Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

I find the article little more than that.

Please, Aqua. Just do a little research into a matter. That's all we ask.

When it comes to questions over a bill, always, always, always go to: [link] for the most up to date information.

The summary of the bill there states:

SUMMARY AS OF:
2/11/2004--Introduced.

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government or officer of such government by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Yes, because the American people MUST be protected from those that would DARE acknowledge a belief in God! We can't have people going around and practicing their first amendment rights (which you so vehemently defended in another post) by actually saying, "God" can we? OH, WHY WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Don't they know the first amendment says NOTHING about freedom of religion!

Yes, the argument has been made that politicians have been mixing personal religious beliefs with politics. I personally don't see the big deal. Personal beliefs, religious or not, come into play with politics all the time. Perhaps this goes a bit overboard, but there's no big deal here all the same.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than the constitutional law and English common law.

On a more serious note, this is an interesting question. Several Supreme Court rulings of late have cited things like the EU Charter as well as treaties and UN resolutions that the US has not ratified. The argument is an obvious one - why should the US legal system be held to laws we didn't legislate or agree with ourselves? The argument against that is that the US should be more integrated into the global society and adopt their standards. Both sides have reasonable arguments, and I tend to stick with the former myself.

This is probably of particular importance to this representative because the move to strike down sodomy laws largely cited laws from outside of the US and UN Resolutions we had not signed on to.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.

Teeth of the legislation. Makes sense, though. If the law is passed and justices ignore it, there would need
to be an enforcement mechanism. That's standard.

In addition, "Godless Americans" shows that at least three democrats have signed on to the bill as cosponsors: [link]

So... it's not just for Neo-Cons any more!

Honestly, Velvet. Do some research. [link]@@@L&summ2=m&

I stand corrected.

Thank you for posting the lyrics to song that you didn't write. Instead, next time, make a comment about the article.

Yeah. I know, it's scary so I'm worried too. Honestly though I think that before that stuff comes about the state will be so corrupt it won't care, and by then I'll be Canadian.

When the youth of this nation no longer recognize the lyrics of a John Lennon song...

When the youth of this nation no longer recognize the lyrics of a John Lennon song...

When the youth of this nation no longer recognize the lyrics of a John Lennon song...

For some reason my connection to Foo freaked out, and even pings weren't getting through.

Oddly enough, this made it through just fine... three times. Guess I shouldn't keep hitting reload.

I don't mind atheists and the like at all saying that they don't think we should acknowledge God. Everyone is entitled to say what they think. That's a right given by the constitution....

However, while we're on the subject of constitutionality..

There are many things that are exercised and taken as rights (constitutional ones) that really don't exist. Remember the whole mess with the Alabama Supreme Court (I think thats what it was...)? Remember how the 1st amendment was quoted as the reason they had to remove the statue of the 10 commandments?

You see I don't mind that anyone had a problem with the statue. I have a lot of problems with things other people do myself. But if they're going to say that in the constitution it says that there is a separation of church and state, they need to at least make sure its in there. As of yet, I have found NO such item.

I found where it said that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor abridging the free exercise thereof (or something to that effect). So what does that mean? Congress can't make laws that say we can't exercise our religious preferences, and that congress itself cannot make a religion the official religion of the United States. The reasoning behind that was England had established both Protestantism and Catholicism back and forth over and over again. Not only that, but they were forced to be a religion they didn't want to be.

Now I'm not talking about the arguments given by whiny hard-core liberals and conservatives alike.

"Oh no, if we don't get to have gay sex in public, it offends my freedom of religion!"

"Oh no, if we don't get to ban gay sex, it offends my freedom of religion!"

Shut up already. That's not that the amendment was for. Thank God (or if you're atheist, something else) that you don't have to deal with someone telling you how to worship. Get over it already. There is no separation of church and state. There is no freedom from religion in the constitution.

And about the courts... that's another pet peeve of mine...

There is a reason "judicial review" isn't in the constitution. We were warned by our Forefathers that if given enough power the courts could legislate over top of our heads... and we are now seeing the reasoning behind that.

I know I am going to catch a lot of flak because of this, but judges have no right to make or strike down laws. They don't. They aren't given that power. That is up to the legislative branch, who are ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. I don't like the idea of some 70 year old man or woman imposing their will over top of the people of the United States. It's sickening.

I am not angry because the majority of judges are slanted left. I couldn't care less. I'd be equally as pissed if they were slanted right!! I know you may not believe that, but it's true. How many of you liberals out there want to see liberal judges imposing their will against the people? How many of you conservatives want to see conservative judges imposing their will against the people? I'd venture to say that the lot of you would agree that it is wrong.

Ok, I'll just end this rant now before I take up too much space. Hit me back with your thoughts. Try to be respectful too...

Wow that was great. I was very annoted when the Ten Sommandment were forceable remived. The ten comandments are the basis for our laws in North America. It at least has historical signifigance.

The case of the judge in Alabama and the ten commandments wasn't just about the statue. The judge in question had also made it a policy to demand that each session begin with a prayer that could only be Christian, and had other policies that obviously gave bias to the Christian faith.

If you want to display the ten commandments in a historical manner, then go ahead. By all means - they are important to the history of our country wi thout a doubt. This case was a bit different.

Judicial Review was implied in the constitution. The "founding fathers" themselves said it. It came out of a famous case named Marbury vs. Madison (check it out on wikipedia). Judges have been overusing it in the recent future perhaps, but the Congress also has the power to remove jurisdiction from any court on any matter. Recently, a bill passed in the house (I believe), that removed the court's ability to try cases dealing with homosexual marriage, for example. The courts are not entirely unchecked - it takes a simple majority to remove their jurisdiction on an issue, and after that, the game's over.

Just some food for thought for you.

Thanks. Interesting thing on gay marrige(off topic yes). I don't see how gays and lesbians can protest for gay marrige. Marrige is a christen scarament seriously I'm all for gay unions they deserve the same rights as everyone else. But people seem to forget that marrige is a sacrement not just a contract.

