Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Return totheRepublic yes. Scrap or rewrite or add anything to that document? No, I can't think of one thing that needs to be changed.

I'm a secularist, anyone who has seen my posts dealing with religion knows that. YetI think that a State can hae a State religion. I don't thinkthey should, but they can.

You say that they will immeditely start doing things like that. Why would you say that? History shows us that they wouldn't. In fact, aside from issues with africanamericans in the southern states, there has has been basically no problems with the state trampling on people's rights, evenwhen everyone aknowledged that my point of view (that they CAN) is correct.

When thiscountry was founded there were state religions. Not until the 1940s did the despotic court declare that states couldn't have state religions. Inbetween did we have state religions? No. We didn't. We did until the early1800s but since we are a tolerant people we scrapped the state religions -- even though we had the power to do so.What does this mean today? This means in state court houses the TenCommandments may sit, or on state owned property a CHRISTMAS tree, not a secular winter holiday tree(or whatever it is called now) may sit, near a creche and a giant menorrah is not necessary to be nearby.

The people will keepeachstate in check, just as it hasfor hundreds of years, without the court needing to issue its edicts.
I am not confident that our somewhat questionable history ensures that Americans will continue to protect basic freedoms. We are on the verge of change - and not for the better in my somewhat paranoid opinion.

But, it's just my opinion. If you want to continue to stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is hunkydory in the U.S. of A., go right ahead.

[JustMe]

LeftyLucy wrote: If you're against same-sex marriage, it's very simple...

1. Don't marry someone of your sex.

2. Don't attend a church that marries same-sex couples.

In America we, ALL OF US, deserve equal rights under the law. We are not a Christian country. Just as we are not a country of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or any other religious affliation.

If your beliefs tell you same-sex marriage is wrong you absolutely have that right. And you can keep same-sex couples from being married in your church. Your church/religious organization has that right. But it is wrong to pass laws in order to stuff your personal beliefs down others' throats. If you think this is right then I hope, in turn, beliefs outside your own are forced down your throat. If you are a proud American who respects the freedom we have you should not make an exception when it comes to this subject, touchy as it may be.

It's pretty simple, really.

I agree. Common sense, right?

But, (without having read the rest of the thread) -- now you're going to get some variation of "heterosexual marriage/family" is the "Rock" of our civilization argument.

Of course, these same people seem to ignore or at least seriously minimize the fact that millions and millions and MILLIONS of men fail to pay child support and abandon the children they have created.

What does THAT do to the family dynamic?

Why isn't there a call for a constitutional amendment demanding that men take responsibility for their children?

What does divorce do to the family dynamic? Why not a constitutional amendment preventing ALL divorce?

The fact is, it's all SPIN --- it's NOT about "It takes a family", it IS about homophobia and bigotry. Period.

[the truth]

Be satisfied with unions not marriage. Marriage is a Christian definition that has been adopted by the state, not the other way around. As long as you use our definition abide by what we see as marriage.

But your unions should have all of the same rights as a married couple and you should be able to call yourselves husband and husband if you would like. Who cares. Just don't take a definition that has already been slandered by the state ( common law, etc....) and bring more shame to it.

Once we allow marriage of gays, we have to allow polygamy, marrying to animals, plants, planets, etc.. Be a union all you want, but don't take the definiton. That is all I am saying. And most gay people do agree with this when I talk to them personally about it.

[JustMe]

the truth wrote: Be satisfied with unions not marriage. Marriage is a Christian definition that has been adopted by the state, not the other way around. As long as you use our definition abide by what we see as marriage.

But your unions should have all of the same rights as a married couple and you should be able to call yourselves husband and husband if you would like. Who cares. Just don't take a definition that has already been slandered by the state ( common law, etc....) and bring more shame to it.

Once we allow marriage of gays, we have to allow polygamy, marrying to animals, plants, planets, etc.. Be a union all you want, but don't take the definiton. That is all I am saying. And most gay people do agree with this when I talk to them personally about it.

Marriage is Christian, ha? Oh, OK... I guess Jews aren't really "married", and Muslim's are really "married", and Buddhists aren't really "married" etc...

I'll go for your proposal though-- IF the state calls ALL marriages "Unions", be they heterosexual or homosexual, Christian or Non-Christian, Religious or Athiest.

You yourself said marriage is a religious definition. If there is a church that wishes to accept homosexual unions as marriage, they should have the right to do that. If there is a church that wishes to accept heterosexual marriage, they should do that.

