GW wants to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage [Archive]

SoonerInKCMO

6/5/2006, 02:31 PM

:les: DRUG WAR THREAD JACK!!!

From Hit and Run, Reason's staff blog:
'How Can a Plant Be Illegal?'

The Drug War Chronicle reports that a clamor is building for state bans on salvia divinorum, a Mexican variety of mint that when smoked delivers a brief, LSD-like trip. The plant, which is available online as one of the last remaining legal highs, is already verboten in four states (Delaware, Louisiana, Missouri, and Tennessee), and several others are considering bans. The drug is not very popular, and it's not likely that it ever will be. "The experience is too weird and occasionally downright unpleasant to have much mass appeal," notes the Chronicle, which quotes one authority who warns that a salvia trip "can be unsettling and unpleasant" and another who says, "salvia is not 'fun' in the way that alcohol or cannabis can be. If you try to party with salvia, you will probably not have a good experience."

Yet the fact that some people seem to like it, or at least to find it useful, was enough to prompt legislation, which gained further support after a Delaware teenager who used salvia committed suicide. "We found a note that he wrote on the computer that said salvia divinorum made him realize there was no point to being on Earth," his mother said while pushing for a ban in New Jersey.

"The fact is, legal means safe," a staffer who convinced an Alaska legislator to back a salvia ban (even though it's not clear that a single Alaskan has ever used the drug) told the Fairbanks Daily News Miner. Right, because everyone knows that alcohol and tobacco are completely safe, and surely no teenager has ever killed himself after drinking. The proprietor of "the Urban Shaman entheogen shop in Vancouver" also seems a little disconnected from the reality of U.S. (and Canadian) drug policy,
asking, "How can a plant be illegal?"

Still, it's a good question.

Posted by Jacob Sullum
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/06/how_can_a_plant.shtml

Beef

6/5/2006, 02:31 PM

Drugs. **** YEAH!:eddie: :eddie: :eddie:

Red October

6/5/2006, 02:34 PM

Random Drug Testing = I will randomly test any drugs you may have. :D

King Crimson

6/5/2006, 02:34 PM

the old Rover is back in action.....with the old tried and true.

NormanPride

6/5/2006, 02:40 PM

Is there a way you can ignore whole threads?

SoonerInKCMO

6/5/2006, 02:41 PM

Anybody know where I can get some salvia divinorum?

GottaHavePride

6/5/2006, 02:42 PM

Changing the constitution to ban gay marriage? Totally idiotic. I don't think the purpose of the Constitution is to legislate societal values. The purpose of the Constitution is protective, not restrictive. It sets up a form of government that protects the rights of its citizens - changing that to restrict the righs of its citizens - for any reason - is a bad, bad idea. Look at Prohibition and what a miserable failure that was - this is the same thing.

GottaHavePride

6/5/2006, 02:42 PM

Anybody know where I can get some salvia divinorum?
http://www.salvia-divinorum.com/

Google search. ;)

JohnnyMack

6/5/2006, 02:45 PM

IBTT

KaiserSooner

6/5/2006, 02:48 PM

Hamhock

6/5/2006, 02:51 PM

Is homosexual sex against the law currently?

skycat

6/5/2006, 02:51 PM

This thread is going to be tame in comparison to the X-Men threads.

etouffee

6/5/2006, 02:52 PM

Is homosexual sex against the law currently?In some states, yes. Federally? no.

Hatfield

6/5/2006, 03:05 PM

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 03:08 PM

actually clinton signed into law the defense of marriage act. So there is a law on the books that says marriage is between a man and a woman. This law has not been challenged, yet with all that is going on in the world we need to focus on creating an amendment??
Hey, some people just need their binkies. That's all this is,an attempt to give a binkie to the people that are scared of gays/think their brand of christianty is best/et al.

NormanPride

6/5/2006, 03:10 PM

"scared of gays"

heh...

C&CDean

6/5/2006, 03:12 PM

I don't need the constitution to tell me that sticking my pecker in some guy's hairy, sweaty, stinky, dingle-balled ******* is wrong. But I wouldn't disagree with it if it did.

And everybody knows this deal ain't going through. But I guess the leftistas gotta have something, and the righties are always willing to give it to them......

etouffee

6/5/2006, 03:12 PM

people that are scared of gays
I've never bought into the whole "fear" thing that people like to assert when one group doesn't like, or even hates, another. I don't really think anyone is "scared" of gay people, but clearly lots of people hate them.

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 03:14 PM

I've never bought into the whole "fear" thing that people like to assert when one group doesn't like, or even hates, another. I don't really think anyone is "scared" of gay people, but clearly lots of people hate them.
I have found that most people don't hate things they aren't scared of, just my observation.

C&CDean

6/5/2006, 03:16 PM

You guys are weird. I ain't scared of them and I don't hate them. I think they're ****ed up.

etouffee

6/5/2006, 03:18 PM

I have found that most people don't hate things they aren't scared of, just my observation.in general, that may be true. but i know a lot of people who hate gays, and i'd be genuinely shocked if any of them were actually scared of them.

and come to think of it, i'm not scared of brocolli or techno music.

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 03:21 PM

in general, that may be true. but i know a lot of people who hate gays, and i'd be genuinely shocked if any of them were actually scared of them.

and come to think of it, i'm not scared of brocolli or techno music.
I should of clarified what I meant. I find that hate springs from fear. Now the people you know may hate gays, but not fear the actual gay person, yet their hate may still spring from a fear inside themselves about their own beliefs and desires.

VeeJay

6/5/2006, 03:21 PM

I don't need the constitution to tell me that sticking my pecker in some guy's hairy, sweaty, stinky, dingle-balled ******* is wrong.

Thorough wiping after pooping would take care of that.

handcrafted

6/5/2006, 03:22 PM

Hey, some people just need their binkies. That's all this is,an attempt to give a binkie to the people that are scared of gays/think their brand of christianty is best/et al.

Just making sure your slashes mean "or" and not "and". There are probably a lot of people scared of gays. I am not one of them. Just because I disagree with a person doesn't automatically make me afraid of a person. If that were true, I'd run screaming from the board. :D

I agree with GHP, kinda. Except for the part about the Constitution not being designed to restrict people's rights, I'm not really sure what he means by that. All laws are restrictive in some way. I guess it depends on how you are defining "rights", which admittedly is a fungible term these days.

But DOMA takes care of the situation from a Federal point of view. This is an improper subject for a Constitutional Amendment. It's nothing but pandering, and I resent being pandered to. If the Congress wanted to really do something about the underlying problem, they'd amend Title 28 of the US Code and put some limits on Federal Court jurisdiction. That's called enforcing the 10th and 11th Amendments, not adding a 28th.

And if an individual state wants to either ban or allow homosexual civil unions, that's between them, their elected officials, and their people. The Feds need to quit sticking their nose into state issues.

Penguin

6/5/2006, 03:24 PM

I'm still waiting for the Amendment to ban flag burning and single mothers.

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 03:25 PM

Just making sure your slashes mean "or" and not "and". There are probably a lot of people scared of gays. I am not one of them. Just because I disagree with a person doesn't automatically make me afraid of a person. If that were true, I'd run screaming from the board. :D

I agree with GHP, kinda. Except for the part about the Constitution not being designed to restrict people's rights, I'm not really sure what he means by that. All laws are restrictive in some way. I guess it depends on how you are defining "rights", which admittedly is a fungible term these days.

But DOMA takes care of the situation from a Federal point of view. This is an improper subject for a Constitutional Amendment. It's nothing but pandering, and I resent being pandered to. If the Congress wanted to really do something about the underlying problem, they'd amend Title 28 of the US Code and put some limits on Federal Court jurisdiction. That's called enforcing the 10th and 11th Amendments, not adding a 28th.

And if an individual state wants to either ban or allow homosexual civil unions, that's between them, their elected officials, and their people. The Feds need to quit sticking their nose into state issues.
The slashes meant or not and. And the Feds will probably quit sticking their noses into state issues when it quits helping them win elections

handcrafted

6/5/2006, 03:27 PM

The slashes meant or not and. And the Feds will probably quit sticking their noses into state issues when it quits helping them win elections

True dat. Such a thing would, however, require a generally more educated and informed electorate. And we ain't got one. ;)

Condescending Sooner

6/5/2006, 03:33 PM

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 03:35 PM

Whether you agree with it or not, something needs to be put on the books. It's not just government trying to legislate morality. It has to do with all sorts of things like inheritance, life insurance, health insurance, child custody, adoption, etc. It hasn't been a huge issue in the past because the gay's never challenged the legal system to the extent they are currently. If each state has it's own rules, I think that could cause problems also.
There is a law on the books, and the devil himself Bill Clinton signed it. It's called the defense of Marriage act and has been law for 8 years.

etouffee

6/5/2006, 03:36 PM

. It has to do with all sorts of things like inheritance, life insurance, health insurance, child custody, adoption, etc. It hasn't been a huge issue in the past because the gay's never challenged the legal system to the extent they are currently. If each state has it's own rules, I think that could cause problems also.States already
have their own rules about each of the issues you raised.

Condescending Sooner

6/5/2006, 03:40 PM

There is a law on the books, and the devil himself Bill Clinton signed it. It's called the defense of Marriage act and has been law for 8 years.

Then why are they able to challenge it, and states make their own laws? If it is in the constitution, would that end the challenges?

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 03:44 PM

Then why are they able to challenge it, and states make their own laws? If it is in the constitution, would that end the challenges?
Nobody is really challenging it on a Federal level. There are something things that are reserved to the states, as they should be and there has been some activity in those areas.

soonernation

6/5/2006, 03:47 PM

Condescending Sooner

6/5/2006, 03:50 PM

Isn't states rights issues what started the Civil War? I could personally care less whether it is banned, but I think leaving it to each states could cause problems given such a hot button issue.

Hamhock

6/5/2006, 03:52 PM

I should of clarified what I meant. I find that hate springs from fear. Now the people you know may hate gays, but not fear the actual gay person, yet their hate may still spring from a fear inside themselves about their own beliefs and desires.