*sigh* I love the Beatles and I love John Lennon but I think it's pretty dumb to just post lyrics to a song without any personal comments. I mean... that's what the box is for.

The institution of government marriage is, more or less, a type of subsidy from the government to encourage people to have children. Other than the obvious religious issues involved, that's the other argument against gay marriage - if a homosexual couple can never hope to produce a child (or so I was told in my 6th grade health class...), why should the governmnent support that union?

It also creates a legal bond respected by government, thus giving people the over (insert favorite sensationalized number here) rights, such as rights dealing with inheiritance, hospital visits, medical decisions, etc.

Even though a homosexual couple cannot marry, there is nothing in the law preventing them from giving each other a wavier to allow hospital visits, and a well written will should handle any inheiritance issues.

To further the straying from topic - the question of "common law" marriage. Does the fact you've been living together for x amount of time make your significant other capable of making decisions for your significant other? This, along with the issue of gay marriage, will be decided here in Utah this year.

Personally, I don't support the idea of common law marriage, either. I mean, if you're going to live together, and you really want all of the benefits of married people, then bite the bullet, go down to the county courthouse, pay your $50, and get the license. It's that easy. If you're paranoid about divorce, both parties should get a well written pre-nup.

What I am shocked at is the bill on the ballot in ohio(?) apperently(again apperently I haven't really researched this) it prevents alot more then just gay marrige. It takes away gay unions as a right.

I don't know if I trust your website [link] I mean, there's no banners and no pictures. All the fonts are the same. Who could trust that?

I apologize in advance for the brevity and disorganized fashion this comment is written in. It's 1:15 AM my time... ugh...

First off, let me thank both of you for commenting on my comment respectfully :). It is always great to know that other people feel just as passionately about things that I do.

I have a bone to pick with civil unions. It is not because they are ways to give gay people rights or whatnot. I couldn't care less about that. My issue is that eventually civil rights gorups will demand civil unions for straight people. Yes, it sounds crazy, but its true.

Now why does this cause problems? Well there are going to be people who just see marriage as something stupid that no one really wants to do, and as such, will want to get the rights of married couples without actually going through the process. All they would need is that little civil union thing that gives them the rights, thus eventually undermining the institution of marriage.

Don't you think that after a few years of giving gay people civil unions that straight people will want them to? Yes, and they will get it. Why? Because they'll whine about how in the name of equality they should get the entitlements as well.

Marriage will suffer no matter what. There is no such thing as compromise in our society, because everyone will take things to extremes.

I guess there is no easy way out of this. Damn this is a tough issue. But maybe it is time to give in and allow a choice of Marrige or a civil union. I know this kind of undermines marrige but we have to make consessions sometimes.

I consider marriage to actually be more of a privelege than a right.

Going off onto another, but related, topic...

I'm not sure the gay people really want -equal- rights as much as they want special treatment. It is like affirmitive action, to which I am vehemently opposed. Affirmitive Action is all about special treatment. To supporters, it ensures "equal rights"... but in all reality, it is just them wanting special treatment from the government for being "different".

Now, I have nothing at all against gay people, except that I disagree with their lifestyle. But come on, are you really entitled to special treatment for having an "alternative lifestyle"?

Thanks for quoting Lennon -- it's needed in times like these (when I'm glad I live in Australia). Perfect Circle have released a cover version of this.

Why shouldn't judges be able to strike down laws? If a law is unconstitutional in nature than some body of government should be able to do something about it. Every branch of government has a check and balance to its power, including the legislative branch. If the legislative branch had no check on its power whatsoever, individuals inalienable rights would never be protected. The consitution has a very important purpose of protecting individuals inalienable rights from the majority. That way, when the majority would democratically, electorally with all proper due process, legislate to take away a non-majority groups civil rights, someone is able to check that. When judges strike down unconstitutional laws the majority of people in the US have passed, it guarantees rights to everybody, not just the majority group.

I don't disagree with gay lifestyles because I have no reason to disagree with it. I'm heterosexual and not involved but they don't hurt anyone and I can't think of one good reason to "disagree" with it. What are your disagreements?

First off I think homosexuality is wrong and immoral. I don't care what you think about it, really. You're entitled to think that there's nothing wrong with it, just as much as I have the right to think its wrong. If you want to say that I'm wrong, intolerant, etc., etc., go for it. I have my opinion, you have yours, and mine will not change.

If the government had a limited number of marriage licenses to hand out and gay couples got preferential status on the waiting list to receive one, for progressive social adjustment or whatever ...then maybe it would be like affirmative action. But how can you look at the mere right to receive a marriage license like everyone else as demanding "special treatment"? Christ, you almost had me convinced that maybe you weren't really a bigot until you said that.

I'm not trying to call you wrong or intolerant, I'm genuinely curious as to the reasons behind the opinion that its immoral and wrong. I'm just asking you to list the reasons why its bad, because i'm not able to think of any. You don't have to change your opinion to answer my question.

The courts do not have that power. Sorry, but they don't. Go ahead and read the constitution for yourself. In no part are the courts given the power to strike down laws.

Also, you miss the point of democracy. The point of it is majority rule. If the -majority- of the people of the United States want to ban something, and then there's a smaller percentage that doesn't want it banned, then the -majority's- point of view wins.

My main issue with the courts is that we can't elect judges. Sure we can at the state level, but that's it. Most judges are bureaucrats. That means someone else appointed them to the position instead of the people. That mean they rule with whatever mindset and political philosophies they have, thus "judicial activism".

I am a big fan of political and civil "inalienable" rights. But "inalienable" suggest that there is a belief that a divine creator instilled each human being with those rights. That's what an "inalienable" right is. Anyone who argues that it means something else is wrong.

Also, let me say this. The check and balance of the legislature is the executive branch. If the executive branch shuts down the law that the legislature passed, the legislature has the ability to overturn the veto with a certain vote in congress. If a lot of people -really- want this law, the veto will be overturned.

So... if the said law was then enacted, it would definitely, having at least a 2/3rds vote, have the support of more than the majority of the people. That means the people's voice is heard.

