| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Jeff, Why do you say that congress has no authority to write tax code or to specify what the federal govt means when it uses the term marriage? A challenge to the declared meaning of a word used by the fed govt in no way means that said word cannot fall under preview of congress. It just means someone is wanting to redefine it. I think the meaning of "disabled" has been litigated extensively, and the fed govt has invested much effort towards that exercise.. I really think states will be allowed to define as they wish, that's exactly what Cali did until a homosexual judge ruled the voters' will unconstitutional. Thus we go to the Supreme Court of the United States. Seems perfectly acceptable. Whether we like it or not, marriage is part of federal legislation. I think it's there for a very good reason, one not applicable to same sex partners. Marriage of husband and wife is the foundation of successful society. I sure hope that it remains so with its meaning intact, at least as far as the federal govt goes. I sure have enjoyed our discussion. It's so refreshing to share viewpoints without the miserable personal nonsense. | ||
| Jim_cullen |
In a few months or years, all the restrictions on gay marriage ( not civil unions) will be gone. You can blame the media, the left, politicians more concerned with getting votes than upholding values, "brainwashing" and all the other weak rationalizations. But if those of you who support DOMA, etc., REALLY want to know why you'll lose, this is it. Arguments to the contrary simply don't hold water. Cut to the chase - last line from a Dartmouth Review editorial Marriage has been redefined before, to eliminate racial restrictions and de-systematize gender inequality. It’s time to do it one more time. Last week, two landmark civil rights cases on same-sex marriage were argued before the Supreme Court. The first case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, is a lawsuit filed by gay couples claiming that Proposition 8, an amendment banning gay marriage in California, is unconstitutional. The California administration elected not to defend Prop 8, agreeing with the plaintiffs, so the official sponsors of the referendum – “ProtectMarriage.com” and its leader Dennis Hollingsworth – have acted as defendants. Based on transcripts of oral arguments from last week, it seems like the Supreme Court might take the easy way out and rule that the case was improperly granted, since private citizens have never before defended a law in court. The other gay marriage case before the Supreme Court, Windsor v. United States, is a lawsuit by a gay woman claiming that the Defense of Marriage Act, a Clinton-era bill which withholds marriage benefits from married gay couples, is unconstitutional. Oral arguments last week gave hints that Windsor may be a simple federalism case, as the Supreme Court seemed unconvinced that the federal government has the power to regulate marriage at all. Although the cases argued before the Supreme Court last week may be stifled by timidity and procedural considerations, the real legal issues at play here have been debated extensively over the last three years. The Defense of Marriage Act has been ruled unconstitutional eight times in federal courts (including twice already in Windsor), and the current Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, was fast tracked to the Supreme Court after two high-profile victories for the plaintiffs. Several federal courts have already ruled that these laws violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the latter of which proclaims that the State cannot “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Senator Portman made waves in the mainstream press when he switched his decades-old position on gay marriage after his son came out. When the courts ruled on due process, they first affirmed that the right to marry was a well-established Constitutional right. The court then had to decide whether same-sex marriage was protected under the definition of marriage. In the first Prop 8 verdict, the court cited definitions of marriage from dozens of precedent cases: definitions like “marriage is a coming together for better or worse, hopefully enduring and intimate to the point of being sacred,” or, “an expression of emotional support and public commitment.” Nowhere in these definitions, the opinion shows, has there been discussion of procreative ability or intent, and the State has never enquired about these things before issuing marriage licenses. The definition of marriage has historically only been restricted by things like race and gender in eras of racial or gender discrimination – restrictions which are now recognized as shameful. For the estimated ten million gay people in our nation, civil unions are not a legitimate solution because they do not carry the same social connotations as marriage and were created only so that the State could offer benefits to gay couples while explicitly