I don't guess I know anyone who "hates gays". How do the people you know manifest this hate?

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 03:54 PM

Isn't states rights issues what started the Civil War? I could personally care less whether it is banned, but I think leaving it to each states could cause problems given such a hot button issue.
Is it really that much of a hot button issue. Would Mississippi really want out of the Union if Vermont allows Gays to marry? What if Montana decided to legalize pot, would that cause Arizona serious problems? God forbid there be a little bit of regional autonomy. Where is Sicem when you need him? He's the resident states rights guy.

NormanPride

6/5/2006, 03:54 PM

I don't guess I know anyone who "hates gays". How do the people you know manifest this hate?

http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/images/misc/god%20hates%20fags.jpg

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 03:55 PM

I don't guess I know anyone who "hates gays". How do the people you know manifest this hate?
Is this a serious question, do you really not know what someone manifesting hate of somesort looks like.

SCOUT

6/5/2006, 03:58 PM

The problem with leaving the decision at the state level comes up when someone moves. If you are married in New Hampshire (where it is hypothetically legal) and move to Texas (where it is hypothetically not legal) are they no longer married?

I personally do not want a constitutional amendment on the subject. I don't think it is necessary. I do think that this topic will generate some interesting debate though. I think it will shine a light on the judiciary in particular. It seems to me that the way things are going the judiciary is growing beyond its intended power. Judges are ruling against the will of the people on this issue, and others like eminent domain, and in some cases on flimsy reasoning. I hope that this topic will be the catalyst to looking at the role of the judiciary.

handcrafted

6/5/2006, 03:58 PM

That pic smells of farkage...

lefty

6/5/2006, 03:58 PM

I don't guess I know anyone who "hates gays". How do the people you know manifest this hate?

Here's how a couple of guys manifested their hate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

C&CDean

6/5/2006, 03:58 PM

Dude, you're in Nebraska. WTF do you know about gays?

C&CDean

6/5/2006, 03:59 PM

Here's how a couple of guys manifested their hate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

Get out. That ain't hate. That's sheer stupidity. Those guys ain't smart enough to hate.

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 04:01 PM

Dude, you're in Nebraska. WTF do you know about gays?
Lincoln has the highest per capita gay population in the Midwest. I knew several gay guys from small Nebraska towns in College. I'm from Nebraska, we have gays and Mexican's but not African-Americans.

handcrafted

6/5/2006, 04:03 PM

The problem with leaving the decision at the state level comes up when someone moves. If you are married in New Hampshire (where it is hypothetically legal) and move to Texas (where it is hypothetically not legal) are they no longer married?

As I understand it, as far as Texas is concerned, they're not married. What you are talking about is called "full faith and credit", the idea that contracts, court rulings, etc. should be upheld across state lines. DOMA abrogated that in the marriage context, which means if a state defines who it will allow to marry, someone can't come in from a different state with different laws and carve out a special exception for themselves. Basically, if you are gay and want some kind of civil recognition of your relationship, you need to live in a state that has such a legal status. If you don't like Texas, don't move there.

Hook 'em :texan:

Hamhock

6/5/2006, 04:03 PM

Is this a serious question, do you really not know what someone manifesting hate of somesort looks like.

Sorry, I was under the impression you guys actually KNEW people who hated gays.

I realize there are some fringe groups out there who hate most everybody different than them, but to automatically equate someone's opposition to the lifestyle or support of an amendment to hate is a stretch, IMO.

lefty

6/5/2006, 04:04 PM

That pic smells of farkage...

Those pictures come from this

site.http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 04:05 PM

Sorry, I was under the impression you guys actually KNEW people who hated gays.

I realize there are some fringe groups out there who hate most everybody different than them, but to automatically equate someone's opposition to the lifestyle or support of an amendment to hate is a stretch, IMO.
I do know a few, and it's pretty obvious when you know them.

lefty

6/5/2006, 04:10 PM

Lincoln has the highest per capita gay population in the Midwest. I knew several gay guys from small Nebraska towns in College. I'm from Nebraska, we have gays and Mexican's but not African-Americans.

I lived in Omaha from about 1988 till 1995. There were a couple of African-Americans there.;)

Condescending Sooner

6/5/2006, 04:11 PM

Is it really that much of a hot button issue?

Ever hear of Sodom and Gomorrah? Some people believe and take it VERY seriously.

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 04:13 PM

I lived in Omaha from about 1988 till 1995. There were a couple of African-Americans there.;)
Omaha is half seperate from the rest of the state. I view things as a Nebraskan, not a Omahan.

royalfan5

6/5/2006, 04:14 PM

Ever hear of Sodom and Gomorrah? Some people believe and take it VERY seriously.
Are you seriously saying that God is going start smiting if Gay marriage is allowed. Last I checked Holland and Scandanavia was still there.

lefty

6/5/2006, 04:15 PM

Omaha is half seperate from the rest of the state. I view things as a Nebraskan, not a Omahan.

Good point

crawfish

6/5/2006, 04:17 PM

Is there a way you can ignore whole threads?

It's called "don't...click..."

:D

walkoffsooner

6/5/2006, 04:19 PM

Ban gay messicans

crawfish

6/5/2006, 04:20 PM

If you don't like Texas, don't move there.

I wish you would've told me this 18 years ago. :mad:

Tear Down This Wall

6/5/2006, 04:20 PM

Gays are queer.

etouffee

6/5/2006, 04:21 PM

Sorry, I was under the impression you guys actually KNEW people who hated gays. I do. Thankfully I've only seen it manifested verbally, and once through a firing of a coworker who was "outed".

Herr Scholz

6/5/2006, 04:33 PM

etouffee

6/5/2006, 04:35 PM

i think that's overstating things a bit. it was a contributing factor though.

handcrafted

6/5/2006, 04:35 PM

Scott D

6/5/2006, 04:37 PM

Whether you agree with it or not, something needs to be put on the books. It's not just government trying to legislate morality. It has to do with all sorts of things like inheritance, life insurance, health insurance, child custody, adoption, etc. It hasn't been a huge issue in the past because the gay's never challenged the legal system to the extent they are currently. If each state has it's own rules, I think that could cause problems also.

By what you've stated clearly there needs to be a new Constitutional amendment as it relates to divorce as well. Since these are things that can vary from state to state...and it clearly causes a lot of problems.

And ironically, for as much as I don't agree with him I relatively agree with handcrafted on this thread.

etouffee

6/5/2006, 04:38 PM

The Republicans need their tried and true election year pandering issues to hope they don't lose the House this Fall. I'm sure we'll hear more about Democrats being soft on defense as well. And taxes. And I'm sure we'll hear plenty of the same tried and true panderings from the Democrats as well. Why wouldn't political parties promote their key issues and the ideals that appeal to and motivate their respective voter bases during an election year? :confused:

lefty

6/5/2006, 04:43 PM

Herr Scholz

6/5/2006, 04:44 PM

And I'm sure we'll hear plenty of the same tried and true panderings from the Democrats as well. Why wouldn't political parties promote their key issues and the ideals that appeal to and motivate their respective voter bases during an election year? :confused:
Because gay marriage is not a real issue. Have you heard a word about it since the 2004 election until recently? Politicians talk all this noise about all these issues for the sole purpose of getting elected and they go completely on the back burner until the next election. Pandering issues.

I'd much rather hear talk about medical costs, energy solutions, national security, the economy, etc.

etouffee

6/5/2006, 04:51 PM

Because gay marriage is not a real issue. Have you heard a word about it since the 2004 election until recently? Politicians talk all this noise about all these issues for the sole purpose of getting elected and they go completely on the back burner until the next election. Pandering issues.

I'd much rather hear talk about medical costs, energy solutions, national security, the economy, etc.I don't disagree with what you're saying; there ARE more important issues. However, what I said was that BOTH parties, not just the GOP, will make noise about the issues and ideals that will motivate their voter bases during an election year, whether they're what we would call "real" issues or not. It's undeniable that gay marriage gets the far right voters all in a tizzy, so it's perfectly understandable that it would be raised at this time.

walkoffsooner

6/5/2006, 04:52 PM

The Republicans need their tried and true election year pandering issues to hope they don't lose the House this Fall. I'm sure we'll hear more about Democrats being soft on defense as well. And taxes.

For those who don't think gay marriage is a hot button topic, it's basically the issue that won Bush a 2nd term.

i thought the hung chad won it for him

Herr Scholz

6/5/2006, 04:52 PM

i thought the hung chad won it for him
That was 2000. C'mon.

etouffee

6/5/2006, 04:54 PM

Yeah, but see, he wants to make sure you can't MARRY hung chad.

Herr Scholz

6/5/2006, 04:56 PM

It's undeniable that gay marriage gets the far right voters all in a tizzy, so it's perfectly understandable that it would be raised at this time.
You're right. Like I said, it's a tried and true method. The Dems this year will be all "We need something different!!..." The Repubs will be all "Yes we do, but who do you want affecting change: us or those weirdos?..."

lefty

6/5/2006, 04:59 PM

You're right. Like I said, it's a tried and true method. The Dems this year will be all "We need something different!!..." The Repubs will be all "Yes we do, but who do you want affecting change: us or those weirdos?..."

shouldn't it be "us or those flag burning, gay lovers?"

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:00 PM

Calling Christians bigots is about as crazy as it gets for the dims.

I am not a bigot for wanting to uphold the sanctity of Marriage, as the dims/libz want to make me and all Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddists/Hindus etc out to be (smart move come election time BTW).

jacru

6/5/2006, 05:02 PM

As long as this and other "moral" issues are decided by the citizenry or their elected officials by voting not by Supreme Court decisions. Activist judges and law by judicial decree suck!

Herr Scholz

6/5/2006, 05:02 PM

shouldn't it be "us or those flag burning, gay lovers?"
Whatever you prefer.

etouffee

6/5/2006, 05:07 PM

I am not a bigot for wanting to uphold the sanctity of Marriage,
I suppose that would depend on exactly what your stance is, and how you define bigot.