Oh, hey hey, lookey here. One judge over here doesn't like the law, because -he- (not the people) thinks that it is wrong for whatever reason. With his personal beliefs, he strikes down a law that is supported by the people, thus silencing their voices, so a very small minority of people in this country will be satisfied, leaving the rest of us voiceless.

It is like I said before, this is tyranny of the minority. Not only are the judges taking it upon themselves to strike down any and all laws they do not like, but they're going -way- above the people's heads. I, for one, am sick of it. Not because of the political balance of the courts, I couldn't care less about that. I'm just sick of the judges asserting themselves above my head. I have no say in what they do. Once a judge strikes down a law, it's stricken (unless someone brings it up in congress again or something, but then once its passed, that same judge will just strike it down again).

If that doesn't make you angry, I fail to see your logic. You're telling me that you'd support a judge asserting his will upon you? I'm sorry, but that is what the legislative branch is for. We elect them, they make laws. That is what a democratic-REPUBLIC stands for. Making, passing, and striking down laws through ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. The sooner everyone understands that, we will all be happier.

P.S. All that judges guarantee is that they have power over us all.

My disagreements with the homosexual lifestyle are based on religious belief.

While this wouldn't exclude me from having homosexual friends, acquaintances, or co-workers, it would encourage me to argue against an expansion of homosexual rights.

Does this make me a bigot?

My disagreements with the homosexual lifestyle are based on religious belief.

While this wouldn't exclude me from having homosexual friends, acquaintances, or co-workers, it would encourage me to argue against an expansion of homosexual rights.

Does this make me a bigot?

Not at all.

It is just like atheists who disagree with the Christian lifestyle. Does that mean they are excluded from being friends? I should hope not! I have a lot of atheistic friends.

I think you've misunderstood the constitution in general, although your perception is common.

Each branch of government has power over the other. You explained the powers regarding executive and legislative branches quite well, but they also hold significant powers over the court. For example:

1) There is nothing in the constitution mentioning how many judges can or must be in the court. This means that it's possible for a president with backing from congress to simply stack the court with judges that are friendly to their views. The court must keep this in mind if it wants to retain any power.

2) Congress can vote, by a simple majority, to simply remove the court's jurisdiction on any issue it wants. Don't want the court to decide on, say, flag burning? Then, you pass a bill that prevents the court from ruling on that issue. The SCOTUS is then incapable of hearing any complaints regarding a law you pass preventing flag burning.

3) The ultimate trump card - ammend the constitution. If you don't like what the court says, you can ammend the constitution and force the court to comply.

4) Popular opinion - in general, the court does not sway far from popular opinion. Decisions made that go against popular opinion make the court a political target and weaken its effectiveness.

The US has a constitution and rules by written law. That constitution prevents a simple majority to always be the one who gets to decide on matters such as freedom of speech, religion, or privacy.

You're arguing for something more similar to a British system, where there is no constitution and a very weak judicial branch in many regards. In the UK (well, it used to be this way at least, before the EU), a simple majority could make laws concerning any number of things. Because they have no constitution, they simply terminate old laws they don't like.

Hypocrite might be better. Either you are for the gays or you are not. You cannot be friends with gays and then not support their rights, or lifestyle, religiously. I don't want to get into a big religious argument but I will ask you one question. If you are friends with gays, I assume that you feel they are good people (otherwise you wouldn't be friends with them), then why do you not support their rights because of religious beliefs?

What if I think they're wrong, am their friend, and support gay rights?

Sorry, I don't see how being polite and civilized with other people makes me a hypocrite.

Just because someone is a "good person" does not mean I support every act they do, nor does it mean I support them politically.

Christianity in general does not teach its followers to hate others, simply to disagree with their actions.

Because I'm a Republican, does hanging out with Democrats make me a hypocrite? I certainly don't support their political views, but that does not mean I should treat them like trash. There's no reason to be disrespectful of others.

Because I'm a Mormon, should I not associate with Baptists? Does that make me a hypocrite?

This is a classic "either-or" logical fallacy. Either I'm chucking bibles at people and waving signs in their faces, or I'm a gay rights supporter. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

Key word there is "rights". Beliefs or no, a respect for others rights is all that is needed for you to not be a bigot, and to be able to support homosexual rights while disagreeing with their lifestyle. You don't live their lifestyle, and you have the right not to, so your disagreement with their lifestyle doesn't need to play a part in whether they should have the right to their lifestyle, as well as their other inalienable rights, like to equality.

As for the bigot versus religious question, I'm asking for some sound justifications to the religious belief. I prefer people to have some feeling behind the beliefs they hold dear. The Bible or whatever may tell you that something is wrong, but then do you just parrot back its list of morals, or do you feel in your heart based on some critical thinking or human experience that its true that its wrong? If there’s one time to think critically it should be about your beliefs. Parrot your religion all you want, but why do you think your religion is right about this issue?
If you have independant non-religious reasons for supporting the religious belief that its immoral, i want to hear it. If you don't and are against it for no other heartfelt reason than because religion says so, then yes you are a bigot. Here's the definition: "big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

So is what you're saying "You can have your religious convictions as long as you aren't vocal with them?" That seems to be the idea of alot of people, and this is out of chracter for me because I support gay rights and I think being gay is wrong, but you're saying "If you don't support gay rights you're a bigot" That just doesn't make sense, there are lots of non-religious arguements against homosexual marriage. While I don't agree with them I know that it's not a cut and dry decision so telling someone they're a bigot based on whether they're willing to not impose their beliefs on someone is a bit iffy.

It makes me feel sad that I actually know "Lord Xyrtex". He's a hypocritical jerk online and off.

People want people to be intolerant because that is human nature, people cannot understand how Jesus can disagree with a whore, and dispise her actions but still be friendly and kind to her and love her.

