Will You Vote Trump?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 2, 2016
8,896
113
0
so here are the rights that are guaranteed under the constitution. You guys insertion of civil rights and human rights are actually civil wrongs and human wrongs to another human being. Nowhere does the constitution mention those things and just like I referenced with the bible, men will always try to corrupt that which is good. I'm not gonna lie but your trashing of the constitution makes me want to slap you. Your educators failed you. [TABLE="class: ez_wrap_table, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 1005"]
[h=3]Personal Security (Life):[/h]
(1) Not to be killed.
(2) Not to be injured or abused.
[h=3]Personal Liberty:[/h]
(3) To move freely.
(4) To assemble peaceably.
(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]
(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.
(7) To communicate with the world.
(8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others.
(9) To practice one's religion.
(10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]
[h=3]Private Property:[/h]
(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:
(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.
(2) Tools needed for one's livelihood.
(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.
(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[h=3]Non-natural rights of personhood, created by social contract:[/h]
(1) To enter into contracts, and thereby acquire contractual rights, to secure the means to exercise the above natural rights.[1,15]
(2) To enjoy equally the rights, privileges and protections of personhood as established by law.
(3) To petition an official for redress of grievances and get action thereon in accordance with law, subject to the resources available thereto.
(4) To petition a legislator and get consideration thereof, subject to resources available thereto.
(5) To petition a court for redress of grievances and get a decision thereon, subject to resources available thereto.
(6) Not to have one's natural rights individually disabled except through due process of law, which includes:
(a) In criminal prosecutions:
(1) Not to be charged for a major crime but by indictment by a Grand Jury, except while serving in the military, or while serving in the Militia during time of war or public danger.
(2) Not to be charged more than once for the same offense.
(3) Not to be compelled to testify against oneself.
(4) Not to have excessive bail required.
(5) To be tried by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place.
(6) To have a jury of at least six for a misdemeanor, and at least twelve for a felony.[1]
(7) To a speedy trial.
(8) To a public trial.
(9) To have the assistance of counsel of one's choice.
(10) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
(11) To be confronted with the witnesses against one.
(12) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.
(13) To have each charge proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[1]
(14) To have a verdict by a unanimous vote of the jury, which shall not be held to account for its verdict.[1]
(15) To have the jury decide on both the facts of the case and the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of the law.[1]
(16) Upon conviction, to have each disablement separately and explicitly proven as justified and necessary based on the facts and verdict.[1]
(17) To have a sentence which explicitly states all disablements, and is final in that once rendered no further disablements may be imposed for the same offense.[1]
(18) Not to have a cruel or unusual punishment inflicted upon oneself.
(b) In civil cases:
(1) To trial by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place[1] where the issue in question is either a natural right[1] or property worth more than $20.
(2) In taking of one's property for public use, to be given just compensation therefor.
(3) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.[1]
(c) In all cases:
(1) To have process only upon legal persons able to defend themselves, either natural persons or corporate persons that are represented by a natural person as agent, and who are present, competent, and duly notified, except, in cases of disappearance or abandonment, after public notice and a reasonable period of time.[1]
(2) Not to be ordered to give testimony or produce evidence beyond what is necessary to the proper conduct of the process.[1]
[h=3]Non-natural rights or citizenship, created by social contract:[/h]
(1) To enjoy equally the rights and privileges of citizenship as established by law.
(2) To vote in elections that are conducted fairly and honestly, by secret ballot.
(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials.[17]
(4) To receive militia training.[7]

 
K

Kisses1990

Guest
I'm very much in favor of certain protections and freedoms that the Constitution allows for. I'm not sure what that has to do with the current presidential choices and their position on the right to bear arms, gay marriage and abortion.

I am in favor for the right of the private citizen to own guns. I'm against gay marriage and abortion and don't see how this is protected by the Constitution. Both of these policies came about not from the Constitution but as a result of liberal judges imposing their own personal view outside of the scope of what the document actually says and provides for.

The biggest threat to gay marriage and abortion comes from the US Constitution itself. Hopefully, one day, future president(s) will appoint Supreme Court Justices who will interpret what the document actually says, and stop imposing their own personal views. When that happens gay marriage and abortions will legally cease to exist.
It has to do with every presidential choice as far as I can tell because although presidents don't have 100% control or power, they do have a certain degree of power, and we must choose a president that wants to protect those freedoms, so it is relevant.