From Dictionary.com:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Certainly you are strongly partial to your own religion and politics on the gay marriage issue. And if you favor making gay marriage (or anything else) constitutionally prohibited, I reckon you could make an argument that that's pretty intolerant of it.

Now if you want to use a broader (and perhaps more commonly accepted, if not technically correct) definition of bigot, which includes hatred and such, then perhaps you don't qualify.

I find it interesting that the term "sanctity" keeps coming up. The various definitions of that term involve "holiness" and "sacredness" and even "saintliness"; things with clear religious connotations. Do we really want our Constitution to reach into such concepts? My personal view is that protecting the holiness of anything is far beyond the scope of the federal government.

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:07 PM

You're right. Like I said, it's a tried and true method. The Dems this year will be all "We need something different!!..." The Repubs will be all "Yes we do, but who do you want affecting change: us or those weirdos?..."
I think you got it right.

That seems to be the problem for the dims, they have to run against the non-weirdos.

ouflak

6/5/2006, 05:08 PM

Calling Christians bigots is about as crazy as it gets for the dims.

I am not a bigot for wanting to uphold the sanctity of Marriage,

I don't think I've seen anybody call anybody else here a bigot just because they think divorces should be dissallowed. But ofcourse we're not talking about the sanctity of marriage on this thread,.... well not unless you have managed to skillfully, yet subtley, threadjack this topic. No I think the babbling here is about gay marriage.

Herr Scholz

6/5/2006, 05:11 PM

That seems to be the problem for the dims, they have to run against the non-weirdos.
Yes, but this mid-year election the Republican incumbents in the House and Senate aren't popular with people on either side of the spectrum (albeit for different reasons).

lefty

6/5/2006, 05:11 PM

JohnnyMack

6/5/2006, 05:11 PM

Activist judge: one who makes rulings with which I disagee.

Pretty much.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

6/5/2006, 05:14 PM

As long as this and other "moral" issues are decided by the citizenry or their elected officials by voting not by Supreme Court decisions. Activist judges and law by judicial decree suck!Dittos. Hey, do you guys ever listen to the jacru show? He makes good sense, most of the time.(BTW, I'll have to repeat his idea, here, since us Jacru ditto-heads aren't capable of actually thinking, eh?)

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:14 PM

Now if you want to use a broader (and perhaps more commonly accepted, if not technically correct) definition of bigot, which includes hatred and such, then perhaps you don't qualify.
Correct. I think when the leader of the dims comes out and calls people bigots for following their religion, this is what he means.

I do not know one Christian who hates Gay people. But Marriage is a gift a gift by God and should be preserved, like life.

ouflak

6/5/2006, 05:17 PM

As long as this and other "moral" issues are decided by the citizenry [and]... not by Supreme Court decisions. Activist judges and law by judicial decree suck!

My parents were married by an activist judge when it was illegal for them to get married. This was in Oklahoma 1966. It was illegal for them to marry, but he saw two people who loved each other very much and would make the best of things, and he issued them a license and married them anyway. The Supreme Court later overruled all such laws the following year.

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:18 PM

I don't think I've seen anybody call anybody else here a bigot just because they think divorces should be dissallowed. But ofcourse we're not talking about the sanctity of marriage on this thread,.... well not unless you have managed to skillfully, yet subtley, threadjack this topic. No I think the babbling here is about gay marriage.

Divorce has a place to be discussed as well. Sometimes the sin of the partner cannot be overcome.

JohnnyMack

6/5/2006, 05:18 PM

I do not know one Christian who hates Gay people.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Fred_Phelps_on_his_pulpit.jpg

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:20 PM

My parents were married by an activist judge when it was illegal for them to get married. This was in Oklahoma 1966. It was illegal for them to marry, but he saw two people who loved each other very much and would make the best of things, and he issued them a license and married them anyway. The Supreme Court later overruled all such laws the following year.
Why was it illegal to get married?

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:20 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Fred_Phelps_on_his_pulpit.jpg
That is no follower of Christ.

ouflak

6/5/2006, 05:22 PM

Why was it illegal to get married?

Anti-miscegenation laws. Blacks couldn't marry Whites in those days. Well, they could if you had an activist judge.

JohnnyMack

6/5/2006, 05:22 PM

That is no follower of Christ.

I win on a technicality!

:P

<does the cabbage patch>

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:22 PM

Yes, but this mid-year election the Republican incumbents in the House and Senate aren't popular with people on either side of the spectrum (albeit for different reasons).

I would agree with this. I am sick of the RINOs.

Scott D

6/5/2006, 05:23 PM

Why was it illegal to get married?

because for the longest time it was illegal for minorities..more specifically black minorities to be married to caucasians.

BeetDigger

6/5/2006, 05:24 PM

Yes, but currently, Horns aren't popular with people on either side of this board (albeit for different reasons).

:texan: Hook 'em

Scott D

6/5/2006, 05:25 PM

Divorce has a place to be discussed as well. Sometimes the sin of the partner cannot be overcome.

I could argue that divorce is more of a threat to the 'sanctity' of marriage than 'gay marriage' ever would be. Gay Marriage doesn't give us broken homes..it gives us lame tv shows like My 2 Dads ;)

JohnnyMack

6/5/2006, 05:26 PM

I could argue that divorce is more of a threat to the 'sanctity' of marriage than 'gay marriage' ever would be. Gay Marriage doesn't give us broken homes..it gives us lame tv shows like My 2 Dads ;)

Why do you hate Three's Company?

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:27 PM

Anti-miscegenation laws. Blacks couldn't marry Whites in those days. Well, they could if you had an activist judge.

That is unfortunate. This is a lot different than trying to normalize homosexual relationships.

That was based on pure hate and was wrong.

This is based on the love of what marriage means and what it stands for.

sitzpinkler

6/5/2006, 05:27 PM

But Marriage is a gift a gift by God and should be preserved

well, in that case, wouldn't your time be better spent worrying about atheist marriages?

isn't that the biggest sin in your religion; not believing?

ouflak

6/5/2006, 05:30 PM

My mom used to tell me about the stuff she would hear about how wrong her marriage was. You know it's eerie to hear the same reasons against allowing gay marriage as simple reflections of the reasons against miscegenation. Every single reason brought up in the sixties is being thrown out there again now:

1. It's unnatural
2. The Bible says it's wrong
3. It's morally reprehensible
4. Allowing it would destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Very eerie indeed ....

BeetDigger

6/5/2006, 05:30 PM

well, in that case, wouldn't your time be better spent worrying about atheist marriages?

isn't that the biggest sin in your religion; not believing?

An atheist marriage. Isn't that kind of like Military Intelligence?

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:30 PM

I could argue that divorce is more of a threat to the 'sanctity' of marriage than 'gay marriage' ever would be.
You could, and you might be right.

jacru

6/5/2006, 05:30 PM

Activist judge: one who makes rulings that violate the law with which they disagee.
FIXED!

sitzpinkler

6/5/2006, 05:32 PM

An atheist marriage. Isn't that kind of like Military Intelligence?

not if you get married by a judge

achiro

6/5/2006, 05:34 PM

WooHoo! Already 6 pages! Now it just needs some stars!:D

Scott D

6/5/2006, 05:34 PM

You could, and you might be right.

I believe there is no might in that. The worst thing about divorce is that it's highly government sanctioned because it means more money in the state/federal coffers.

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:34 PM

Scott D

6/5/2006, 05:38 PM

Might be eerie, but in this case it is true.

All I know is being black is not a sin, being in love is not a sin, but
Homosexual relationships are sin. I can't change that.

the point being that at one time it was being sold as that exact bill of goods in this country. By persons who proclaimed themselves to be as much if not more Christian than folks today whom preach rhetoric against gays.

Hell my wife would tell you that I'm a homophobe (despite working with, growing up with and employing homosexuals at various points) and was in shock that I think of Rob Halford as a 'rock god'. She might be one of these 'dirty libz' you keep warning me about. ;)

Then again Flak and I look at this from a different perspective, because at one point in time our 'existence' was considered to be as much of a 'wrong' and 'abomination' as homosexuals are considered now.

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:38 PM

I believe there is no might in that. The worst thing about divorce is that it's highly government sanctioned because it means more money in the state/federal coffers.

I would agree with this. There needs to be a way for people to seperate, and I understand this. Just like there needs to be a way for Gays to have a relationship (that isn't marriage).

ouflak

6/5/2006, 05:38 PM

Activist judge: one who makes rulings that violate the law with which they disagee.

FIXED!

Just because something is law, doesn't mean it's right. And hey, I literally wouldn't be here if it weren't for an activist judge. That would have deprived this board (and this thread I might add) of the input from an elite sponsor, and a 'lucky' game thread starter, and ... eh ... well ... you guys know what I mean!

Scott D

6/5/2006, 05:40 PM

I would agree with this. There needs to be a way for people to seperate, and I understand this. Just like there needs to be a way for Gays to have a relationship (that isn't marriage).

Clearly the words you are seeking here is that the push be that Gays get 'Civil Unions'. Ok, now we just need to define what rights these 'Civil Unions' get, because if they are too similar to Marriage, it may as well be Marriage.

sitzpinkler

6/5/2006, 05:41 PM

Might be eerie, but in this case it is true.

All I know is being black is not a sin, being in love is not a sin, but
Homosexual relationships are sin. I can't change that.

in your religion many things are considered sins and everybody is a sinner

by your logic, marriage should be banned altogether

ouflak

6/5/2006, 05:42 PM

... the push be that Gays get 'Civil Unions'.....

I'm all for Civil Unions... as long as us heterosexuals get to have them as well.

OklahomaTuba

6/5/2006, 05:42 PM

the point being that at one time it was being sold as that exact bill of goods in this country. By persons who proclaimed themselves to be as much if not more Christian than folks today whom preach rhetoric against gays.

Well, I can say that if someone is preaching rhetoric of hate towards any people, than they are in the wrong. Christ teaches this, and should not even be a question.

Its very possible to hate the sin, yet love the sinner.

A task that is hard to accomplish when I am a sinner myself.

Scott D

6/5/2006, 05:43 PM

I'm all for Civil Unions... as long as us heterosexuals get to have them as well.