No, thats not what I'm saying at all. Maybe I didn't read Chepibes statement the same way. He said he would argue against an expansion of homosexual rights. If he had said "argue against expansion of homosexual lifestyle" that would be completely different. Thats being vocal about beliefs, and not an attempt to infringe rights. I'm saying people can have their religious convictions as long as they don't see to it that it provokes them to legislate someone else's consitutional rights away from them. Your support for gay rights is great for that reason, but Chepibe is saying his religious beliefs would make him not support gay rights. Your religious beliefs are important to you, but my constitutional rights are more important to me than your religious beliefs are when it comes to how I live just my own life. My beliefs should be able to dictate how I live my life more than your beliefs do, as long as it doesn't hurt you, and constitutional rights try to guarantee that we all have that freedom, to have the first say in how each of us lives. But voting to restrict gay rights (as Chepibe would do but you wouldn't) imposes your beliefs on how I live my life, because the government can't protect my right to live my life as i see fit. Being vocal and imposing are 2 different things. You are being vocal. Chepibe is imposing.

"Sorry, I don't see how being polite and civilized with other people makes me a hypocrite. " - If you except them as friends and then denounce them religiously, that's being a hypocrite. In religion you are following one set of rules, but in friendship, you are showing another. However you want to put it, you are showing friendship to a gay person when you are not really being their friend. To me that's hypocracy. However for you, it might just show the values you weight your "friends" with.

"Just because someone is a "good person" does not mean I support every act they do, nor does it mean I support them politically. " - You are the one who said that you don't agree with them religiously... remember you said "My disagreements with the homosexual lifestyle are based on religious belief. "

"This is a classic "either-or" logical fallacy. Either I'm chucking bibles at people and waving signs in their faces, or I'm a gay rights supporter. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way." - It really depends on your religious beliefs. Does you chuch want you to be friends with "sinners?" You can except them, but shall you except them into "friendship?" I think it's hypocracy because by showing a gay your friendship, you are showing that you except them without restriction, however you are restricting them. I guess it really all depends on what our (you and i) definintion of friend is. Without restriction a person is my friend, otherwise they are not.

"if a homosexual couple can never hope to produce a child ..., why should the governmnent support that union?" Because they can adopt. And because the government supports the union of barren heterosexual couples. Treat the homosexual barren couples equally to the heterosexual barren couples.

What if?

If you stand against them are you their friend? If you stand against everything they know about love, they way they live, and their lifestyle, are you still their "friend?"

If so, what am I missing?

There is a difference between acceptance and friendship.

So I guess Jesus was a hypocrite then? I mean mary magdaline was a prostitue.

No it doesn't.

You (general you) are friends with the people not their actions. It isn't your(general your as in people's) place to judge. It isn't your (again a general your) place to support those behaviors.

Even "good people" do dumb things. They make wrong decisions. However, God teaches us grace and the ability to still be friends with people even if they aren't doing what they should be doing.

I would suggest you refrain from the term hypocrite until you learn what it means. It definitely doesn't apply even in the twisted sense you are trying to portray people's beliefs.

Have a good one.

If your friend murders someone, do you still support their actions?

Come now, using the absurd as a form of argument can and will be held against you.

Friends do things we disagree with all the time. You don't have to support their every action or belief to still be a friend. The same goes for them and how they deal with you.

The only thing you have a responsibility to do as a friend is be honest and respect their right to make even stupid choices ;)

Yes we do accept even gays without restriction. They can and will do what they want. That doesn't mean we have to tug on their dick to be friends with them.

Not supporting the actions of a person isn't the same as not supporting the person.

Uhm no. He accepted her for the person she was. That doesn't mean he supported her profession and actions all the time.

I do believe strongly in the Bible and it is very much in my heart, so I am not "parroting" back -anything-. Maybe that is hard for someone to believe that in this modern age, I would be so juvenile as to actually believe in that book. But yes, I do, and I've taken all its words to heart.

And I am no bigot. Myself and MW are the best of friends. Its true. He and I are really close. But if you take a look at what we believe politcally, we should hate each other. I'm very right-wing compared to him, and he is extremely left-wing compared to me. I don't support his political beliefs. Does that make me bigoted? Oh yes, I'm -very- partial to my beliefs. Sometimes I don't understand why he doesn't see the logic in my political theories. Maybe that's intolerance.

Before you go spouting off about who is a bigot and who isn't, I think you ought to think about that definition clearly. You have pretty much said that the Bible isn't a valid source of belief-basing. You're then condemning anyone who cites the bible as their source of information. Isn't that a little bigoted? According to your definition, yes.

I am not here to attack you. If you want to call me a bigot, go for it. I have no quarrel with you, because I respect your right to believe differently from me. I do not consider you a bigot by any sense of the word, Squee, and that is why I want you to reexamine it.

You completely missed my point.

The meat of my argument was this:

In the end, marriage will suffer from civil unions. If we let civil unions happen, straight couples will want them as well. Once straight couples get them, most of them won't really want to get married. Marriage will be a thing of the past. I'm sorry, but I do not want my children growing up in a society that doesn't give two hoots about marriage. Maybe you do, I don't know.

All I am saying is that civil unions really aren't the answer.

See above.

I can see what you're saying, but you're calling them bigots for wanting to restrict gay rights. What about the death penalty should that be each persons choice? I mean if Xyr disagrees with me and wants the DP to exist should he be allowed to want it? If I do not want to because of relgious convicitons am I allowed to not want it?