Many people are only anti-gay and anti-abortion for religious reasons. I'd be very interested in hearing a case where someone opposes gay marriage on any grounds outside their own subjective morality. I have gay friends, and I'll never tell them that they are not allowed to get married! lol Whether or not it's a sin doesn't matter, because again, this country is not a theocracy. That means that a lot of things thought of as "sins" will be committed in this country. So, whether or not gay-marriage is a sin here is not a factor. Sin is a spiritual factor, not a legal one. Divorce may be seen as a sin too, so if people are not allowed to get a gay marriage legally, then they shouldn't be able to get a divorce legally. That's just not a reasonable position to have. Not everyone shares this spiritual idea of morality, and they shouldn't be forced to abide by our morality if they don't want to. If you believe God gave us 'free will", then you should support gay marriage in more. People need to be allowed to make their own decisions for better or worse. The same goes for abortion. You may not agree with it, but there is no scientific reason why it is wrong. That means it's only wrong within the context of a system of beliefs. Science says we are all evolved apes and though it's reasonable that we will feel more "attached" to our species than a arachnid or something, and so it's understandable why some people might find abortion as wrong, scientifically speaking, there is nothing wrong with abortion. Morally speaking, abortion can even be the lesser of two evils like in cases where the fetus is missing a liver or something and if allowed to continue through the process of embryology, will die shortly after birth anyway. There are obvious cases where aborting the pregnancy can be the best option. It's not that we're celebrating it and acting like it's a fun great thing, but it's just something that has to happen sometimes and I won't take away a women's right to do so. As I said earlier, I also have friends who have gotten an abortion. It's important that that right is protected.

The writers of the Constitution were Deists at best. It is not a christian document. Being opposed to these things on religious grounds is exactly why it should remain legal.

I hope you don't interpret these words as invidious. I'm enjoying the discussing and awaiting your response.
 
K

Kisses1990

Guest
I personally enjoy target practice with my dad as well :) Maybe the answer there is only allowing for rubber bullets or some kind of paint ball-like pellets. Yes, there is a black market for guns, but surprisingly, statistics show that the majority of guns used in crimes ARE in fact purchased legally. It's interesting. Japan outlawed guns and have extremely strict laws against guns and they only get maybe 2 or 3 gun related deaths per year as opposed to our upward of 30,000 a year. We've got over 11,000 deaths this year already and it's only March.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
so here are the rights that are guaranteed under the constitution. You guys insertion of civil rights and human rights are actually civil wrongs and human wrongs to another human being. Nowhere does the constitution mention those things and just like I referenced with the bible, men will always try to corrupt that which is good. I'm not gonna lie but your trashing of the constitution makes me want to slap you. Your educators failed you. [TABLE="class: ez_wrap_table, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 1005"]
Personal Security (Life):

(1) Not to be killed.
(2) Not to be injured or abused.
Personal Liberty:

(3) To move freely.
(4) To assemble peaceably.
(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]
(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.
(7) To communicate with the world.
(8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others.
(9) To practice one's religion.
(10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]
Private Property:

(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:
(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.
(2) Tools needed for one's livelihood.
(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.
(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Non-natural rights of personhood, created by social contract:

