have a right to kill at will without consequence. I mean according to "pro-choice" people, it's our choice to kill who we choose when we choose and for what reason we choose, isn't it?

-CH

Quoted: Is putting God back in schools really the best thing for the country?  If so, is this only the Christian god or do we let any other god in too?

If the Libs hadn't taken this one to an unconstitutional extreme (going after individual students for religeous expression as 'congress making a law regarding an establishment of religeon' , because they do it in school), this would be a non-issue.

The uneven enforcement of said view (Students can't form any organization or engage any activity related to the Christian God, but a teacher can direct their entire class to do assignments practicing Islam or Hindusim for a week, adn that's a 'cultural exercise') makes it worse...

If preventing people from acquiring a marriage license based solely on their sexual orientation an American ideal?  If so, does that mean we can deny people driver’s licenses based solely on sex, race, or sexual orientation?

Once again, one side attempts to legislate thru the courts to 'force' the issue. The GOP is attempting to preserve the status quo thru proper channels.

Given the choice between the Feds handling what should be NFI (Not a Federal Issue) and legislation-from-the-bench, legislation from the bench is far more repugnant, and the GOP position is the right one. Just like Prohibition and the abolition of Prohibition were both 'the right thing' when they were passed.

Does the government really have any say as to when life begins and whether a woman has the right to end her pregnancy?

Should be NFI again, but RvW (the most screwed up legal decision in the 50-75yrs, regardless of your view on abortion) made it federal thru more bench-lawmaking... Ammendments don't have 'Penumbras' and there is no right to privacy in the constitution....

Also, the Government IS saying where life begins by allowing abortion -> specifically that life begins at delivery. If you destroy the fetus 20min before birth, it's not murder. If you shoot it after you cut the cord, it is... Any government that has laws against murder MUST define both when life begins and ends, inorder to determine when murder has been committed, and when it has not.

As an example, if I were to go over to some guy's house who I had a beef with & shoot him in the head as he watches TV, that's murder.

If he died of a heart attack last week & is decomposing on the couch 'cause no one knew he was dead, putting a round in his head is NOT murder (but probably vandalisim or some other minor offense)...

. If so how is a miscarriage legally defined?

Should be up to the states, but 'No Fault Accidental Death' springs to mind here, if you were to live in a non-abortion state...

If a woman smokes/drinks during her pregnancy and she has a miscarriage, would that be defines negligent homicide?

It allready IS, in some states. When said laws have been upheld, the availability of medical abortion was cited, IIRC...

Why is it that a political group that professes to be for small government and less government spending, that you turn to this government every time to prevent or stop what you do not agree with such as gay marriage, drugs, whatever?  Is this use of government really what America is about? Let the shit storm begin.

Less government does not mean NO government.

An ordered society requires a basic set of objective morality, defined and enforced by government, to prevent societal collapse... Anything else will lead to anarchy.

This is the one key difference between libertarians and conservatives. Libertarians believe in the 'nobility' of man, conservatives know better...

Quoted: snipped the rest of it since it was mainly gay bashing by someone with obvious homo-erotic tendencies Where was I gay bashing? I was just pointing out the obvious.   *snip* [r]yes its obvious that 2 males can't reproduce.  There are plenty of cases where a man and a woman can't reproduce as well.   Your making marriage about reproduction when it may or may not have anything to do with reproduction.   If marriage is a religious matter it should be left to the religions to decide and we should stop handing out tax benefits for a religious status.  If marriage is not just a religous matter, then the government needs to make sure the benefits that marriage gets are applied to everyone.  Personally I think it should be left up to the religions to define marriage and the government should allow civil partnerships for anyone who wants one.  I don't think government should force my old Church of Christ in Blum Texas to marry gays.  If the Unitarian Church in Dallas chooses to allow gay marriages, I don't think the government should be able to stop it[/r]   And BTW, if I am displaying "homo-erotic tendencies" as you claim, why would I be gay bashing, since I would be bashing myself?*snip rest* [r] not at all, sometimes the most vicious opponents of gays are closet homosexuals (look at the nazi leadership during WWII for examples).  I was just joking around with ya though [/r] -CH

comments in red but to address your "homosexuality is unnatural" point:  Research has shown that it exists in animals who we don't consider having the ability to choose.   Either animals are as perverted as humans or homosexuality occurs naturally in a minority of individuals.  

Even if homosexuality is unnatural and sin, I'm ok with allowing God to handle it when the time comes.   I'm for showing compassion and consideration to everyone in the here and now.  

Gays aren't trying to tell me I can't marry a woman, they only want the right to marry who they choose to marry.   I'll be worried when they want to prevent hetero marriages.