There once was a nice man, a gentle man looked up to by a flock of many. This man did not drink alcohol nor did he smoke ciggarettes. While driving his vehicle he always buckled up and drove his vehicle with his hands at the two and ten o'clock positions. He was an honest hardworking man who -in his spare time- volunteered at soup kitchens and also worked as a carpenter. Married for over 40 years, his loving wife passed away leaving him with the fading memories of himself with his wife going on picnics and long moonlit walks on the beach. The couple never had children because oddly enough they were both sterile. When his wife died he decided to join the church to become a preacher. He had never been arrested for anything. Not even a traffic ticket did this man have.
Then one day he was arrested for sexually molesting a half dozen boys. Members of his church these boys were. He often had dinner with thier parents in thier homes.
Trust had been destroyed. and all that any of his congregation members could say about him was that "...he was such a nice man...he always smiled and had good things to speak about... he could always find the positive in a world of evil."
Afterwards he was found guilty on all counts a was sentenced to life in prison. His congregation was shocked and wanted him freed.
My point in this little ramble is that just because someone is nice and smily and doesn't seem to do anything that would be considered harmful doesn't mean that they should be given what they want because of what they FEEL.
Like it or not being gay is a feeling. Not a physiological neccessity. It's easier for a gay man to wake up in the morning and say" You know what? I'm going to find a woman and get married and have a family." Than it is for a gay couple to copulate and squeeze a baby out of one of thier penises.
In conclusion I say if a gay couple wants to get married, then well whatever. they should grow the hell up and move on with thier lives. The Constitution of the United States should not be changed to accomodate the miniscule wacked out few of american society so they can FEEL better.

Really, your arguments just aren't making a lick of sense.

If I befriend someone, and accept that person as someone I will talk to on a regular basis for whatever reason, it cannot reasonably be deduced that I support each and every action that person does. This goes well beyond homosexuals.

For example - I also view it as a sin to drink an alcoholic beverage or to smoke a cigarette. Should I, therefore, cut off all ties with my grandmother who smokes or my uncle who ocassionally likes to drink a beer?

I disagree with their actions based on personal religious belief. It's as simple as that. This does not mean that I hate them.

Does my church want me to be friends with "sinners"? Bapow, I spent two years of my life on a mission from my church with the GOAL of befriending sinners. Do keep in mind that Christianity is largely based on evangilism, which involves association with non-believers for the purpose of converting them.

This doesn't mean that I have to set it as my goal to personally baptize every heathen I run across - just set a good example. Be a nice guy.

Another case in point - One of my co-workers is a woman whose political views are so incredibly wacked from anybody's perspective (far-right one moment, far-left the next, no real knowledge to back anything up, maybe you know the type). Should I not associate with her because we have, dare I say, a difference? I certainly cannot approve of her political agenda, but I will continue to speak with her.

Here we go:

I'm asking for some sound justifications to the religious belief
Define "sound justifications". If you're looking for a quantifiable answer then, sadly, I don't have it. Short answer - I prayed, God answered, I know it's true. I won't waver from it.

"Rights" - I suppose I should have said the "supposed gay rights movement". The gay rights movement has moved well beyond simple rights. I support the right of people of any sexual orientation, religion, political party, etc. to have freedom of speech, reasonable privacy laws, freedom to a jury trial, etc

I, however, do not support the movement to adopot homosexual marriage or unions. I have already supplied a reason based on something other than religious belief above, which you have disagreed with.

You argue for homosexual adoption, and I argue against it. To compare a heterosexual couple who is unable to conceive due to an injury or disease to a homosexual couple that, regarldess of health, is incapable of creating a child is absurd. Try as they might, a homosexual union will not create a child. Yes, there are instances where a heterosexual couple will not be able to conceive naturally.

The main argument from the homosexual community (as far as I can ascertain, feel free to correct my ignorance) is that they want marriage so that they can enjoy equal rights, and argue against the restriction of marriage to them. The argument is consenting adults don't hurt anyone else. However, this is a slippery slope - when will it end? Will polygamy become acceptable again? How about incest? After all, they aren't hurting anybody else, why not let siblings marry?

If you don't and are against it for no other heartfelt reason than because religion says so, then yes you are a bigot.

You responded to the above post and still would call me a bigot? Please, Squee.

If you're too tied up in purely humanistic ideas and refuse to acknowledge or tolerate religious people, you're a bigot, by that argument.

And your definition says "tolerate". I do tolerate homosexuals. I have homosexual acquaintances that I get along with quite well. I simply don't agree with their political views.

I suppose if the definition of the word was, "one who does not actively promote causes he or she disagrees with entirely" then, yes, I'm a bigot.

go choke on Lances public hair homo

Squee, every law you obey is the imposition of someone else's will, generally the collective will.

I apologize for imposing my beliefs on how fast we should all go on the highway, everydoby just do what you want!

I am so sorry for imposing my Lockean views of private property on everyone! Go ahead, take my TV!

I do not support gay marriage. Plain and simple. This does not mean I support stringing gays up by their neck in town square for all to see. This does not mean I believe they should all be thrown in a jail cell. I disagree with gay marriage. Plain and simple.

Does the fact that I disagree with it based on personal religious belief make my belief any less valid than the next man's? Unless you're a bigoted humanist who believes strictly in the rule of "reason", then I'd argue no.

Utah will be voting to ban gay marriage this Tuesday, and I will vote in favor of it. Why? I support it personally.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't "impose" your beliefs upon me and make me want to do or accept things I'd rather not.

check out the new song I wrote: Fuck you fuck you f f f fuck youououuuu in the Corn Hole. Fu Fu Fu Fuuuuuuck Youoow

I always laugh when a homophobe or a religious person tries to argue that being gay is a choice, and that a person has control over if they are gay or not.

Who the hell would actually choose a gay lifestyle with all the hatred and bigotry they'll have to endure at the hands of those who feel entitled to judge them 'cause their God(s) don't like it.

Think about it... if it was a choice, wouldn't we all get up in the morning and make a conscious decision to be straight too?

Sorry man, no choice involved... we're wired straight or gay, and there is nothing we can do about it.

And if gay guys or gals want to marry, they aren't harming anyone so just let 'em do so, and get over your homo-phobic or religiously-based hatred... fags are people too.

"However, this is a slippery slope - when will it end? Will polygamy become acceptable again? How about incest? After all, they aren't hurting anybody else, why not let siblings marry? "

You are stating that it is a slipperly slope based on your assumtion that homosexuality is a choice. As far as I know, it is not and therefore unchangeable, unlike polygamy, incest etc which really is a concientious decision.

I feel that if you cannot change the way a person acts of feels, then you have to accomodate that person and not discriminate against him or her, and in this case would mean extending the same rights heterosexual couples get to homosexual couples, including marriage, adoption, etc.