(1) To enter into contracts, and thereby acquire contractual rights, to secure the means to exercise the above natural rights.[1,15]
(2) To enjoy equally the rights, privileges and protections of personhood as established by law.
(3) To petition an official for redress of grievances and get action thereon in accordance with law, subject to the resources available thereto.
(4) To petition a legislator and get consideration thereof, subject to resources available thereto.
(5) To petition a court for redress of grievances and get a decision thereon, subject to resources available thereto.
(6) Not to have one's natural rights individually disabled except through due process of law, which includes:
(a) In criminal prosecutions:
(1) Not to be charged for a major crime but by indictment by a Grand Jury, except while serving in the military, or while serving in the Militia during time of war or public danger.
(2) Not to be charged more than once for the same offense.
(3) Not to be compelled to testify against oneself.
(4) Not to have excessive bail required.
(5) To be tried by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place.
(6) To have a jury of at least six for a misdemeanor, and at least twelve for a felony.[1]
(7) To a speedy trial.
(8) To a public trial.
(9) To have the assistance of counsel of one's choice.
(10) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
(11) To be confronted with the witnesses against one.
(12) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.
(13) To have each charge proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[1]
(14) To have a verdict by a unanimous vote of the jury, which shall not be held to account for its verdict.[1]
(15) To have the jury decide on both the facts of the case and the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of the law.[1]
(16) Upon conviction, to have each disablement separately and explicitly proven as justified and necessary based on the facts and verdict.[1]
(17) To have a sentence which explicitly states all disablements, and is final in that once rendered no further disablements may be imposed for the same offense.[1]
(18) Not to have a cruel or unusual punishment inflicted upon oneself.
(b) In civil cases:
(1) To trial by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place[1] where the issue in question is either a natural right[1] or property worth more than $20.
(2) In taking of one's property for public use, to be given just compensation therefor.
(3) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.[1]
(c) In all cases:
(1) To have process only upon legal persons able to defend themselves, either natural persons or corporate persons that are represented by a natural person as agent, and who are present, competent, and duly notified, except, in cases of disappearance or abandonment, after public notice and a reasonable period of time.[1]
(2) Not to be ordered to give testimony or produce evidence beyond what is necessary to the proper conduct of the process.[1]
Non-natural rights or citizenship, created by social contract:

(1) To enjoy equally the rights and privileges of citizenship as established by law.
(2) To vote in elections that are conducted fairly and honestly, by secret ballot.
(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials.[17]
(4) To receive militia training.[7]

2 Peter 2:19

[SUP]19 [/SUP]While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.


Pretty well sums up the Constitution.
 
Mar 2, 2016
8,896
113
0
It has to do with every presidential choice as far as I can tell because although presidents don't have 100% control or power, they do have a certain degree of power, and we must choose a president that wants to protect those freedoms, so it is relevant.

Many people are only anti-gay and anti-abortion for religious reasons. I'd be very interested in hearing a case where someone opposes gay marriage on any grounds outside their own subjective morality. I have gay friends, and I'll never tell them that they are not allowed to get married! lol Whether or not it's a sin doesn't matter, because again, this country is not a theocracy. That means that a lot of things thought of as "sins" will be committed in this country. So, whether or not gay-marriage is a sin here is not a factor. Sin is a spiritual factor, not a legal one. Divorce may be seen as a sin too, so if people are not allowed to get a gay marriage legally, then they shouldn't be able to get a divorce legally. That's just not a reasonable position to have. Not everyone shares this spiritual idea of morality, and they shouldn't be forced to abide by our morality if they don't want to. If you believe God gave us 'free will", then you should support gay marriage in more. People need to be allowed to make their own decisions for better or worse. The same goes for abortion. You may not agree with it, but there is no scientific reason why it is wrong. That means it's only wrong within the context of a system of beliefs. Science says we are all evolved apes and though it's reasonable that we will feel more "attached" to our species than a arachnid or something, and so it's understandable why some people might find abortion as wrong, scientifically speaking, there is nothing wrong with abortion. Morally speaking, abortion can even be the lesser of two evils like in cases where the fetus is missing a liver or something and if allowed to continue through the process of embryology, will die shortly after birth anyway. There are obvious cases where aborting the pregnancy can be the best option. It's not that we're celebrating it and acting like it's a fun great thing, but it's just something that has to happen sometimes and I won't take away a women's right to do so. As I said earlier, I also have friends who have gotten an abortion. It's important that that right is protected.

The writers of the Constitution were Deists at best. It is not a christian document. Being opposed to these things on religious grounds is exactly why it should remain legal.

I hope you don't interpret these words as invidious. I'm enjoying the discussing and awaiting your response.
Or if someone needs a liver we can just grow babies and then steal it from them for those in need. While on the outside your argument seems very intelligent and thought out, it stops somewhere between headinthesandistan and lalaland.
 