denying them the ability to marry. It is clear based on legal precedent that gay Americans enjoy the same Constitutional right to marriage and the pursuit of happiness as everybody else. Under the Due Process clause, the State cannot infringe upon Constitutional rights without due process of law and a compelling justification. Since the right for gay couples to marry is protected under the Constitution, the constitutionality of bills like DOMA and Prop 8 hinges on whether same-sex marriages are harmful for society – if they are, the State could claim a compelling interest in regulating or discouraging them. To answer this question, the court in Hollingsworth heard testimony from eleven expert witnesses. The plaintiffs’ nine witnesses included a Yale social historian, a Stanford political scientist, the Republican mayor of San Diego, San Francisco’s chief economist, and a Cambridge developmental psychologist. These witnesses were selected not for their politics but as internationally recognized leaders of their fields, and they presented an overwhelming body of evidence in support of gay Americans. Allowing gays to marry improves their productivity and mental health, increases their contribution to society, reduces healthcare costs for the government, improves overall economic outlook, and creates an institution of marriage that is more equal and more principled, the scholars agreed. The court agreed, too. When it first ruled on Hollingsworth, included in its opinion were several “findings of fact”, or facts which had been thoroughly proved by testimony in the trial. The court had seen hundreds of hours of expert testimony, and it concluded based on a consensus of academic information that individuals do not generally choose their own sexual orientation, that there are significant harms to society incurred by banning same-sex marriage, and that children raised by same-sex couples are at least as well-adjusted as children raised by opposite-sex couples. Clearly, the arguments in favor of Prop 8 had not been very persuasive. One of the defendants’ two witnesses, David Blankenhorn, admitted under cross-examination that “we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before” and has since publicly changed his position and fully supports gay marriage. The second witness was described by the court as advancing personal views without a sufficient body of evidence. It should be noted that the defendants had ample opportunity to find more credible witnesses – had there been any to find. In the Prop 8 case, the court explicitly affirmed that it would have deferred to legislative or popular judgment if there had been “at least a debatable question” whether discrimination against gays had any sort of compelling justification. This sentiment has been echoed by other federal courts in trials concerning gay marriage. However, there is no longer any reason to believe that such a debatable question exists; everything we know about our society tells us that allowing gays the right to marry would improve our nation’s economic, social, and moral strength without harming straight couples. After six months of trial and deliberation, Proposition 8 was ruled “unconstitutional under any standard of review” in federal court, as had already happened several times with DOMA. Marriage traditionalists argue that court decisions like these miss the point. They argue that opposite-sex parenting is far superior to same-sex parenting, or that same-sex marriages infringe upon the freedoms of those who oppose them. Statistics discount the first argument: 7% of children from opposite-sex marriages are held back a year during their academic careers, compared to 9.5% of children of same-sex partners. This two-and-a-half percentage point gap disappears after controlling for household income, which is pretty extraordinary considering the stigmas of persecution that laws like Prop 8 and DOMA continue to propagate among non-traditional families. One would expect that this effect would, if anything, stack the odds against children raised by homosexual couples. Any achievement gap that does exist is a reflection of widespread discrimination, not of gay Americans’ abilities as parents. There has never been a causal link established between the two. It is also absurd to argue that recognizing same-sex marriage infringes upon straight Americans’ religious freedoms. Allowing homosexuals to marry does not infringe upon the rights of heterosexuals any more than allowing people to practice Judaism or Islam infringes upon the religious rights of Christians. Civil and religious institutions of marriage are entirely distinct, and specific religious beliefs, no matter how widely-held, have no place in our legislation. After all, religious authorities do not grant marriage licenses and no church should be forced to marry anyone they wish. Along the same lines, those churches should not be able to withold civil institutions such as marriage licenses from citizens. The United States is, after