The "slippery slope" argument basically says, "well, if we'll let homosexuals get married, why not let siblings marry or allow ploygamy?"

Check out this group's view if you don't believe it... [link]

Yeah, I know, the irony of a Mormon making this kind of argument... what a funny world we live in ;-)

your right to protect yourself and your family is very important in this mean old world kerry is not a hunter he is a gun grabber who ought to be ashamed of himself for being a phony and a liar and a political crack ho who will do or say ANYTHING to get to be the leader of the free world with his finger on the nuclear suitcase.VOTE FOR BUSH and keep your gun rights and protect the supreme court from liberal baby killin tree huggin gay ass aclu judges who legislate from the bench instead of ruling according to the constitution

To not get drunk and decide to post your thoughts online late at night...

Although, his spelling is remarkably good for an AC. Maybe I've misjudged this guy...

I value marriage a lot more than you do, since I'm the one who wants to see all couples recieve the ability to get married, not just the hetero christian ones.
I didn't miss your point at all. Your point was that homosexuals who want to get married to their life partners and have a stable family structure (note the conservation of family values in that) are equivalently unreasonable to whiny minorities who want special treatment as compensation. Look at the particular post i was responding to. Absolutely, perhaps we shouldn't let civil unions happen, so instead we should let gays get married instead of coming up with this marriageless civil union option thats designed wholly for the purpose of denying them a good reason to get married, thus encouraging NOT getting married even for hetero couples. Its the quest to keep gays from getting married thats eroding the marriage option for everyone. Look at the religious folks, they are the ones telling people to get civil unions instead and making marriage a thing of the past, not gays. But you probably think it would be best to get rid of both civil unions AND gay marriage. You just don't understand equality for all, so there's no point in continuing this.

If only atheists could come up with a ballot measure banning marriage for christians. Oh you know what, that wouldn't be fair, because that infringes the rights of christian people to get married and thats not just or fair because its their marriage and their beliefs and their life. How much would you care if I told you you couldn't get married? I can say i don't agree with your beliefs all I want, thats one thing, but I wouldn't think its right for me to vote in favor of a law blocking you from doing what you want if it doesn't hurt me. EVERYONE has rights, and yours ends where someone else's begin. You are going one step beyond that, Chepibe, you are preventing 2 people who love each other from getting married because of your beliefs, not theirs. What you are doing impacts them and not you. If you so strongly disagree with gay marriage, then don't YOU marry a guy! Its that simple, and thats where your say on gay marriage ends. Or where it should end. This ban in Utah being considered, even if you pass it its fundamentally unconstitutional and hopefully someday will be struck down by a higher court, the way the Supreme court struck down a bunch of state-level gay sex laws last year.
I don't see how your analogies support your point at all. Speed laws protect everyone, because driving too fast infringes the safety of other people. Gay marriage doesn't infringe on other people, hetero christians can still get married even if gays do. Lockean private property? You're the one who wants to cross the barrier and take away someone else's rights.

Well, yeah, I would call anyone who wants to restrict someone else's rights a bigot. If this were about racism, racists have the freedom to personally hate or feel like other races are inferior, and even to say so in public forum. But the ones who go out and restrict colored peoples rights (say by voting to not let them do certain personal things, or by causing bodily harm to them) are a danger to other people and are infringing someone else's rights. But they are within their rights to feel however they want. The DP is not a good example, because gay people are not convicted felons. They still have all rights guaranteed to them under the constitution, but felons don't and all of us who do still have rights are bickering about what to do with those felons and we all have an equally valid say in it, per person. All our rights equally overlap in that case, but with gay marriage it doesn't, so I think its quite obvious that gays should be allowed to impose their beliefs on their own person more than other people should impose their beliefs on said gay person.

By sound justifications I mean any example of how gay marriage hurts anybody. Despite religious beliefs, your right to do anything to someone stops where someone else's rights begin. Therefore the only good way to excuse a banning of gay marriage would be to prove that it causes some societal danger, thus infringing on the rights of other people to safety (like your speed limit analogy). Any assertion that gay marriage does hurt innocent individuals is bereft of data. There's plenty of non-religious and real reasons why polygamy and incest aren't sanctioned by the government, so there's no slippery slope connecting them. To name just a few, polygamy is not a stable monogomous family structure, even gay couples are against that too. Incest can produce seriously genetically flawed children after a few generations, hurting the children they would have.
I really don't see why the comparison of barron hetero couples to barren homo couples is absurd. Try as they might, this union of a barren hetero couple can't produce children. Alhough neither can produce children, they can provide a monogomous family structure to care for children with, and take the burden of unwanted orphans off the state foster system, which is probably why homosexual adoption is already sanctioned. It happens this very day even without them being married. It serves the governments purpose.
I can pray all i want to some deity who tells me you shouldn't be married, but I won't take your right to be married away from you. Hence I am not a bigot. I would fight just as strongly for your right to get married in accordance with your religionr as I do for gay marriage, but the constitution doesn't give you a right to perform religious rituals that would hurt someone else. Allowing gay marriage isn't actively promoting the cause, its acknowledging their right. Give them the right but preach to them why they shouldn't exercise it, and then you won't be a bigot. But as it currently stands, you would take the right away from others in the fight against gay marriage, and that is what makes you intolerant and therefore a bigot.

goddammit, spent too long writing that last one and my sign-in timed out again. that was me

Dude, you don't understand the situation. The only people who want to change the constitution are the people who are AGAINST gay marriage. They want to change it to make gay marriage illegal. Marriage isn't in the constitution. So the only people who want to put it there are the conservatives who want to make it illegal.

That was the point I was trying to make. You can love the person but not support their lifestyle. I.e have gay friends but not support their lifestyle.

If it wasn't a choice we wouldn't screw anyone.

Don't say it's instinct either, because instinct would make gays impossible, why would it be instinctual to be with someone who cannot reproduce with you?

If you can't admit that at least admit that marriage is a choice, and therefore should be legal to everyone.

I think you're misunderstanding.