I concur....so the basis for the foundation should be this. If it is not endorsed by, performed in, or related to the Church...it is a Civil Union. So as long as you get hitched in the courthouse it's not a Marriage.

Scott D

6/5/2006, 05:43 PM

Well, I can say that if someone is preaching rhetoric of hate towards any people, than they are in the wrong. Christ teaches this, and should not even be a question.

Its very possible to hate the sin, yet love the sinner.

A task that is hard to accomplish when I am a sinner myself.

Well if you'd quit going to Edmonton you wouldn't be as much of a sinner ;)

ouflak

6/5/2006, 05:47 PM

I just want to give achiro and this thread http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/rating/rating_5.gifs for being such a world-beater of page building thread!

lefty

6/5/2006, 05:51 PM

Clearly the words you are seeking here is that the push be that Gays get 'Civil Unions'. Ok, now we just need to define what rights these 'Civil Unions' get, because if they are too similar to Marriage, it may as well be Marriage.

The rights that accrue to a married couple that are often (if not always) at issue are rights that are sanctioned by the state, not the church. These include things such as inheritance, insurance, legal status of children, etc. In this sense, the state trumps the church. Without the state sanction of a license, marriage as a legal status does not exist. Hence, a couple can marry in a court house without religious blessing and "own" all the legal rights that they are entitled to. If, however, a marriage occurs in a church without a state issued license, these legal rights, i believe, do not necessarily apply and could be challenged in court.

sitzpinkler

6/5/2006, 06:01 PM

I can't believe the argument is boiling down to the semantics of a word, as if christianity owns the term.

What's next, Banning Hindu marriage?

Scott D

6/5/2006, 06:05 PM

The rights that accrue to a married couple that are often (if not always) at issue are rights that are sanctioned by the state, not the church. These include things such as inheritance, insurance, legal status of children, etc. In this sense, the state trumps the church. Without the state sanction of a license, marriage as a legal status does not exist. Hence, a couple can marry in a court house without religious blessing and "own" all the legal rights that they are entitled to. If, however, a marriage occurs in a church without a state issued license, these legal rights, i believe, do not necessarily apply and could be challenged in court.

I know this, which is why I know the only reason politicians care about Gay Marriage in a negative light is because that is how their constituents perceive it. The state/fed as a whole really can look at the matter in regards to the fact that allowing Gay Civil Unions would add to their taxation coffers.

lefty

6/5/2006, 06:13 PM

I know this, which is why I know the only reason politicians care about Gay Marriage in a negative light is because that is how their constituents perceive it. The state/fed as a whole really can look at the matter in regards to the fact that allowing Gay Civil Unions would add to their taxation coffers.

I knew that you knew. That a majority of marriages in the US occur in a church building, while they are sanctioned by the state, tends to conflate the religious and secular natures of the unions. They are different aspects of "marriage" that are rarely separated in the emotional reactions to the issue.

BeetDigger

6/5/2006, 06:21 PM

All couples, gay or straight, who want to get married should have to go through a one year trial marriage before they are granted the real marriage. I guarantee you, if they implemented a system like that, we'd have far fewer marriages. The only thing that compares in difficulty to the first year of marriage is the second year of marriage. However, years 10 through 17 have been smooth sailing.

StoopTroup

6/5/2006, 06:21 PM

Hindus can marry?

lefty

6/5/2006, 06:25 PM

Vaevictis

6/5/2006, 06:28 PM

The real way you can tell it's pandering is the way it's being framed. "Activist judges have given us no other choice."

Okay then, why is it that what's being proposed is a required ban on gay marriage instead of an amendment that *permits* (as opposed to requiring) a ban on gay marriage?

WRT the DOMA, one thing to keep in mind -- DOMA is regular law. "Full faith and credit" is constitutional law. As such, DOMA must yield to full faith and credit, not the other way around. If the object or result of DOMA is an anullment of full faith and credit, then DOMA is necessarily unconstitutional and must be struck down.

because for the longest time it was illegal for minorities..more specifically black minorities to be married to caucasians.

Actually, it applied to asian minorities as well. My grandparents had to move onto a military base from St. Louis (Scott possibly?) because a local police officer decided to toss my (asian) grandmother in jail for being married to my (white) grandfather.

Finally, down with government sanctioned marriage; up with government sanctioned contractual civil unions. If marriage is a religious institution (as those who are anti-gay-marriage seem to believe), then government should have no part in it.

lefty

6/5/2006, 06:35 PM

However, those that are most upset about this issue would probably be opposed to separating the religious from the legal aspects of the union. Historically, marriage began as an economic issue. Love as a basis for such unions is a relatively recent reason for coupling.

ouflak

6/5/2006, 06:54 PM

in your religion many things are considered sins and everybody is a sinner

by your logic, marriage should be banned altogether

I think I see the reasoning here.

1. It's suggested that two sinners (meant to specifically mean homosexuals) cannot get married.
2. However in most Christian denominations all people are inherently sinners.
3. Therefore, nobody can get married.
.
.
.

Hmmmmm ....
.
.
.
Maybe Mormons could still get married?

GottaHavePride

6/5/2006, 07:11 PM

We could just let Torquemada decide who can et married and who can't. Because you can't Torquemada anything!

Sorry, History of the World was on a week ago or something.

Mrs. Norm

6/5/2006, 08:38 PM

lefty

6/5/2006, 08:56 PM

Mrs. Norm

6/5/2006, 09:02 PM

I need to add one more thing. I know a gay couple (male). They have been "married" for about 8 years. They have two adopted sons. Not only do they have the "two dads" with two boys against them, but they are white and the boys are black. They have had many, many people judge them. However, these two men are VERY, VERY successful. They both are very good-hearted, loving people. If it weren't for these men, there is no telling where these little boys would be. They have two great dads who love them very much, they live in Nichols Hills, they go to the greatest schools. How can GW judge them? I see no harm being done.

lefty

6/5/2006, 09:14 PM

Scott D

6/5/2006, 09:15 PM

How does gay marriage "hurt" anybody? It isn't a crime. We can argue for weeks if it is/isn't a sin. However, that would be the opinions of people. It's amazing that a couple of years ago our government was having problems with gays in the military. Have we heard anything about that now? Heck no....they don't care if a person goes out in a freakin' dress. They just want people fighting in a war. I just don't think that the constitution should take away people's rights. It's there to give us rights.

Welp Mrs. Norm that means we need a don't ask, don't tell in regards to people being 'married'. I have no personal issue with gay marriage myself...nothing wrong with gay people being miserable with another person legally like straight people. ;)

The problem here is that the Federal government has long ago stomped on the Constitution as it pertains to states rights being first and federal rights being there as support for states rights.

That being said, I have no issue with individual states voting something into their laws restricting Gay Marriage. However, I think there's a relatively good possibility that at some point in the future, people won't blink an eye at the concept. However, the government does need to butt out of the 'institution' of Marriage, and stick to Civil Unions only....because I'd like to remain married, but dissolve my Civil Union for taxation purposes :D

lefty

6/5/2006, 09:20 PM

Just keep in mind, as research has shown (I can get a list of references if needed), if put to a vote, the Bill of Rights would fail.

Jerk

6/5/2006, 09:53 PM

I have not read this thread, and probably won't.

All I have to say is that it's interesting how Republicans all of the sudden become conservatives again before an election. They take their base for granted worse than the Democrats take blacks for granted.

GottaHavePride

6/5/2006, 10:00 PM

Just keep in mind, as research has shown (I can get a list of references if needed), if put to a vote, the Bill of Rights would fail.

See what happens when you take away the property requirement to voting? You get a lot of poor, badly-educated people deciding policy. ;););)

usmc-sooner

6/5/2006, 10:10 PM

I know that every state that voted on the issue including Oklahoma voted against gay marriages. So I doubt it's GW thing.

You know come to think of since gays havent been allowed to get married in the past how the hell is this just GW thing. Oh wait I forgot every other President before GW allowed gay marriages.

This arguement is retarded.

jacru

6/5/2006, 10:44 PM

I just don't think that the constitution should take away people's rights. It's there to give us rights.
The Declaration of Independence recognizes "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,..." The Constitution doesn't give us those rights. They are God-given.
So, did God give homosexuals the right to be married?

etouffee

6/6/2006, 05:27 AM

The Declaration of Independence recognizes "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,..." The Constitution doesn't give us those rights. They are God-given.
So, did God give homosexuals the right to be married?
Well, by that reasoning, yes. Since God apparently gave heterosexuals the right to marry, and "all men are created equal", then logically, homosexuals have the same rights. Being, you know, equal and everything.

Jerk

6/6/2006, 06:11 AM

When did Rome fall again? Was it 470 AD?

Homey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! help!

Hamhock

6/6/2006, 08:45 AM

Well, by that reasoning, yes. Since God apparently gave heterosexuals the right to marry, and "all men are created equal", then logically, homosexuals have the same rights. Being, you know, equal and everything.

Your reasoning fails in that the Creator, specifically withheld the right to marry from homosexuals.

TexasLidig8r

6/6/2006, 09:05 AM

People are WAY too concerned about who does what to whom.

The fact of the matter is, gay relationships are recognized and accepted by many corporations. For example, Southwest Airlines give special partner benefits to unmarried persons. (They dodge a bullet by making it non-specific as to gays).

You can will your assets to a partner. Your partner can be listed as a beneficiary on your life insurance policy. You can buy property with your partner under a Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship so when you pass away, your property goes to your partner.

It seems as if the Bush Administration has not defined clearly the purpose behind this ill-fated attempt at a Constitutional Amendment. Is it being proposed for religious reasons? Is it being proposed because of a fear and/or loathing of homosexuals?

Doesn't the federal government have better things to do than to attempt to legislate morality by attempting to pass through a "morality amendment?"

Quite frankly, the less federal government intervention in our lives, the better we are.

ouflak

6/6/2006, 09:07 AM

Your reasoning fails in that the Creator, specifically withheld the right to marry from homosexuals.