all, a free country. As a nation, we need to step back and think about why exactly some of us oppose same-sex marriage. That group is dwindling even as we speak. Senator Rob Portman of Ohio strongly opposed gay marriage throughout his career as a politician representing Ohioan voters. In 1996, Senator Portman co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which restricted the federal definition of marriage to one man and one woman as well as prevented interstate recognition of homosexual marriages. Senator Portman then continued his stance against both gay rights and homosexual marriage by voting in 1999 to prevent gay couples in DC from adopting children. Last month, however, he announced that he had changed his stance on same-sex marriage and became the first Republican Senator ever to support it. The impetus? Senator Portman’s 21-year-old son came out as gay in a letter to his parents. Senator Portman remarked on the decision to change his stance and the revelation that his son was gay: “It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have -- to have a relationship like [my wife] and I have had for over 26 years.” For the first 55 years of his life, Senator Portman viewed gays as second-class citizens whose deviant behaviors were constitutionally unprotected. He saw gays as threats to a stable society and believed they were incapable of the same love he shared with his wife. It was easy for him to believe this because he was ignorant enough about homosexuals to mistake them for their stereotypes. That misinformed view resulted in a position he maintained for decades and supported laws which may now be ruled unconstitutional. Then as soon as Senator Portman encountered homosexuality in his own family, everything changed. It probably took exceptional courage for him to stand up in front of the media last month and admit he had been wrong, and for that Senator Portman should be commended. Of course, many have pointed out that this sudden change of heart may be related to the current debate surrounding the Republican Party’s future and the possible nominees for President in 2016. That theory of political gamesmanship, however, is missing the point entirely. The fact of the matter is that his prejudice had shaped his beliefs and his legislation for his entire career, and if he had just taken the time to learn more about the people he was actively repressing then he would have come to his senses a long time ago. Marriage has been redefined before, to eliminate racial restrictions and de-systematize gender inequality. It’s time to do it one more time. | ||
| Blake |
That's a false argument. It was the racists who redefined marriage and they were rightly found unconstitutional. Race is an artificial construct of bigots and govt. Marriage is gender specific, requiring one of each. It's not in any way based on an artificial construct. Anyone of any sexual preference may marry. No one is excluded from doing so. Your case is false, based on lies. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
If you allow the government to allow and define marriage... and yes gay marriage.... then you should not be surprised, offended, or even miffed that they will use your tax dollars to allow for artificial insemination, family building for adoption and money to support the new 'family' paradigm If you let government into your family - do not be surprised how far it will creep. http://tinyurl.com/bvhsenj the fall of Rome was not from diddling each other in the rear - that was Sodom and Ghomora. Rome fell because EVERYTHING was permissible - and to the extent that it was all funded, controlled, tallied by the government - it all fell If we will not learn from history, we should at least learn the tune that Nero was fiddling when Rome Burned - and get that damn orchestra warmed up Compared to 50 years ago - what boundaries are left in morality - that is NOT dictated by the state ? yep - its about that time again. | ||
| Blake |
When any govt forces the people under penalty of law to violate their religion, it is in effect establishing a state religion. Forcing people to pay taxes in support of homosexual behavior, or forcing people to provide health insurance for homosexual partners of employees would constitute blatant violations of religious doctrine for millions of Christian Americans. | ||
| Jim_cullen |
"Race is an artificial construct" - false "Marriage is gender specific" - Also false. At least in the US legal system No one's forcing you to violate your religion , so that arguments is also false. There's a little bit more to the fall of the Roman Empire than City's version and Nero's fiddling was long ago dismissed as inaccurate. Do your homework. Where our tax money is spent is decided by the politicians we elect. And it doesn't violate religious doctrine. If you don't like it, vote for someone who supports your views. If you did and you are finding that's a minority opinion, pull up your skirt, Nancy. The argument against tax money being used to support homosexual behavior or partners violates religious doctrine is interesting. What about welfare payments for homosexuals? Or federal retirement pensions? DOD retirements? Federal prisons? A know there's nothing I can say that'll change your mind. Jeremiah 5:21 ‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not. Personally, I just find it interesting and amusing to watch you squirm. One last question though - how do you maintain your tinfoil hats under your bike helmets? | ||