Or are you saying that the state should decide which church marriages are "valid" and therefore a legal "union"?

I agree with you. We ALL should be entitled to legal Unions --- and Marriage should be a personal choice that is neither validated nor negated by the state.

[Jay2014]

the truth wrote: Be satisfied with unions not marriage. Marriage is a Christian definition that has been adopted by the state, not the other way around. As long as you use our definition abide by what we see as marriage.

But your unions should have all of the same rights as a married couple and you should be able to call yourselves husband and husband if you would like. Who cares. Just don't take a definition that has already been slandered by the state ( common law, etc....) and bring more shame to it.

Once we allow marriage of gays, we have to allow polygamy, marrying to animals, plants, planets, etc.. Be a union all you want, but don't take the definiton. That is all I am saying. And most gay people do agree with this when I talk to them personally about it.

first, marrige is found in almost every ancient culture, christianity has no monopoly on it. if we took the biblical deffinition of marrige, interracial marrige would not be allowed. would you advocate that as well? (to be fair, i think the prohibition of interracial marrige was actually a prohibition on interfaith marrige, but as religion and culture were inseperable at the time, they ment the same thing, even so, would you ban a catholic from marrying a methodist?)

we would have to allow polygamy, and rightly so. animals? plants? no, marrige is a contract, and just as a dog cant go into a business partnership with you, neither can one enter into a marrige contract (this logic would hold true for any other non human possibility, biotic or abiotic, and to those under the age of consent)

[JustMe]

Jay2014 wrote: (to be fair, i think the prohibition of interracial marrige was actually a prohibition on interfaith marrige, but as religion and culture were inseperable at the time, they ment the same thing, ----

we would have to allow polygamy, and rightly so. animals? plants? no, marrige is a contract, and just as a dog cant go into a business partnership with you, neither can one enter into a marrige contract (this logic would hold true for any other non human possibility, biotic or abiotic, and to those under the age of consent)

Well, I don't buy the "interfaith" marriage thing. Black men were frequently hung for even LOOKING at a white woman in the "wrong way". If what you said were even remotely true, there could've/would've been lots of black/white marriages of the same faith.

Of COURSE it was a racial thing.

[Jay2014]

JustMe wrote: Jay2014 wrote: (to be fair, i think the prohibition of interracial marrige was actually a prohibition on interfaith marrige, but as religion and culture were inseperable at the time, they ment the same thing, ----

we would have to allow polygamy, and rightly so. animals? plants? no, marrige is a contract, and just as a dog cant go into a business partnership with you, neither can one enter into a marrige contract (this logic would hold true for any other non human possibility, biotic or abiotic, and to those under the age of consent)

Well, I don't buy the "interfaith" marriage thing. Black men were frequently hung for even LOOKING at a white woman in the "wrong way". If what you said were even remotely true, there could've/would've been lots of black/white marriages of the same faith.

Of COURSE it was a racial thing.

in 1500 BC judea? i said if we accept the biblical deffinition of marrige. i was unawere of old testement cases of black men being hanged for looking at white woman.

in america, you are right, the reason was bigotry. in fact, at first, marrige licenses were only for interracial couples, you had to get approval. people were able to marry intrarace for a while thereafter withour permission. now, the state has to give anyone the ok to enter into a contract with another consenting adult. this is, in my opinion, ubsurd tin the highest degree. we need to get government completely out of marrige.

[Zangoose]

I agree. Common sense, right?

But, (without having read the rest of the thread) -- now you're going to get some variation of "heterosexual marriage/family" is the "Rock" of our civilization argument.

Of course, these same people seem to ignore or at least seriously minimize the fact that millions and millions and MILLIONS of men fail to pay child support and abandon the children they have created.

What does THAT do to the family dynamic?

Why isn't there a call for a constitutional amendment demanding that men take responsibility for their children?

What does divorce do to the family dynamic? Why not a constitutional amendment preventing ALL divorce?

The fact is, it's all SPIN --- it's NOT about "It takes a family", it IS about homophobia and bigotry. Period.

Don't speak about child support. I will :owned: :ws:

[Zangoose]

the truth wrote: Be satisfied with unions not marriage. Marriage is a Christian definition that has been adopted by the state, not the other way around. As long as you use our definition abide by what we see as marriage.