K

Kisses1990

Guest
^^^ umm I was talking about fetuses that don't have a liver and will die naturally shortly after birth. The suffering that baby will go through, as well as the psychological suffering of it's parents is just not worth it. An abortion would be the thing to do for sure in that situation. I'm not sure what you were talking about growing babies and stealing their livers?? A babies liver would probably not even work for a full grown adult anyway...so I'm not sure what you mean. Hopefully someday we can grow livers in a lab and clone them for use, that would be good though.
 
Mar 2, 2016
8,896
113
0
^^^ umm I was talking about fetuses that don't have a liver and will die naturally shortly after birth. The suffering that baby will go through, as well as the psychological suffering of it's parents is just not worth it. An abortion would be the thing to do for sure in that situation. I'm not sure what you were talking about growing babies and stealing their livers?? A babies liver would probably not even work for a full grown adult anyway...so I'm not sure what you mean. Hopefully someday we can grow livers in a lab and clone them for use, that would be good though.
Well... they're proposing it in the UK.
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
6,061
3,407
113
I think he's technically correct about the constitution actually. Freedom means we sometimes have to allow people to do things we don't necessarily agree with. The constitution does defend homosexuality, heterosexual immorality, etc... I just disagree that owning guns is one of the perversions. Guns aren't bad... people are bad...

You might want to go back and study your US history a bit. NO WHERE in the US Constitution is sexuality of any type mentioned. Just because a handful of judges have chosen to add intent to the 14th amendment that was NEVER intended at the time the Amendment was written doesn't suddenly mean that it's there.

At the time the Constitution was written and ratified by the original 13 States the act of Sodomy was a crime punishable by death in many of them. Over a period of years those states removed the death penalty but maintained the criminal status with a lengthy prison sentence.

At the time the 14th amendment was written and ratified (1868) 32 out of 37 states had anti-sodomy laws and the five that didn't did add them after that time. Sodomy (even among consenting adults) was a crime in EVERY state as recently as 1960.

It wasn't until 2003 that the Supreme Court passed the decision that struck down anti-homosexuality laws albeit at that time only 13 states still had the laws on the books.

If the founding fathers intended for homosexual acts to be constitutionally protected, they would have placed references to sexuality within the bill of rights.

If the writers of the 14th amendment had ever dreamed that it would have been used to protect sexual perversion I can guarantee they would have worded it differently.

So, for 200 years of US history engaging in homosexual sex was a criminal act until a group of judges suddenly created a new right.

 
K

Kisses1990

Guest
^^ Why do you seem to be under the assumption that sodomy laws apply only to homosexuals?

I've tried to bring up multiple times now that the writers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were Deists at best and definitely not christian...have you seen some of the quotes by John Adams?? And it's not quote mining either... That is just one example.

We must protect laws that protect all of our freedoms, and must not support theocratic fascism, which is what many Muslim countries do. Therefore, like it or not morally, it would be wrong to force an anti-gay ruling as it's on religious grounds. Homosexuality occurs in many mammalian species. It's obviously natural... There may in fact even be gay genes. But for sake of argument, let's suppose it's not natural? Who cares. The decisive factor isn't whether or not something is natural or not natural. Many naturally occurring things are bad for us, and many non-naturally occurring things are good for us. This is a spiritually driven moral issue, and has no place in the legal system, only in the mind and hearts.
 
Mar 2, 2016
8,896
113
0
^^ Why do you seem to be under the assumption that sodomy laws apply only to homosexuals?

I've tried to bring up multiple times now that the writers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were Deists at best and definitely not christian...have you seen some of the quotes by John Adams?? And it's not quote mining either... That is just one example.

We must protect laws that protect all of our freedoms, and must not support theocratic fascism, which is what many Muslim countries do. Therefore, like it or not morally, it would be wrong to force an anti-gay ruling as it's on religious grounds. Homosexuality occurs in many mammalian species. It's obviously natural... There may in fact even be gay genes. But for sake of argument, let's suppose it's not natural? Who cares. The decisive factor isn't whether or not something is natural or not natural. Many naturally occurring things are bad for us, and many non-naturally occurring things are good for us. This is a spiritually driven moral issue, and has no place in the legal system, only in the mind and hearts.

You said you had no problem aborting a flawed baby. Maybe that can be extended to flawed grown ups too?
 