| Jim_cullen |
hey - thanks for disabling my ability to search. nice touch! just wanted to tell folks who hard wire their fan that adding the quarter watt 1000K resistor between the OEM positive and negative leads from the fan will keep you from seeing the CEL all the time. see you soon. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Hey diddle diddle, the cat and the fiddle, The cow jumped over the moon. The little dog laughed to see such fun And the dish ran away with the spoon Nero 'fiddled' while Rome Burned Barack slept while Bengazhi Burned Bush read to kids while New York Burned Like it is only in ancient history that the inspection of the behavior of the leader is seemed nanchaulant at times of crisis? Let them Eat Cake. And honestly - if you don't like where America is headed, there is always Galts Gulch - cus this train aint turning back around - it will end, just as Rome did figuratively, and literally. | ||
| Jim_cullen |
Nero didn't fiddle while Rome burned Benghazi was over before the President slept Bush was reading to kids when the planes struck - but not for long But your introduction speaks volumes - all seen from the eyes of a child -simple and naive and not quite prepared to discern fact from fairy tales | ||
| Jim_cullen |
I get that support of gay marriage is contrary to some folks religious beliefs, but there's no room for that to be justification for laws of the nation http://youtu.be/S1-ip47WYWc | ||
| Kenm123t |
The gay agenda is the repressive position the majority do not care if you live your perverse life style that's your right. But if we choose not to participate in your fantasy you wish to say we are intolerant ones. Jim your militancy and intolerance is showing. We see your foolishness and cultural intolerance. Its easy to see when you complain about the spec in another's eye but miss the log in your own. Sad thing is you reinforce the faithful undermine your own position and you will never understand why. Jesus said in the last days you will be persecuted for your faith. Thanks for the reinforcement of the faithful everyone is a blessing but some know not why! | ||
| Aesquire |
" "Race is an artificial construct" - false " Race is a completely artificial construct to enable evil men to treat others as not human and therefor ok to be slaves. It's also a fairly recent construct as Rome didn't give a darn what color your skin was, or shape your eyelids were, you became a slave when they said so. ( for various reasons ) Sure, it's obvious just looking around you that Mr. Gupta over there is different in features and skin color, as Is Mrs. Yang, and Ms. Kaneesha. The division of folk into "races" is, IIRC, a 17th century phenom related to the trend of "scientific categorization" and the French Revolution's philosophies of "perfection of the unspoiled" coupled with the European purchase from Arab traders African tribesman sold into slavery by rival tribes. Race is an excuse to exploit others. Always was, still is. Other than that we seem to be in agreement. You're good with my Friend Jean having a hareem, right? | ||
| Jim_cullen |
Well I can concede there's some disagreement over the validity of "race". Even among biologists like me. But, I think the point in the argument was that race, like sexual orientation, shouldn't be the basis for exclusion so I think overall we agree on that. And I haven't thought about it much but overall I have no real issue a hareem so long as Jean and all are happy with it | ||
| Jim_cullen |
Hi Ken The gay agenda's neither perverse nor a fantasy. Your religious beliefs - well that's what I call a fantasy. But that's just me. Knock yourself out. I only get intolerant when someone tries to project those beliefs into my legal system. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
tedious. The bill goes live 1/1/2014 The currency, economy and country that follows those lies and web that it is built on, is dead in five years. All hail the O | ||
| Kenm123t |
Jim its not YOUR legal system Your supporting the inclusion of Special rights for gays lgbt etc will not change the facts. The perverse should deal with Gay guilt and leave the rest of us alone. No amount of force will change the fact they are Perverse. The issue they have is their own embarrassment and guilt not societies We will not accept their guilt its theirs. and thank you for the affirmation of faith! Have a great SUNDAY ! He is risen risen indeed! | ||
| Jim_cullen |