So does this mean it should be illegal? I mean it's one thing for God to say that something isn't allowed. It's another thing entirely for Man to say that something isn't allowed by his earthly law.

Hamhock

6/6/2006, 09:10 AM

So does this mean it should be illegal? I mean it's one thing for God to say that something isn't allowed. It's another thing entirely for Man to say that something isn't allowed by his earthly law.

I'm not saying it should be illegal. Codifying sin is a slippery slope. I agree that the federal government should stay out of it.

My point was that it is not provided by the constitution.

Hatfield

6/6/2006, 09:14 AM

the important thing to stay focused on is homsexuals trying to marry that way you don't focus on things like 1328 iraqi civillians were killed last month; the avian flu; the killer bees; or anything else of substance.*

*not that the scare tactics of the killer bees and avian flu are things of substance

jacru

6/6/2006, 09:26 AM

...focus on things like 1328 iraqi civillians were killed last month
I agree. We should focus on just how FEW civilians have been killed in this war compared to other wars. ;)

achiro

6/6/2006, 09:32 AM

I'm mainly just checking in since this is my thread and all but I was wondering, if this goes through what will happen to these ones?
http://www.teletubbies.com/teletubbies.jpg

OklahomaTuba

6/6/2006, 09:33 AM

Doesn't the federal government have better things to do than to attempt to legislate morality by attempting to pass through a "morality amendment?"

Quite frankly, the less federal government intervention in our lives, the better we are.

This really has nothing to do with morality, as this isn't an attempt to ban the gay lifestyle, no matter how disgusting and sinful it is.

Its more an attempt to keep the activist judges from throwing out the WILL OF THE PEOPLE as I see it.

OklahomaTuba

6/6/2006, 09:35 AM

I agree. We should focus on just how FEW civilians have been killed in this war compared to other wars. ;)

Same could be said for the loss of military life as well.

I read somewhere that Washington DC has a higher percentage of homicide than Iraq does currently. :eek:

Hatfield

6/6/2006, 09:35 AM

This really has nothing to do with morality, as this isn't an attempt to ban the gay lifestyle, no matter how disgusting and sinful it is.

Its more an attempt to keep the activist judges from throwing out the WILL OF THE PEOPLE as I see it.

activist judges is code for judges that don't do what i want.

as far as the "will of the people"....might doesn't make right...especially when you are looking to your religion to define "right"

Hatfield

6/6/2006, 09:36 AM

people that insinuate that it is safer to be in iraq than in an american city hate our troops.

Hatfield

6/6/2006, 09:37 AM

I'm mainly just checking in since this is my thread and all but I was wondering, if this goes through what will happen to these ones?
http://www.teletubbies.com/teletubbies.jpg

i thought falwell just had a problem with the one that carried the purse?? so i think the others could branch out into a 3 stooges act or something.

OklahomaTuba

6/6/2006, 09:40 AM

activist judges is code for judges that don't do what i want.

as far as the "will of the people"....might doesn't make right...especially when you are looking to your religion to define "right"

No, the activist judges always do what you want Hat. BTW, I wonder if the pledge is still illegal in parts of Cali?

And last I checked, this was a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. Kind of hard to ignore the fact that 80% of THE PEOPLE just happen to be Christians, but you do a good job of that it seems.

And I had no idea you hated democracy so much? Sigh, if only we had a small group of people telling us how to run things, life would be so much better huh?

How Marxist of you.

Hatfield

6/6/2006, 09:43 AM

the pledge isn't illegal.

i appreciate people of all faiths. doesn't mean i want one faith dictating the laws of the land.

i could have sworn you were railing on about how people were putting words in your mouth and how that meant they had no argument blah blah blah....surely you aren't doing the same thing with your post now are you?

Hamhock

6/6/2006, 09:48 AM

doesn't mean i want one faith dictating the laws of the land.

What do you want dictating the laws of the land?

Hatfield

6/6/2006, 09:49 AM

me.

and as such you are fired. LEAVE NOW :)

OklahomaTuba

6/6/2006, 09:50 AM

the pledge isn't illegal.
Yeah, and neither are handguns in San Fran, right? :rolleyes:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050915/ai_n15356995

i appreciate people of all faiths. doesn't mean i want one faith dictating the laws of the land.
Banning homosexual "marriage" is not relegated to one faith. In fact, I suspect no faith allows for homosexual marriage at all. If this were a nation of muslims under Shar'ria law, would it not be customary to actually slaughter the homosexual?

Just pointing out the fact that no matter how much you want to deny it, this is a Christian nation, with a distinct Christian culture and Christian values.

i could have sworn you were railing on about how people were putting words in your mouth and how that meant they had no argument blah blah blah....surely you aren't doing the same thing with your post now are you?Surely not.

You infact said that "Might isn't always right", yet that is exatly what democracy is.

Again, I had no idea you had such a dim view of democracy.

Skysooner

6/6/2006, 09:51 AM

By the time that there is an attempt to legislate morality, the battle they are trying to win has already been lost. Look at all of the attempts in the past and the results that happened. Prohibition comes to mind.

Hamhock

6/6/2006, 09:57 AM

me.

and as such you are fired. LEAVE NOW :)

Seriously, what do you want dictating the laws of the land?

Hatfield

6/6/2006, 09:57 AM

so you are saying it is illegal to say the pledge if you leave out the offending 2 words that were only recently added to it?

i don't have a "dim view of democracy" here in our republic.

Hatfield

6/6/2006, 09:58 AM

Seriously, what do you want dictating the laws of the land?

seriously...not religion.

OklahomaTuba

6/6/2006, 09:59 AM

Hamhock

6/6/2006, 10:03 AM

seriously...not religion.

You've made that clear. If not a system based on religion, then what?

Hatfield

6/6/2006, 10:06 AM

I don't know that I have the time or energy (but mainly the energy) to get into that right now.

Skysooner

6/6/2006, 10:13 AM

Does the decline in teenage pregnancy fit that model?

I guess it wouldn't.

The problem with your argument is that the only real attempt to legislate teen pregnancy are the minor laws which have been around forever. There are attempts through churches and other organizations to make teens have less sex, but this is in no way a legislative attempt. Some teens are not going to have sex due to morals, but many more are having sex and are just smarter about it (using effective contraception). There is no comparison.

Prohibition was an attempt by religious conservatives and others to take away a vice that they perceived as being wrong and was legal at the time. The amendment was ultimately repealed, because it was not effective.

I am not saying anything about gay marriage. What I am saying is that trying to legislate morality never works in the long run when a significant part of the population disagrees with such legislation. It doesn't even have to be a majority.

etouffee

6/6/2006, 10:13 AM

Your reasoning fails in that the Creator, specifically withheld the right to marry from homosexuals.He did? Show me. Don't show me where it says homosexuality is a sin, as I already know where that is. But after all, we're all sinners in one way or another, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why some sinners can marry and some can't, especially if "a sin is a sin". (that's what the Southern Talibaptists who raised me always said; I realize with the Catholics it's a little more complex as to the severity of various sinful acts) But anyway, show me where he specifically withheld the right to marry from homosexuals.

Hamhock

6/6/2006, 10:31 AM

He did? Show me. Don't show me where it says homosexuality is a sin, as I already know where that is. But after all, we're all sinners in one way or another, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why some sinners can marry and some can't, especially if "a sin is a sin". (that's what the Southern Talibaptists who raised me always said; I realize with the Catholics it's a little more complex as to the severity of various sinful acts) But anyway, show me where he specifically withheld the right to marry from homosexuals.

I agree. A sin is a sin and no sin should be condoned in any fashion.

God ordained marriage between one man and one woman. He later declared, several times, that deviations of that relationship were sinful. You are technically correct (I think), I am not aware of a passage were God says "homosexuals cannot marry". He does say that the practice is wrong. He also never says that "man and beast cannot marry", but I think it is sufficiently implied.

Your question is: Why can a gossip marry and not a homosexual? The consummation of the marriage of homosexuals creates the sin. Marriage of gossips is not a sin in itself.

etouffee

6/6/2006, 10:49 AM

The consummation of the marriage of homosexuals creates the sin. No, the act of homosexuality creates the sin, if you believe the bible. That would include sex or even various components of the homosexual relationship, or perhaps even homosexual lust. Standing before a judge and exchanging vows doesn't create the sin; it's long since been created by that point.

In any case, I don't want constitutional amendments prohibiting sinful acts simply because some people consider them sinful acts, because sin is a religious concept and preventing sin is not the role of the federal government. Or, if the federal government IS supposed to be preventing us from sinning, then why pick on that particular sin? Let's ammend the constitution to prohibit ALL of them, since a sin is a sin.

The federal government should only constitutionally prohibit actions that can be conclusively demonstrated to be harmful to the country or its citizens in a non-religious context. That is, actions which infringe upon our liberties, our legal rights, or our safety. That doesn't include high-sounding yet meaningless platitudes about "moral fiber" and "moral foundation".

Herr Scholz

6/6/2006, 10:59 AM

You've made that clear. If not a system based on religion, then what?
Our current system of laws is based very loosely on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Only 2 of the ten commandments are laws in our land (can't steal or kill - and you certainly don't need religion to know these must be outlawed for a peaceful society). We have a 'social contract' as set forth by philosophers Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, et al and adopted by our founding fathers. If you want to live in society, you must follow the law and our laws are most certainly secular in nature.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 11:38 AM

I think it'd be more confusing if I quoted everyone I'm trying to respond to, so lemme just say it.

The Federal Government should not be in the business of passing religious edicts. That's what the Establishment Clause is all about. However, because all laws are based on principles of morality and ethics, "not legislating morality" is impossible. And it's also a myth that one can separate morality from one's religious worldview. The one derives from the other. Aside from the fact that our leaders would do well to remember the God that put them in charge, the fact is that human government should legislate in a manner consistent with the good of the country.

Now it just so happens that, because God designed this world, and the people in it, a lot of the stuff in the Bible ends up being a sound basis on which to construct a government and a legal system. But just because a certain law juxtaposes very well with a Biblical principle doesn't make it a "religious law" per se. Something that's commanded by God is a good idea for humans by definition. But something can be a moral law with being a law that "respects an establishment of religion". For instance, we can argue about *why* making murder a crime is a good idea, but a coherent argument cannot be made against the idea itself. Do you see the difference?