But your unions should have all of the same rights as a married couple and you should be able to call yourselves husband and husband if you would like. Who cares. Just don't take a definition that has already been slandered by the state ( common law, etc....) and bring more shame to it.

Once we allow marriage of gays, we have to allow polygamy, marrying to animals, plants, planets, etc.. Be a union all you want, but don't take the definiton. That is all I am saying. And most gay people do agree with this when I talk to them personally about it.

So only christian define marriage? Are you really lost or what? :ws: :rotf:

[Zangoose]

Jay2014 wrote: the truth wrote: Be satisfied with unions not marriage. Marriage is a Christian definition that has been adopted by the state, not the other way around. As long as you use our definition abide by what we see as marriage.

But your unions should have all of the same rights as a married couple and you should be able to call yourselves husband and husband if you would like. Who cares. Just don't take a definition that has already been slandered by the state ( common law, etc....) and bring more shame to it.

Once we allow marriage of gays, we have to allow polygamy, marrying to animals, plants, planets, etc.. Be a union all you want, but don't take the definiton. That is all I am saying. And most gay people do agree with this when I talk to them personally about it.

first, marrige is found in almost every ancient culture, christianity has no monopoly on it. if we took the biblical deffinition of marrige, interracial marrige would not be allowed. would you advocate that as well? (to be fair, i think the prohibition of interracial marrige was actually a prohibition on interfaith marrige, but as religion and culture were inseperable at the time, they ment the same thing, even so, would you ban a catholic from marrying a methodist?)

we would have to allow polygamy, and rightly so. animals? plants? no, marrige is a contract, and just as a dog cant go into a business partnership with you, neither can one enter into a marrige contract (this logic would hold true for any other non human possibility, biotic or abiotic, and to those under the age of consent)

So are you saying that Christians don't want blacks to marry whites? This is why Christians are fraud. Their whole systems is weak and show no proof of anything. Remember this is the same religion that thinks human race was started by two people. :ws: That being said, that mean at some point in this f@ck up fantasy, Adam and Eve kids had to have sex with each other to continue the human race. Wait.......... :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: Making this incest. :rotf: :ws: So I wouldn't even take anything a Christian said with a grain of salt.

[Jay2014]

Zangoose wrote: Jay2014 wrote: the truth wrote: Be satisfied with unions not marriage. Marriage is a Christian definition that has been adopted by the state, not the other way around. As long as you use our definition abide by what we see as marriage.

But your unions should have all of the same rights as a married couple and you should be able to call yourselves husband and husband if you would like. Who cares. Just don't take a definition that has already been slandered by the state ( common law, etc....) and bring more shame to it.

Once we allow marriage of gays, we have to allow polygamy, marrying to animals, plants, planets, etc.. Be a union all you want, but don't take the definiton. That is all I am saying. And most gay people do agree with this when I talk to them personally about it.

first, marrige is found in almost every ancient culture, christianity has no monopoly on it. if we took the biblical deffinition of marrige, interracial marrige would not be allowed. would you advocate that as well? (to be fair, i think the prohibition of interracial marrige was actually a prohibition on interfaith marrige, but as religion and culture were inseperable at the time, they ment the same thing, even so, would you ban a catholic from marrying a methodist?)

we would have to allow polygamy, and rightly so. animals? plants? no, marrige is a contract, and just as a dog cant go into a business partnership with you, neither can one enter into a marrige contract (this logic would hold true for any other non human possibility, biotic or abiotic, and to those under the age of consent)

So are you saying that Christians don't want blacks to marry whites? This is why Christians are fraud.

no, i didnt say that, if you read my post. i said the biblical deffinition of marrige prohibited interracial unions. that doesnt mean a majority of christians would support that today.

[MetalLives2]

hey i have a better idea . if i believe its wrong i will stage a huge anti gay march where we march through crowded cities and kill innocent gays for fun. man that would be awesome

[Pimpkie_69]

Quote: If you're against same-sex marriage, it's very simple...

1. Don't marry someone of your sex.

2. Don't attend a church that marries same-sex couples.

Okay, I agree there. However, I have something to say to you

If you're against guns, it's very simple...

1. Don't own a gun

2. Don't attend a church full of rednecks with guns

Since you're a liberal, you probably advocate strict gun control, so saying that something shouldn't be restricted because it doens't infringe on your rights (gay marriage), is hypocritical, when you think guns should be banned for the same reason.....at least that's probably what you think.