Ken It is my legal system. And yours. There are a lot of things that bug me about the US and it's incorporation of religion. Probably none more basic than "One Nation, under God". If I could get rid of that, I surely would. I use to find that mildly offensive, but given the history and the fact that as an atheist I'm a minority, it's now no big deal. One can't be embarrassed or feel guilty unless someone told them they should feel those emotions. Having been raised by christians and having attended a christian university, I know a lot about guilt. If they didn't invent it, christians certainly perfected it as a form of coercion when their twisted logic failed. Religion has a strong hold on a lot of people because they see it as a way of defeating death. I'm comfortable with the belief that when I die, everything fades to black and that's it. I also realize that if there is a hell, I'll be there, right next to you and billions of other bible thumpers. | ||
| Oldog |
It is my legal system. And yours. There are a lot of things that bug me about the US and it's incorporation of religion. Separation of church & state, what is the official religion of the USA? Probably none more basic than "One Nation, under God". If I could get rid of that, I surely would. I use to find that mildly offensive, but given the history and the fact that as an atheist /Black{ Ok so if there were an "official state faith" say like Iran and you held conflicting views, What happens? In Iran, You are hung by the neck until dead for being an "infidel".} Religion has a strong hold on a lot of people because they see it as a way of defeating death. I'm comfortable with the belief that when I die, everything fades to black and that's it. I also realize that if there is a hell, I'll be there, right next to you and billions of other bible thumpers. Suggested reading "23 minutes in hell". I would send you a copy but I gave it to a friend of mine. You contradict your self sir..... Since we have taken down the 10 commandments, and banned some public forms of Christian expression (School prayers) have things gotten better or worse. My 0.02$, In GOD I TRUST, In Christ I believe, The other guy knows how the story ends  | ||
| Oldog |
Marriage = Adam & Eve Marriage <> Adam & Steve If people wish to live in that manner (A&S) then perhaps a tax concession is fair. Call it a domestic partner ship man & man, woman & woman, man & woman [ not married ]. But marriage is 1 man 1 woman joined before GOD, the rest is nonsense, BTW Divorce is a big business so the Govt wants a cut....... This diverts your attention from larger more important issues, 2nd amend, debit, etc..... | ||
| Jim_cullen |
"Separation of church & state, what is the official religion of the USA?" There isn't "one". There shouldn't be any mention of god or gods. Just my opinion. "Ok so if there were an "official state faith" say like Iran and you held conflicting views, What happens?" First of all, I don't want an "Official state faith". If there was, I'd leave. "Suggested reading "23 minutes in hell". I would send you a copy but I gave it to a friend of mine. " Curious choice. A "non-fiction" book that sprang from a dream. I'll pass. But thanks for the offer. "You contradict your self sir....." Perhaps you could explain. What I said was I believe when you die, that's it. But also that I could be wrong and IF (small word, but the operative one) I was wrong..... "Since we have taken down the 10 commandments, and banned some public forms of Christian expression (School prayers) have things gotten better or worse." Losing the 10, banning prayer in school - good. Lots of other things in general - good and bad. Are you implying cause and effect between the losing the 10 and prayer and all the bad? My that would be a convenient explanation. Convenient, but wrong. I could make the same argument for global warming or the general population increase in the last 200 years. | ||
| Aesquire |
"This diverts your attention from larger more important issues, 2nd amend, debit, etc....." That's what I've been trying to say. The current admin. "intends" to rack up more debt than all the previous admins. combined, and will succeed in that next year, IIRC, without ever signing a budget. Also, between 10-25 million illegal aliens are going to be enrolled in Obamacare and registered to vote. Guess which party? THAT will finally permit the end of the 1st and 2nd Amendments altogether. "Separation of Church and State" is not the same as the Constitutional mandate, to NOT form a State Religion and NOT interfere in your worship. However the New State Religion will require you to tithe for Mother Gaia for your very Breath. ( and extra for your Infernal Combustion machines ) I suspect that the most evil, most manipulative of these folk is just thrilled to have you guys complain about perversity. As an aside to the Atheists. You have no right to not be offended by the world. Suck it up. If The Memorial has a cross and that upsets you, grow up. Penn Jillette has a point in that he just doesn't want to force others to pay for religious expression in our public spaces. I can grasp his logic. He certainly doen't call for the destruction of others religious symbols, as do the Islamists, the Neo-marxists and the Radical ( adolescent rejection ) Atheists. Plus he's funny. | ||