Given that, though, there are many things that the Government cannot do, such as direct how God is to be worshipped or assert ecclesiastical authority. Marriage is not a creature of civil law. It is a sacred institution of God (the Catholics call it a sacrament). Whoever said that the Federal government should not be in the business of declaring things Holy is right on. Only God can do that.

What the government can do is promote certain activity for the good of the citizenry by laws that encourage such activity. If the citizenry values marriage, the government can recognize that by giving married couples certain privileges. But defining who can marry is out of bounds for the Federal government. And even if a state chooses to create some sort of civil union, it won't be a "marriage" unless it's one man and one woman. When a state, like ours, codifies a "definition of marriage" as man-woman, they are not creating that relationship. The relationship has existed from the foundation of the world. The state is simply recognizing the truth of what the word signifies.

I would personally oppose civil unions because I don't think that it's a good idea for the state to give legal status to family units that are not marriages. However, the State has the legal authority to grant such status. To answer Mrs. Norm, this is the problem that I have with allowing gay couples to "civilly unite": it results in tacit approval of behavior that is clearly sinful. And, the adopted children end up with a wrong idea of what a normal sexual relationship is, so much so that they may end up immersed in a sinful lifestyle that would be very difficult to get out of, which in turn may have eternal consequences. Christ told us that whoever leads the little ones astray, it would be better for them if someone tied a big rock around their neck and threw them into the ocean.

Finally, please understand that I realize we're living in Babylon, not Israel. I don't expect to be happy with all the laws that get passed. Even in ancient Israel, some of the laws were given not because they were a good idea, but because the sinful nature of people required them. Civil unions may be such a law, I don't know. But I certainly have the right to oppose them on moral and religious grounds (which are really the same thing).

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 11:54 AM

One other thing regarding past laws and how they were justified:

-Prohibition: Anyone who reads the Bible can clearly see that drinking alcohol is not a sin. Being drunk is, and being addicted to it is. But having a beer is just fine, and probably healthy. Now, for some people, touching any form of alcohol may be sinful, because of their predilections. Or, they may just decide not to do it. It's a matter of Christian liberty. Neither point of view should condemn the other. This is all in the Scriptures. I'm not sure of the historical basis of prohibition, but if someone was basing it on the Bible, they were dead wrong.

-Banning interracial marriages: Again, you can't get such a thing from the Scriptures, at least not in the New Testament. God is no respecter of persons and the offer of the Gospel is for everyone. Any law of this type was just flat out wrong and based on sinful hate, not the Bible. (Note: ancient Israel was forbidden generally to intermarry with certain pagan nations, but it was not an absolute prohibition in all cases. And when it was, there was a specific reason that doesn't apply now, i.e., the fact that intermarriage brought the possibility of pagan forms of worship into Israelite society. With the advent of Christ and the spreading of the faith to all the nations, such prohibitions are no longer necessary or desirable. However, we are still to avoid marriage to unbelievers, but race itself is no longer an issue).

Contrast all this with homosexuality, which in several places is declared an abomination, and evidence of men being given over to their total depravity. There is no possibility of misunderstanding God's commandments on human sexuality. It's one of the central themes of all of the Bible, and for good reason. The marriage relationship is a type and picture of the relationship of Christ to His church. As such it is holy and sacred, and defilement of it is the gravest of sins. You want to know why we feel so strongly about this issue? That's why.

etouffee

6/6/2006, 11:54 AM

Marriage is not a creature of civil law. It is a sacred institution of God (the Catholics call it a sacrament). You may believe that, and I respect your right to believe that, but it's not an acceptable position from a governmental and lawmaking perspective. To the government, marriage should be nothing more than a creature of civil law. The government is way out of bounds to call anything a "sacred institution of God" or to take steps to recognize or protect it as such. Sacred institutions of God should be recognized by churches and by individuals. I think the governments should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. People, gay or straight, should be able to fill out forms to establish a legal union via the government for taxation, property, child custody, etc.; and then, if they want to have their union recognized as a sacred institution of God, have a private marriage ceremony that fits with their belief system.

This whole notion of wanting the government to tell two people they're not allowed to call their relationship a "marriage" because it doesn't jive with your definition, or your religion's defintion, of the term is just absurd. Christians don't own the word marriage.

I'm curious... are athiests and other non-christians who get married not really married, since they don't recognize it as a sacred institution of the christian god? Shouldn't they be constitutionally prohibited from getting married as well?

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 12:10 PM

I think the governments should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. People, gay or straight, should be able to fill out forms to establish a legal union via the government for taxation, property, child custody, etc.; and then, if they want to have their union recognized as a sacred institution of God, have a private marriage ceremony that fits with their belief system.

That's obviously a point of view that I disagree with, however a state has the legal authority to do what you are suggesting.

This whole notion of wanting the government to tell two people they're not allowed to call their relationship a "marriage" because it doesn't jive with your definition, or your religion's defintion, of the term is just absurd. Christians don't own the word marriage.

I'm curious... are athiests and other non-christians who get married not really married, since they don't recognize it as a sacred institution of the christian god? Shouldn't they be constitutionally prohibited from getting married as well?

Christians don't "own" the word marriage. God owns the word, because He created the relationship. As long as the two people are one male and one female, it's a marriage, even if they're non-believers. Two men simply can't make a marriage, by definition.

All I'm saying is, "marriage" is a term and a concept that derives from a Christian worldview. If you don't have that worldview, I'd like you to use another term, rather than appropriate our term for something that it doesn't represent. It's the same as if you were to ask me to call one single person a "church". It's a non sequitur. A category error.

Herr Scholz

6/6/2006, 12:18 PM

And it's also a myth that one can separate morality from one's religious worldview. The one derives from the other.
Absolutely not true. You don't have to be religious to be moral. I'm an Agnostic and I'm a moral person. The laws in our country are moral and they're not religious. Our society have secular laws so that the society will work. The Social Contract. If you don't outlaw stealing and murder, your society will crumble. It doesn't take a holy book to figure that one out.

Herr Scholz

6/6/2006, 12:22 PM

Vaevictis

6/6/2006, 01:34 PM

And it's also a myth that one can separate morality from one's religious worldview. The one derives from the other.

Hmm. I'm not so sure I agree with that. Take two atheists for example; they obviously have no belief structure that *requires* them to take on a certain moral belief system. If it's the religious world view that is the source of morality, then how do you explain that they might have totally different moral belief systems? One of them might be a total sociopath, and the other might take on a belief system that is totally compatible with say, the Christian moral system.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 02:02 PM

Hmm. I'm not so sure I agree with that. Take two atheists for example; they obviously have no belief structure that *requires* them to take on a certain moral belief system. If it's the religious world view that is the source of morality, then how do you explain that they might have totally different moral belief systems? One of them might be a total sociopath, and the other might take on a belief system that is totally compatible with say, the Christian moral system.

You're absolutely right. I suppose it would help you to understand that my statement is based on a couple of premises. First, that the term "morality" presupposes the idea of right and wrong as truth concepts. Second, that the true morality is embodied in or derived from the Christian worldview. In other words, I'm not agreeing with the paradigm that morality can be relative. To agree to that would be to abandon truth altogether. Either a thing is moral or it is not. Not that culture cannot have a bearing on morality, it certainly can. What I'm saying is, given the same factual situation, a certain action cannot be moral for one person and immoral for another. One must always view actions in a situational context, and carefully define terms. But it's incorrect to confuse the outworking of moral behavior with the source of the morality itself.

In your example above, being a total sociopath is immoral. If the atheist has a moral and ethical code compatible with Christianity, he can be a moral person even though an unbeliever, but he has to borrow from that which he does not believe in order to be so. I maintain that this position is self-referentially incoherent; an illogical and irrational worldview.

Vaevictis

6/6/2006, 02:09 PM

If the atheist has a moral and ethical code compatible with Christianity, he can be a moral person even though an unbeliever, but he has to borrow from that which he does not believe in order to be so. I maintain that this position is self-referentially incoherent; an illogical and irrational worldview.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying suggests that it's essentially impossible for a human to create his or her own moral code.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 02:15 PM

Absolutely not true. You don't have to be religious to be moral. I'm an Agnostic and I'm a moral person. The laws in our country are moral and they're not religious. Our society have secular laws so that the society will work. The Social Contract. If you don't outlaw stealing and murder, your society will crumble. It doesn't take a holy book to figure that one out.

I'm not saying you have to be religious to be moral. I'm saying you have to borrow Christian concepts to be moral. In otherwords, to be "moral and agnostic" is to have your actions belie your statements. You say you don't believe something but yet you act on the very thing you say you don't believe.

And if you don't believe me, then name a universally agreed upon moral concept that is contained in some other religious writing but *not* contained in the Bible or a document referencing the Bible, either implicitly or explicitly.

Vaevictis

6/6/2006, 02:16 PM

I'm saying you have to borrow Christian concepts to be moral.

Perhaps you mean borrow Jewish concepts ;)

Herr Scholz

6/6/2006, 02:17 PM

In other words, I'm not agreeing with the paradigm that morality can be relative. To agree to that would be to abandon truth altogether. Either a thing is moral or it is not. Not that culture cannot have a bearing on morality, it certainly can.
I would argue that one's culture has an absolute and total bearing on morality, that is, morality is completely culturally subjective. In some cultures, incest such as marrying within the royal family is morally acceptable (many instances of this in history). In some, capital punishment is morally acceptable. In some, torture of one's enemies is morally fine. In others, human sacrifice to appease the gods is perfectly acceptable.

You'll probably come back with the notion that your parochial view based on your belief system is the only acceptable one to answer these moral questions. But if you think about it, every culture in history has come up with a way to reach these answers. You're just living in the current one.

etouffee

6/6/2006, 02:20 PM

Christians don't "own" the word marriage. God owns the word, because He created the relationship. As long as the two people are one male and one female, it's a marriage, even if they're non-believers. Two men simply can't make a marriage, by definition.By the Christian definition. But as we both agree, Christians don't own the word marriage, nor are they the final authority on what the definition should be, or whether or not that definition may evolve over time as society changes.

