m1thotyn

From the page: "I really don't feel that there's currently liberty and justice for all."

The major problem with this is that it is a matter of perspective. If somebody believes that gays are bad, then they do not believe that they belong in the category of "all" anymore than a rapist or a murderer. Therefore your protest becomes mute to them. What the child, and all of the people on that side of the issue seem to be unable to comprehend is that the people on the other side of the fence so to speak believe that being gay is a bad thing.

A better argument would be, "I do not believe that there is anything wrong with being gay and I believe that gay citizens are not included in the meaning of this pledge, therefore I refuse to make a pledge that I cannot uphold by my own beliefs." and then just use that argument to stay seated and twirl your pencil while waiting for class to start. No protest, just "No thank you."

"I'm not protesting, I just cant make this pledge. Must we find a dictionary and look up the word pledge?"

Otherwise, it just remains a bunch of apes chucking feces at each other. You're never going to change peoples minds by protesting and if you cant do that then all you're doing is attention whoring. When you say something like "I really don't feel that there's currently liberty and justice for all." then they can shoot right back - from their perspective - and say "So you're saying that child rapists should have liberty and justice, too?"

Then again, I hate protesting. It never changes anything. Never has, never will. Anybody whose ever known how anything in regards to politics, sociology, psychology and basically life and societal structure itself just laughs at any protest. It's the classic waste of time. A better thing to do would be to un-brainwash and re-brainwash the people that you would be protesting to.

I recall that I never said the pledge of allegiance in school past the second grade but only because I hated authority and conformity. Identified the danger of people in numbers subservient to others at a very young age. If anyone ever asked I just said something different every time. "I forgot the lyrics.", "I'm from Sweden, and plan to go back there when I'm 18", "Wouldn't liberty mean that I should be free to just sit here and draw? Isn't that what the soldiers fought for?"... Of course, I wound up in the psychiatric system, but then again that's what psychiatry is for.

This isn't working even though I copied the perma-link.

Genealogy is not going to explain social, mental and emotional states. Though it may help us to better type and identify undesirable people. All personality traits are genetic and genes are dynamic. If they didn't mutate we would never evolve. Speaking of which, what makes this a "disease"?

It's sad what sort of sciences get money sometimes, especially for things like these where the money comes from people who are merely looking for ways to justify destroying the people that they don't like, either with drugs, surgeries or even trying to implement eugenics into society with acceptance.

The nightmare of a autistic society: A world of artists and free-thinkers who are difficult to conform to the uniform standards of a robotic society. Wow, horrible disease.

This is nothing new. I knew this since I was a kid and it also reminds me of that movie American Beauty. Nonetheless there are still a lot of people out there who hate gays because they were just indoctrinated with religious beliefs or grew up around gay-haters and just adopted the attitude in the same way that we adopt many of the things around us during our development. Also, I find the word "homophobic" inaccurate since I've never come across a anti-homo person who was afraid of a homosexual, in fact quite the opposite - they'd get white knuckles, grind their teeth and want to attack.

This is common sense. Some hick in a shack could had told you this 100 years ago.

As much as I dislike, or I'd say even hate religions themselves... This is more of a vanity plate, and has nothing more to do with the state than whatever some person selects as their witty or obnoxious plate number. As a advocate for fairness, freedom and truth I strongly disagree with this ruling.

And for everybody going on in the theme of "The Constitution isn't very popular these days, good to see that at least ONE judge has read it !"

The separation of church and state is the separation of church and THE FUNCTION OF THE STATE. E.G. the church cant pass laws or interfere with government. Not that religions cant have anything to do with anything to do with the state. Can a religious person walk into a state building wearing a cross or a turban? It'd be practically the same as this vanity plate. The constitution barred nothing of that sort with the separation of church and state, as it would conflict with the right to liberty.

Woah... Well, I cant be too surprised. They're all drunks and I'm sure the judge was sympathetic. Alcohol can mess things up in many powerful ways in a society and yet you can get it at virtually every corner store and grocery store in the U.S. and across most of the world... As well as tobacco. Yet if you're ever in severe pain and need some vicodin, well... You'll have to swallow your pride and kiss your doctors ass and still get less than what you want or need, have to be seen as an addict and be on the DEA's watch list. You'll also face abrupt withdrawals as you run out early when your doctor goes on vacation or someone steals your bottle or you lose it and, well, as a guy whose father has rheumatoid arthritis, it's a total hell but as Thomas Szasz says - and is right about - nobody cares until they're the ones suffering to death and before then are in love with the illusion that doctors and the government regulated drug industry are there to keep them safe from themselves because if there's one thing that terrifies the masses the most it is personal responsibility.

This is stupid. It's not like millions of Americans aren't thinking about it, why not let them talk about it. Go to any hick town prior to the election and there were polls in bars all over asking "How long do you think Obama would be president before getting assassinated?" with a pen sitting underneath it. Asking a question for the sake of finding out what people think is not a threat anymore than a thought itself. A thought crime... Hmm, I've heard of this one before.