K

Kisses1990

Guest
^^ No... If you're asking whether I support Euthanasia, I do 100% This baby you're referring to...I gave a hypothetical situation where it will be born without a crucial organ. It will suffer and die very shortly. It is not worth putting the baby, the mother, or any of the family through that. It's just not logical....

As for full grown adults...that should of course be their own decision. If they want to die, I don't think they should be forced to live and suffer for the selfish sake of those close to them. Euthanasia should be a last resort, of course, after other medical options are tried, whether physically or psychologically. They should be forced to live in excruciating pain against their will or risk a suicide attempt that could go horribly wrong and also be painful when it could be done instantly and pain free by euthanasia?
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
^^ No... If you're asking whether I support Euthanasia, I do 100% This baby you're referring to...I gave a hypothetical situation where it will be born without a crucial organ. It will suffer and die very shortly. It is not worth putting the baby, the mother, or any of the family through that. It's just not logical....

As for full grown adults...that should of course be their own decision. If they want to die, I don't think they should be forced to live and suffer for the selfish sake of those close to them. Euthanasia should be a last resort, of course, after other medical options are tried, whether physically or psychologically. They should be forced to live in excruciating pain against their will or risk a suicide attempt that could go horribly wrong and also be painful when it could be done instantly and pain free by euthanasia?
Wow, and this convinces me all the more that the Constitution is a maleficent document of corruption that ought to be destroyed immediately before it can twist peoples minds anymore into killing their own children and even themselves.
 
Mar 2, 2016
8,896
113
0
^^ No... If you're asking whether I support Euthanasia, I do 100% This baby you're referring to...I gave a hypothetical situation where it will be born without a crucial organ. It will suffer and die very shortly. It is not worth putting the baby, the mother, or any of the family through that. It's just not logical....

As for full grown adults...that should of course be their own decision. If they want to die, I don't think they should be forced to live and suffer for the selfish sake of those close to them. Euthanasia should be a last resort, of course, after other medical options are tried, whether physically or psychologically. They should be forced to live in excruciating pain against their will or risk a suicide attempt that could go horribly wrong and also be painful when it could be done instantly and pain free by euthanasia?
What if the baby with the bad livers heart is good that could save another baby who's heart is bad? Or what if a baby with a good liver but a bad heart could save the baby with a bad liver? I feel like I'm arguing with someone who knows everything already. Lol
 
K

Kisses1990

Guest
"Knows everything already"? I'm not pretending to know anything....I'm just giving you my opinion and I'm trying to form my opinion at least somewhat on science and empirical evidence.... A dead baby's organ that can be saved should hopefully be used for good. Is that what you were asking?
 
Mar 2, 2016
8,896
113
0
"Knows everything already"? I'm not pretending to know anything....I'm just giving you my opinion and I'm trying to form my opinion at least somewhat on science and empirical evidence.... A dead baby's organ that can be saved should hopefully be used for good. Is that what you were asking?

I don't know. I just find all this handwringing to be humorous. I think it was the dalai lama who said that "when you talk you only repeat what you already know. But if you listen you may learn something new." Right now I feel dumber as a result of this conversation. Lol
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
^^ No... If you're asking whether I support Euthanasia, I do 100% This baby you're referring to...I gave a hypothetical situation where it will be born without a crucial organ. It will suffer and die very shortly. It is not worth putting the baby, the mother, or any of the family through that. It's just not logical....

As for full grown adults...that should of course be their own decision. If they want to die, I don't think they should be forced to live and suffer for the selfish sake of those close to them. Euthanasia should be a last resort, of course, after other medical options are tried, whether physically or psychologically. They should be forced to live in excruciating pain against their will or risk a suicide attempt that could go horribly wrong and also be painful when it could be done instantly and pain free by euthanasia?
So we don't try to help people who are suicidal find purpose and joy in this life...we give them a gun or some drugs to kill themselves? People who think like this are wicked ...
 
Mar 2, 2016
8,896
113
0
So we don't try to help people who are suicidal find purpose and joy in this life...we give them a gun or some drugs to kill themselves? People who think like this are wicked ...
and while were at it lets do away with the constitution. The loons are gonna overtake us Mitspa. Lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.