All I'm saying is, "marriage" is a term and a concept that derives from a Christian worldview.I'm not sure that's true. Marriage is certainly an important concept in the Christian worldview, but I'm not sure it derives from it. Were people not married prior to Christianity? Weren't people from places and cultures that did not recognize (or even know about) the Christian god getting married prior to Christianity?

If you don't have that worldview, I'd like you to use another term, rather than appropriate our term for something that it doesn't represent. Ok, so maybe you DO think Christians own the term after all. I'm a bit confused on this point.

It's the same as if you were to ask me to call one single person a "church".It's a non sequitur. A category error.Yeah, well, fans of the band Matchbox Twenty call their music "rock and roll". As a fan of Guns & Roses and AC/DC, I can confidently assert that MB20 does NOT meet my definition of rock and roll. But honestly, I don't really CARE if they call their music rock and roll, because it won't keep me from listening to my music or change what my music means to me. And I certainly don't want a law passed that keeps them from calling their music rock if they want to, and denies them the benefit of having it played on rock stations, and of having their cd's sold from the "rock" section at the record store, and of perhaps even one day being inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame. I may not think it's appropriate, but it's not hurting me in any way.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 02:21 PM

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying suggests that it's essentially impossible for a human to create his or her own moral code.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Not that people can't claim to do so, but that's the nature of people. Creating a moral code means being a law-giver. The only law-giver is God. Therefore, if a human purports to create a moral code, that person is putting himself in the place of God. Which, of course, is the original sin. The original sin was couched in terms of man's desiring to be like God, knowing good from evil, and choosing to make his own version of right and wrong, in opposition to God's true version. Go read the Genesis account and you'll see what I mean.

Herr Scholz

6/6/2006, 02:21 PM

In otherwords, to be "moral and agnostic" is to have your actions belie your statements.
I disagree. I can act in a way that follows the law of the land without the fear that if I don't there will be some retribution in the afterlife. I'm simply following the secular law. That has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with a social contract.

BTW, Christianity does not have the market cornered on the 'golden rule' principle either. That's in MANY religions.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 02:25 PM

Perhaps you mean borrow Jewish concepts ;)

Nope, although the two are very closely related. Besides, Christianity is the ultimate result of correct Jewish religion, so it's a continuation of the same thing. What Christ mainly pointed out was that the condition of the heart and your spirit are just as important, indeed moreso, than your outward actions. Moses and the prophets said this too, but the religious establishment of first century Judaism had either ignored or forgotten it.

Vaevictis

6/6/2006, 02:27 PM

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Not that people can't claim to do so, but that's the nature of people. Creating a moral code means being a law-giver. The only law-giver is God. Therefore, if a human purports to create a moral code, that person is putting himself in the place of God. Which, of course, is the original sin. The original sin was couched in terms of man's desiring to be like God, knowing good from evil, and choosing to make his own version of right and wrong, in opposition to God's true version. Go read the Genesis account and you'll see what I mean.

Well, I think you're confusing the issue here. My question is: Is it impossible to create one's own moral code (ie, code of morals)? You're saying it's impossible to create one's own moral moral code (ie, code of morals that is, in your view, moral).

The answer to my question, "Is it possible to create one's own moral code?" is clearly "Yes." It's just that in your view, it is not possible for such a code to be correct.

As such, morals are not by necessity derived from any religion; it's just that in your view, in order for those morals to be correct, they must be derived from a specific religion (Christianity).

The main issue you're having here is that, in order for your view to be correct, one has to assume that Christianity is correct. And while it *may* be true that Christianity is correct, it assumes facts that have yet to be proven.

Vaevictis

6/6/2006, 02:32 PM

Nope, although the two are very closely related.

By your own statements, in order for Judaism to be morally correct, it must draw from Christianity its moral concepts. But Judaism predates Christianity. The only logical conclusion I can see, then, is that Judaism is immoral.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 02:32 PM

I would argue that one's culture has an absolute and total bearing on morality, that is, morality is completely culturally subjective. In some cultures, incest such as marrying within the royal family is morally acceptable (many instances of this in history). In some, capital punishment is morally acceptable. In some, torture of one's enemies is morally fine. In others, human sacrifice to appease the gods is perfectly acceptable.

You'll probably come back with the notion that your parochial view based on your belief system is the only acceptable one to answer these moral questions. But if you think about it, every culture in history has come up with a way to reach these answers. You're just living in the current one.

Ah, but then you also have to conclude that the Nazis were morally correct in their extermination of the Jews. And that Southern slavery was morally correct. Shall we be consistent and say that it was not appropriate to go to war in Iraq? That Saddam Hussein's government was moral? (Leave out the issue of the bad intelligence for now). That it's never appropriate to go to war because all societies are moral by their own definition? What about when one society attacks another? It's moral for the attackers to attack, if they're stronger and that's what they want, right? In fact, if the majority of people in a country want to stamp out the minority, and put them all to death, then that's moral because that's what society wants, right?

I could go on, you know.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 02:37 PM

I disagree. I can act in a way that follows the law of the land without the fear that if I don't there will be some retribution in the afterlife. I'm simply following the secular law. That has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with a social contract.

So your definition of being a moral person is following the current laws. So if the law suddenly changed, and murder was authorized, you'd start killing people you don't like?

Laws don't define morality. Morality defines whether a law is good or bad.

BTW, Christianity does not have the market cornered on the 'golden rule' principle either. That's in MANY religions.

Which proves my point that it's a universal concept.

Vaevictis

6/6/2006, 02:40 PM

Which proves my point that it's a universal concept.

Maybe, but it doesn't prove that those religions GOT it from Christianity.

Herr Scholz

6/6/2006, 02:43 PM

Scott D

6/6/2006, 02:44 PM

God told me that he just wants to ban marriage...and if handcrafted doesn't like it he's already got a barcalounger with handcrafted's name on it in Hell.

Herr Scholz

6/6/2006, 02:45 PM

My morality is basically the golden rule but that doesn't make me a Christian. And let me know when laws start going against that will you? Oh wait, banning gay marriage does, doesn't it?

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 02:46 PM

I'm not sure that's true. Marriage is certainly an important concept in the Christian worldview, but I'm not sure it derives from it. Were people not married prior to Christianity? Weren't people from places and cultures that did not recognize (or even know about) the Christian god getting married prior to Christianity?

Yes, certainly they were, although I don't know what terminology they used, or what their definition was, or what meaning they assigned to it. But the one man-one woman relationship is universal, yes. When I use the word "Christianity" I mean everything from Genesis to Revelation, not just the New Testament. The Christian worldview starts with the concept of God and creation. Marriage was created with Adam and Eve, long before the nation of Israel existed, and even a lot longer before the believers were first called Christians in the first century. So certainly, "marriage" did not come into existence with the Christian church, it existed from the beginning, as Jesus said. It's a universal idea which comes from God, we understand it as Christian now, but of course they may not have back in Old Testament times, even though there are allusions to its relationship to the idea of the Messiah throughout the Law and the Prophets.

On your Matchbox 20 analogy, point taken. :D But (much as some might disagree) rock-n-roll is not a moral concept. :)

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 02:52 PM

By your own statements, in order for Judaism to be morally correct, it must draw from Christianity its moral concepts. But Judaism predates Christianity. The only logical conclusion I can see, then, is that Judaism is immoral.

No, Judaism is special, Christianity is the continuation of it. Ancient Judaism, I mean. Modern Judaism does not predate Christianity. It is a different religion that is indeed immoral in the worst way, because it denies Christ. However, in the same vein as Islam, it may work itself out to be externally moral in many circumstances. But the spiritual state of the people in it is darkness.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 02:55 PM

I'm saying the principles of right and wrong vary from culture to culture. You know that's the case. Let's take one of your absolute morals since you insist there is only one right and wrong. If a NAZI came to your door and asked if you were hiding a Jew, and you were, would it be immoral to lie to him? According to your system it would.

Nope, certainly not. When you have a choice between two evils, taking the lesser can be the moral thing. Doesn't render lying inherently right, but because the working out of human morality will always be imperfect due to our natures, sometimes such things are necessary.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 02:56 PM

God told me that he just wants to ban marriage...and if handcrafted doesn't like it he's already got a barcalounger with handcrafted's name on it in Hell.

Try to be a little more blasphemous next time, k?

etouffee

6/6/2006, 02:57 PM

On your Matchbox 20 analogy, point taken. But rock-n-roll is not a moral concept.right, but we shouldn't put moral concepts into the constitution unless there is ALSO some real, quantifiable harm that can come from violating those concepts. if it could be shown that someone, anyone, would be deprived of life, property, security, or liberty if gay people are allowed to marry, then i'd say let's pass an amendment to prevent it. no such harm can be shown. so far, all that can be shown is that some people would disagree with it on moral and religious grounds. if that's the criteria, we need to constitutionally prohibit tobacco and alcohol, dirty movies and magazines, gambling, premarital sex, living together unmarried, ... (I could go on all day)

C&CDean

6/6/2006, 02:59 PM

Look at you nimrods.

Turning a perfectly good fag thread into some long, tired philosophical discussion of religion/morality/atheism.

Nobody can dispute that dipping your wick in a feller's behind is wrong. Christianity/morality be damned.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 02:59 PM

Maybe, but it doesn't prove that those religions GOT it from Christianity.

Let's say they got it from God. That way we don't confuse the church with the law-giver.

Also, I'm in complete agreement that some truth exists in most world religions. As I think I've shown, some truth exists even in secular humanism. But Christianity is where the most complete truth lies, to the extent that it's been revealed to us.

etouffee

6/6/2006, 03:01 PM

Turning a perfectly good fag thread into some long, tired philosophical discussion of religion/morality/atheism.