| Jim_cullen |
Whether the term marriage is exclusive to a man and a woman remains to be seen. Isn't what this discussion is all about? "But marriage is 1 man 1 woman joined before GOD, the rest is nonsense" Your opinion. Not an opinion shared by me or a growing number of US citizens or politicians. So are atheists not really married? Or were they, just before a god they don't recognize? So when "nonsense" becomes law, what will be the argument then? Not that there aren't lots of other nonsensical laws...... Honestly, I don't get why some folks have the need to make the distinction between marriage and civil union - where the latter is OK for same-sex couples but the former isn't. Reminds me of a 9th grade Algebra lesson where the slope of a line on a graph is y/x and not x/y. It would communicate the same information as long as everyone was aware of and agreed to the reference Denial and rationalization are powerful tools, aren't they? | ||
| Blake |
Says the guy who denies deity and rationalizes the radical redefinition of what constitutes a marriage. Logic and reason must rule the day. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/Inter-Racial-Marria ge-and-Same-Sex-Marriage Dr. Craig nails it. | ||
| Blake |
http://youtu.be/X7uFmp2-E7g | ||
| Jim_cullen |
Logic and reason do rule. And so does the majority. I don't really deny deity. I just don't believe. And only a reactionary would classify the redefinition of marriage as radical. The polarization between the extremes on either end reminds me a lot of the Tea Party movement and how the TP was going to take back control of the government. How'd that one work out for y'all? You're dinosaurs. Do creationists even believe in dinosaurs? How do you feel about tax money supporting Natural History Museums? | ||
| Aesquire |
Dr. Craig is half right, then he uses circular reasoning to make his point. IF you define marriage a certain way, say, 1 man 1 woman, then you've finished the conversation. If I define Murder as when someone kills a man, period......... The a man killing a woman isn't murder, since she's not a man. ( this argument, btw is flawed, and in error ) Jim, I think you mistake the Tea party for the social conservatives. AFAIK, while there are plenty of social conservatives IN the tea party, the party is limiting itself to fiscal conservatism, leaving the social arguments for later. I'll feel free to join you in mocking the sillier aspects of social conservatives, but the "tea party" & dinosaurs is lefty propaganda, ( at least as far as I've seen, I'm NOT a Tea party insider ) It is indeed a pity IMHO that the tp folk weren't able to gain more power over the country club R's. I think they suck. On the Creationist & dinosaurs question, I have no clue, I'm a catastrophist evolution theory kinda guy. As to being a dinosaur, you betcha! I feel millions of years old every morning. Thank Bayer for NSAID's. Blake, the trouble is..... when you allow government to define marriage, ( or other contracts ) you have the problem of Mob opinion changing definitions. More in a Democracy than a Republic, but popular opinion still tends to rule. No vote is going to change the laws of thermodynamics. A judge's Opinion can certainly change the way institutions react to human interactions. i.e. It's not rocket science. | ||
| Aesquire |
btw. "you're dinosaurs" while it may have some truth to it, is a sign you are losing. By attacking the character of those you disagree with instead of the errors in logic or facts of the argument, you show you have no argument yourself, and therefor are being vindictive and stupid, as opposed to brilliant and insightful. It is entirely likely to me that you can contribute some valuable insight. Or you can call names, use straw man unrelated irrelevant misleading dialectic. ( myself, I sometimes cross the line into excessive sarcasm...... did I say Sometimes? ) Also, I like perversion and sodomy. Great stuff. ONLY Consenting adults. Draw the line right there, everyone, and HOLD that one. When the kiddie screwers get involved, you don't want your credibility destroyed because you lost your temper about a little perversion. ( taste is taste ) | ||
| Oldog |