"I value marriage a lot more than you do, since I'm the one who wants to see all couples recieve the ability to get married, not just the hetero christian ones. "

Where in this conversation has he ever said that non-Christian couples shouldn't wed?

What about being raised as a girl by two men? Who would tell you about your period, teach you how to shave your pits and legs?

What about a guy being raised by lesbians? Who will teach you how to shave or buy you your first playboy?

Of course that falls into adoption.

"Well, yeah, I would call anyone who wants to restrict someone else's rights a bigot."

What about restricting someone's right to commit murder or adultery?

"If this were about racism, racists have the freedom to personally hate or feel like other races are inferior, and even to say so in public forum."

So someone who thinks gay's shouldn't get married is a bigot but racists aren't?

I almost agree with the last bit, my stance is that the government doesn't have the rights to impose a law on someone's beliefs or unharmful actions. So let gay marriage prevail.

But your stance seems to me to be that anything other than being in support of gay rights is wrong. I'm as liberal as they come, but you can't tell someone that they are wrong for being in support of something, that's imposing what you believe on THEM.

1) it has neither been proven nor disproven that homosexuality is a genetic thing, something you are born with. there are theories but none have been proven to be prenatal and not neonatal or affected by environmental influences.

2) i am a christian. a southern baptist to be specific. i read the bible, pray and agree with God's teachings. just so you know my background for my arguments.

3) homosexuals are people also. i don't condone their behavior, but i still care just as much about them as i do any other person and wouldn't take any of their rights away just because i view their relationship as one that is "sinful". i believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. it doesn't make my marriage any less sacred. your marriage is only as pure as you keep it.

so i guess all i'm saying is that homosexuals should have rights. we've all sinned and none of us are better than anyone else.

By that principle, single moms shouldn't raise their sons wither.

Hey, I'll have to pass. Been there, done that, online and off and believe me, it won't be happening again. Laters!

Hey, I'll have to pass. Been there, done that, online and off and believe me, it won't be happening again. Laters!

I love you.

But single moms can't ADOPT. So should gays be able to ADOPT?

Screwing is a choice, but the desire to screw is not...

Homophobia-ho·mo·pho·bi·a n. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. Behavior based on such a feeling.
I've never been afraid of anyone- let alone some limp wristed lisp machine. And I don't quite have contempt for people who "play for the other team".
As far as i'm concerned I don't care if someone is gay or chinese or fucking purple. But for a small group of people to get together and try to change the face of the entire american law system to suit thier own personal needs is where I draw the line.I feel the same way about some bull-dyke whining about wanting to play amongst men in pro golf tournaments or when a little girl's parents want thier daughter to join the boy scouts. It's fucking retarded. Whatever happened to majority rules?
I happen to be a big fan of playboy magazine, but does that mean I should sue if they don't let me pose in the mag? Fuck no! It means I'm a dude and other dudes that look at hot chicks like I do would never want to open up the mag and see another naked dude! Gimme a fucking break!

This time I was sober,and you know what, it still is great thinking

Let's start with the false comparison here:

If only atheists could come up with a ballot measure banning marriage for christians. Oh you know what, that wouldn't be fair, because that infringes the rights of christian people to get married and thats not just or fair because its their marriage and their beliefs and their life.

Yes, because only Christian people get married!

Comparing religious choice to two people of the same gender getting married is so absurd it's beyond belief. A heterosexual couple, regardless of its religiosity, has the capability of producing children and fulfilling the desire of the state to perpetuate itself.

Chepibe, you are preventing 2 people who love each other from getting married because of your beliefs, not theirs

Oh, boo hoo! Cry me a river! Waaaaaah!

And you are advocating the change of an institution because of your beliefs, not mine.

Will the fact that they aren't married make them "love" each other any less? This isn't about love, it's about "rights", supposedly.

This ban in Utah being considered, even if you pass it its fundamentally unconstitutional and hopefully someday will be struck down by a higher court, the way the Supreme court struck down a bunch of state-level gay sex laws last year.

Well, it's actually a constitutional ammendment, which makes it more difficult for that to happen.

Such a ban is also in backed up by the Federal Protection of Marriage Act. In addition, states, not the federal government, traditionally make decisions regarding marriage issues.

I suppose Article IV Section I issues can and will arise once homosexual union becomes legal in some states, but time will tell.

And the laws that were struck down were gay SEX laws, not gay MARRIAGE laws.

People have RIGHTS, yes, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights and in other documents. Nowhere do I find a RIGHT to marriage. Are siblings under the terrible boot of repression because they cannot marry?

Marriage is granted by the states to ensure perpetuation of the republic, plain and simple. When a gay couple is capable of independently creating a child, not simply adopting one, then perhaps the state will have some interest in that relationship.

Until then, there's nothing to prevent a gay couple from signing a simple contract giving each other the ability to act as a spouse in the often talked about conditions.

Politics is the practice of imposing your beliefs and opinions on others, Squee.

I agree Tekian. But just don't call it marrige and everyone well be happy.

...you throw around that word "bigot". Must make you feel powerful!

So, you want to prevent polygamy because it isn't stable? But don't you understand, squee! They LOVE each other, and three people that love each other very much should be able to do whatever they want unless they are infringing on my rights!

How dare you step on the rights of siblings to marry! They aren't hurting anyone else if they don't have kids, so why not! They love each other!

What a bigot you are! I can't believe you! In this day and age of accepting people, you just won't do it!

There is a HUGE difference between a homosexual family union and a heterosexual family union. In a heterosexual family union, children will learn gender roles much more easily than they will in a homosexual union.

Allowing gay marriage isn't actively promoting the cause, its acknowledging their right.

What right? Which right? Since when is marriage simply a right for all to have? You've already set aside who can and cannot have that right through your opinions on it (you bigot, you... I can't believe it), so what makes my opinion any different?

But as it currently stands, you would take the right away from others in the fight against gay marriage, and that is what makes you intolerant and therefore a bigot.

How can I take away a right someone has not even received?

Please, Squee.

