mg wrote:
"actually, its a living organism. if you kill it it was alive. so it is murder."
It was no less alive, and no more capable of independent life, than the skin cells on your arm. Is scratching your arm also murder?
"rights aren't being denied. they can legally be 'partners' , just not 'married' which is a religious joining of a man and a woman."
No, the legal definition of marriage makes no mention of religion, nor do you have to be religious to get married (note, atheists can marry). The current US legal code, chapter 1 section 7 reads:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Some people would like this definition to be extended to include same-sex partners.
"because they volunteered to do so. no one is drafted pussies like yourself iding away here in the states."
If only the people who wanted the US to stay in Iraq where at risk I would consider that at least fair on them. I somehow doubt you are posting from the front line however.
War is not it's own justification. Neither you nor the OP gave any reason why the US should remain in Irag, nor any benefit to be gained from doing so. Throwing these volunteers into harms way for no reason is a betrayal of them and the country they signed up to defend. These are not the toy soldiers of your recent youth. They have agreed to put their lives in the balance to the benefit of their country. To sacrifice them to save political face, protect lucrative contracts or distract inconvenient attention would be contemptible.
"its not limited. illegal aliens are treated every day. poor americans are treated every day. both in ERs across the country and in public clinics. get a job and you won't have that problem."
If it's not limited then there must already be universal healthcare, no? So you are advocating depriving people of the services they currently receive? Why (other than spite, which is a given)?
"actually, this is not an opinion. read the constitution. there is no where in it that states a seperation. the only thing it staes is that the government will not endorse one religion over another."
Yes it it. How the government is to maintain its neutrality to all religions is the subject of constitutional interpretation. How does a government not endorse one religion over another? What constitutes endorse? Is it sufficient to equally endorse just major or recognised religions? Or is this just prejudicial to minor and unrecognised ones?
SCOTUS decision "330 US 1" puts it so:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164, 25 L.Ed. 244."
So the Supreme Court has given its opinion of what constitutes endorsement, and concurs with one of the authors of the constitution that the way to avoid endorsing one religion above another is to endorse none of them.