There shouldn't be any mention of god or gods. Just my opinion. Noted, But I and many others like me believe in a creator, and the story of his rescue of a fallen creation, so to make YOU happy I have to "suck it up"? Regardless? I have listened to and heard all of the arguments that people use pushing your point of view, Way to much history being uncovered that supports the biblical story. The site of Sodom & Gomorrah may have been located, there are too many for me to list here. }Losing the 10, banning prayer in school - good. Lots of other things in general - good and bad. Are you implying cause and effect between the losing the 10 and prayer and all the bad? problems with schools, violence, gangs, shootings and the like as well. Society accepts lower and lower standards of behavior. The christian faith teaches respect, chastity, honesty, the value of hard work, the value of the individual and the family. Those are pretty good things to teach a child or an adult they are good values. Where the faith is absent we find, sloth, infidelity, various forms of debauchery, murder, slander, deceit. Not things most folks care to be around. Why should We the majority have to remove outward signs of our faith system to please a vocal few?, You say that GOD does not exist, I don't agree, so prove that its all a fairy tail..... I bet you can't .... } | ||
| Sifo |
Honestly, I don't get why some folks have the need to make the distinction between marriage and civil union - where the latter is OK for same-sex couples but the former isn't. This is the crux of the matter, and it's quite simple. When the government decides to promote a behavior that some people finds to be against their religion, there is a conflict with the first amendment. From those who are pushing gay marriage, there are over 1049 government benefits that they want access to. Aside from that simple problem, and getting a bit off topic, I don't think you really understand the roots of our country. People didn't flee here to get away from religion (God). The fled here for the freedom to worship as they saw fit, free from government meddling. It was never intended that government should deny, or even ignore God. It's unfortunate that you find it offensive when this reality is recognized, but it's great that we live in a country where we are free to be offended (That freedom is actually under attack currently by the progressives). problems with schools, violence, gangs, shootings and the like as well. Society accepts lower and lower standards of behavior. Speaking of schools and lower standards, I noticed today that the Jr. High School behind my house had the kids outside for gym class today. They have them simply walking around the field outside. When was gym class reduced to walking? | ||
| Aesquire |
When the government decides to promote a behavior that some people finds to be against their religion, there is a conflict with the first amendment. I fail to see the logic here. Governments promote behavior that offend someone's religious sensibilities every day. Seldom does it have anything to do with the First Amendment. Now when they arrest Preachers for refusing to Marry people that bother them, like an Asian and a European, THEN you have interference in folks religion. I leave it to you to think of cases where that might be justified. I'm not going to make up a straw man to make an argument. I may even be on your side, depending on the specifics. As a rule though, None Of Your Business applies. BTW Sifo has the First Amendment correct. It says nowhere that "there shall be no mention of God(s)" Or that there shall be no religion. It is explicit and straightforward. No government religion. Freedom to worship as you please. That's the deal. No where does any sane document give anyone the Right to not be offended. I will insult anyone I please. I will insult any ideology I choose. ( Being aware that certain ones, list at request, may issue a call for my death ) This also means I have to deal with others insulting mine. Freedom is a double edged sword. Responsibility is the back blade edge, and just as sharp. Sifo is also correct on the Pilgrims. A people too uptight for England ( as they have been described ) they fled the State Religion of Merry Old, and came to find freedom. They did. They also almost died out, since they had a philosophy that was a loser. Karl Marx stole a lot from early Christian and Puritan writings. Attempting to establish what later came to be called a Commune, the Pilgrims tried to share equally, no matter the labor put in. Pre-industrial farming is back breaking work. After being treated exactly the same as those who chose not to work hard, ( after all, why bother? ) the hard workers decided not to work hard either. ( after all, why bother? ) They almost starved to death. I often think the "Puritan Work Ethic" and the dedication to Capitalism and "good days work" comes from the realization that ( what later came to be called ) Communism is a fatal disease. I still think you all have fallen for the distraction technique. I suspect the Supremes will decide that a legal contract in one state must be legal in another. They will bypass all mention of sex and simply state that "such marriages" must have equal standing. As long as one State has "gay marriage" we all will. Period. Your objections mean nothing. Since the Subject of perverted sodomizing folk that are different from you won't even come up. Just don't marry another guy, and you're fine. ( or DO, for the insurance, or love, see if I care. I might send a card. ) |