Nobody can dispute that dipping your wick in a feller's behind is wrong. Lots of gay fellers would dispute it. Just sayin'.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 03:48 PM

The main issue you're having here is that, in order for your view to be correct, one has to assume that Christianity is correct. And while it *may* be true that Christianity is correct, it assumes facts that have yet to be proven.

I'm wondering what facts you would consider sufficient to prove it.

lefty

6/6/2006, 04:06 PM

Yes, certainly they were, although I don't know what terminology they used, or what their definition was, or what meaning they assigned to it. But the one man-one woman relationship is universal, yes. When I use the word "Christianity" I mean everything from Genesis to Revelation, not just the New Testament. The Christian worldview starts with the concept of God and creation. Marriage was created with Adam and Eve, long before the nation of Israel existed, and even a lot longer before the believers were first called Christians in the first century. So certainly, "marriage" did not come into existence with the Christian church, it existed from the beginning, as Jesus said. It's a universal idea which comes from God, we understand it as Christian now, but of course they may not have back in Old Testament times, even though there are allusions to its relationship to the idea of the Messiah throughout the Law and the Prophets.

On your Matchbox 20 analogy, point taken. :D But (much as some might disagree) rock-n-roll is not a moral concept. :)

No, a variety of spousal arrangements have been identified in numerous societies throughout history. This type may be the modal form found, but it surely is not universal.

Scott D

6/6/2006, 04:16 PM

Try to be a little more blasphemous next time, k?

can you prove that God didn't tell me that?

TexasLidig8r

6/6/2006, 04:25 PM

My morality is basically the golden rule . . .

He who has the gold.. rules ?

And your morality is based on that Herr????????

You're sounding more and more attorney like every day! ;)

BeetDigger

6/6/2006, 04:35 PM

He who has the gold.. rules ?

And your morality is based on that Herr????????

You're sounding more and more attorney like every day! ;)

The words morality and attorney should never appear in the same sentence. :D

And since when did attorneys need gold as to help them in arguements? I thought that the rule was to argue the facts if the facts were in your favor, argue the law when the law is in your favor and when neither the facts nor the law is in your favor, do you best to confuse the facts and law as much as possible.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 04:36 PM

right, but we shouldn't put moral concepts into the constitution unless there is ALSO some real, quantifiable harm that can come from violating those concepts. if it could be shown that someone, anyone, would be deprived of life, property, security, or liberty if gay people are allowed to marry, then i'd say let's pass an amendment to prevent it. no such harm can be shown. so far, all that can be shown is that some people would disagree with it on moral and religious grounds. if that's the criteria, we need to constitutionally prohibit tobacco and alcohol, dirty movies and magazines, gambling, premarital sex, living together unmarried, ... (I could go on all day)

Now you know that I don't advocate putting that stuff in the Constitution, I've said as much. But as far as Federal laws go, of the things you listed, I think we are well on our way to banning tobacco, which is silly. Alcohol was already tried and rightfully repealed. The other four should be made completely illegal, in my opinion. The only one the Bible doesn't directly address is gambling, but I can make a case for banning that one too.

Herr Scholz

6/6/2006, 04:37 PM

He who has the gold.. rules ?

And your morality is based on that Herr????????

You're sounding more and more attorney like every day! ;)
You know, as long as it's convenient and doesn't interefere with what I happen to be doing at the time or anything... ;)

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 04:37 PM

can you prove that God didn't tell me that?

Yeah I can. First off, it's inconsistent with the Bible, so God didn't say it. Second, you don't believe in God, so you're just being sarcastic and offensive on purpose.

Herr Scholz

6/6/2006, 04:40 PM

The other four should be made completely illegal, in my opinion. The only one the Bible doesn't directly address is gambling, but I can make a case for banning that one too.
You want to outlaw smut and sleeping around? And wagering? What are you, the Anti-Christ? It is 6-6-06 today.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 04:43 PM

You want to outlaw smut and sleeping around? And wagering? What are you, the Anti-Christ? It is 6-6-06 today.

Um...look, you probably don't know much about Jesus since you're not a believer, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But even a cursory reading of the first book of the New Testament shows that Jesus told us that smut and sleeping around was wrong.

Wagering is more complicated, and there are disagreements among believers on it, but personally I think state sanctioned gambling, including lotteries, is nothing but a Big Lie.

Of course, you could have been joking. So here's a :D for you.

sitzpinkler

6/6/2006, 04:50 PM

That's obviously a point of view that I disagree with, however a state has the legal authority to do what you are suggesting.

Christians don't "own" the word marriage. God owns the word, because He created the relationship. As long as the two people are one male and one female, it's a marriage, even if they're non-believers. Two men simply can't make a marriage, by definition.

All I'm saying is, "marriage" is a term and a concept that derives from a Christian worldview. If you don't have that worldview, I'd like you to use another term, rather than appropriate our term for something that it doesn't represent. It's the same as if you were to ask me to call one single person a "church". It's a non sequitur. A category error.

people who have never heard of christianity have been getting married for thousands of years so I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that marriage is derived only from a christian worldview

Herr Scholz

6/6/2006, 05:00 PM

Of course, you could have been joking. So here's a :D for you.
I was kidding. ;) I respect your beliefs. I also respect my belief in sex, drugs and rock & roll. And the occasional trip to Vegas.

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 05:10 PM

I was kidding. ;) I respect your beliefs. I also respect my belief in sex, drugs and rock & roll. And the occasional trip to Vegas.

I like sex...with my wife. I like drugs...that help me. I like rock & roll...that's good. Vegas I can do without. ;)

Vaevictis

6/6/2006, 05:15 PM

I'm wondering what facts you would consider sufficient to prove it.

I'm not sure such facts can exist. The real problem for me is that, as I believe Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Assuming you do have a being with god-like powers that indisputably reveals itself and its power, how do you know for sure that it's not just technology beyond your ability to understand?

Like I said, I'm not saying it's not true. I'm just saying that your arguments rely on an assumption that has not been proven to be true; as such, they're not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Scott D

6/6/2006, 05:32 PM

Yeah I can. First off, it's inconsistent with the Bible, so God didn't say it. Second, you don't believe in God, so you're just being sarcastic and offensive on purpose.

Ma'am I'd like for you to tell me where I have ever said I don't believe in God. I do believe you have me mistaken for Herr...which I find to be very sarcastic and extremely offensive.

Secondly, you still cannot prove that God told me this. Just because it's not in a book written eons ago doesn't mean he didn't tell me.

Jerk

6/6/2006, 06:45 PM

Quite frankly, the less federal government intervention in our lives, the better we are.

Man, I completely agree! There's only 3 things FEDGOD should do: 1) Defend the nation and its borders 2) Build roads and regulate interstate transportation (like air traffic control) 3) run a post office.

Less Government always = more freedom. Always. People who want a 'safety net' beg for their own enslavement.

That's why I think the global warming thing is a hoax by big gov't supporters. What better way to give The Beast more control of our lives?

SicEmBaylor

6/6/2006, 06:59 PM

Is it really that much of a hot button issue. Would Mississippi really want out of the Union if Vermont allows Gays to marry? What if Montana decided to legalize pot, would that cause Arizona serious problems? God forbid there be a little bit of regional autonomy. Where is Sicem when you need him? He's the resident states rights guy.

You, sir, are correct.

These are PRECISELY the types of issues that are suppose to be reserved to the individual states. Government closer to the people, more responsible to the wishes of the people, and with more oversight from the individual is the level of government best suited to legislate social issues such as marijuana, abortion, etc.

If the people of Vermont want to smoke pot enough to lobby their state government to legalize it then that's their business and the people in the state of Texas, Oklahoma, or wherever else shouldn't care in the least bit. The same goes for homosexual marriage or any other issue that is not an ENUMERATED power of the Federal government and is therefore reserved to the individual states or the individual person.

Thank you and good night.

Hamhock

6/6/2006, 07:17 PM

Man, I completely agree! There's only 3 things FEDGOD should do: 1) Defend the nation and its borders 2) Build roads and regulate interstate transportation (like air traffic control) 3) run a post office.

Less Government always = more freedom. Always. People who want a 'safety net' beg for their own enslavement.

That's why I think the global warming thing is a hoax by big gov't supporters. What better way to give The Beast more control of our lives?

Why #3? Surely a private organization could do it better..

Jerk

6/6/2006, 08:00 PM

Why #3? Surely a private organization could do it better..

Now, wait a minute, danmit. I have to change my party platform again(I am founder of Jerks 'Personal Freedom Isolationists Party' ) We will have to delete section 3 of the manifest0. Delete section 3 people!!!

Jerk

6/6/2006, 08:11 PM

Replacing section 3 in platform:

3) Divide blue states and red states, go seperate ways. No, you can not work in a blue state and claim residency in a red state as to avoid paying the higher taxes of blue country. (of course, this is a joke, I am in no way advocating the downfall of the US Government. This is just for entertainment purposes only)

Hamhock

6/6/2006, 08:36 PM

Jerk

6/6/2006, 08:38 PM

Post reported to the ATF, FBI, Secret Service, and CIA.

HEY! I ONLY KID! i SWARE!

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 08:42 PM

Ma'am I'd like for you to tell me where I have ever said I don't believe in God.

Sorry, lady, ya coulda fooled me.

Secondly, you still cannot prove that God told me this. Just because it's not in a book written eons ago doesn't mean he didn't tell me.

Yes it does.

Scott D

6/6/2006, 08:43 PM

Sorry, lady, ya coulda fooled me.

Yes it does.

aww handy is getting snippy again ;)

handcrafted

6/6/2006, 08:48 PM

I'm not sure such facts can exist. The real problem for me is that, as I believe Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Assuming you do have a being with god-like powers that indisputably reveals itself and its power, how do you know for sure that it's not just technology beyond your ability to understand?

Like I said, I'm not saying it's not true. I'm just saying that your arguments rely on an assumption that has not been proven to be true; as such, they're not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

There is truth in what you say. BTW I'm not trying to argue you into becoming a Christian, because I can't. If you do because of what I say, then God is glorified, because it's God that's doing it, not me. I simply want you to hear the truth, and show you that your life literally depends on that truth, whether consciously or not.