There's plenty of non-religious and real reasons why polygamy and incest aren't sanctioned by the government, so there's no slippery slope connecting them

Yes, just as there are plenty of non-religious and real reasons why homosexuals should not be given the right to marry. You simply refuse to acknowledge their existence and prefer to scream, "bigot, bigot!". However, by your reasoning that stepping in on marriage rights of other people is interfering with their rights, why should the courts not allow crazy folk living in compounds in southern Utah to marry all five of their "wives"? After all, that doesn't force me to enter into polygamy, nor does it infringe directly upon my rights. That's the same reasoning for allowing homosexual marriage.

The fact that pro-Polygamy groups have been using recent court rulings on homosexual activity as their springboard should be evidence enough of that.

I can't believe I'm even talking to such a bigot like you, Squee...

christians don't own marriage. marriage is an institution of the government. it's just that with christians we hold it in higher regard. homosexuals can still be "marriaged" it's just that having a marriage as a christian ccouple will have the added blessing from God. i know that sounds kinda horrible... that God doesn't bless homosexual marriages, but it's true. with christians there's always three in any relationship. God, and the two dating, with God having the priority. when the two christians are wed, their love for God acts as a bond between them.

Man that was a funny post. Not only funny, but it shows the inherent hypocrisy in Squee's argument.

You're good.

But screwing is a choice. Just like drinking, smoking, killing, or lying. Therefore screwing the wrong person (not your opposite sex spouse) is wrong.

Um, actually single parents can adopt. Its legal in every U.S. state and about 30% of adopted kids these days go to single parents. Here's some articles for reference. [link] [link] [link]

The right to commit murder is superceded by the victim's right to life. Just like how a religious person's right to keep a gay from being married is negated by the gay person's rights. Adultery is a moral crime but its not a legal one. Nobody goes to jail for committing adultery and not all spouses for that matter are bothered by it either.

"But your stance seems to me to be that anything other than being in support of gay rights is wrong."
Yes, but I think you're confusing my definition of gay rights support. If you mean supportive of gay lifestyles, no thats not what I'm saying. You don't have to support gay lifestyles to support gay rights. My whole point of the racism analogy was exactly that and I don't know how to make myself any clearer on this. I'm advocating precisely your stance on this. I'm not against anyone who believes being gay is wrong. Christians have a right to tell me my beliefs are wrong, they do it all the time. What they don't have a right to do is make my beliefs illegal and only theirs legal. Well they shouldn't have that power, but the governments are giving it to them anyway by making gay marriage a votable issue and my hope is that everyone of any creed can recognize that this isn't about assing into law religious beliefs on whether the lifestyle is wrong.

PASSING, i meant Passing, not assing :D

So you view it as a sin to smoke and drink. Would you then pass laws to make it illegal for everyone else to smoke and drink? Disagreeing with actions is fine, it really wouldn't break my heart if smoking were illegal, but isn't that too big brothery to pass as law all these beliefs and furthermore take all the morality of choice in actions away from people by making it so?

You're right, I projected other people's arguments on LordXyr and I do apologize for that. This thread is getting so messy and subdivided that its confusing to see who is replying to what. But in my defense, Chepibe said it here: "only Christian people get married!" So do a lot of Christians when they take the tack that gay marriage is by its very nature not a valid marriage because the Bible says its wrong, thus they shouldnt have a legal marriage either. Rev told me in another thread that my marriage was really only a civil union because i wasn't christian, but my certificate says marriage, not civil union, and gays want a marriage of the same caliber as mine even though it doesnt have a christian nature to it. The movement to give gays civil unions in exchange is another move to secure the legal definitions of marriage conforms to christian definitions. I wanted to say that recognizable marriage would increase if we didn't do that, because he implied that I was against marriage somehow. That interpretation of my stance only makes sense to me if he thinks that the only real marriages are christian ones, but if that isn't the case than sorry about that.

I'm totally with you on the idea that civil unions undermine marriage. In order to prevent marriage from suffering, we should give gays full marriage rights and abandon this compromise/concession of civil unions. What is your impression on civil ceremonies though?

Perhaps these words from the "father" of "Christian Reconstructionism"[*] will help to set the record strait as to what is at issue here, and to obviate some of the misunderstanding and misrepresentation one commonly encounters:

Deuteronomy 13 cites three cases of instigation to idolatry.... The penalty in every case is death without mercy. To the modern mind, this seems drastic. Why death for idolatry? If idolatry is unimportant to man, then a penalty for it is outrageous. But modern man thinks nothing of death penalties for crimes against the state, or against the "people," or against "the revolution," because these things are important to him. The death penalty is not required here for private belief: it is for attempts to subvert others and to subvert the social order by enticing others to idolatry. Every law-order[**] has its concept of treason. No law-order can permit an attack on its foundations without committing suicide. Those states which claim to abolish the death penalty still retain it on the whole for crimes against the state. The foundations of a law-order must be protected.

Criminal offenses always exact a penalty. The critical question is any society is this: who shall be penalized? Biblical law declares that restitution must prevail: if a man steals $100, he must restore the $100 plus another $100; the criminal is penalized. In certain crimes, his restitution is his own death. In modern humanistic society, the victim is penalized. There is no restitution, and there is increasingly lighter punishment of the criminal. Without restitution, crimes becomes potentially profitable, and the victim is penalized by the state. The victim is penalized by the crime, by the court costs, and the prison consts as they appear in taxation.

But crime always exacts a penalty above and beyond the individuals involved as victims and as criminals. The law-order is breached; the peace and health of society are broken. A society which tolerates penalties against itself and its law-abiding citizens is a dangerous and dying society.

Basic to the health of a scoiety is the integrity of its foundation. Tp allow tampering with its foundation is to allow total subversion. Biblical law can no more permit the propigation of idolatry than Marxism can permit counter-revolution, or monarchy a move to execute the king, or a republic an attempt to destroy the republic and create a dictatorship.

It should be noted that Deuteronomy 13:5-8 does not call for the death penalty for unbelief or for heresy. It condemns false prophets (vv. 1-5) wo seek to lead the people, with signs and false wonders, into idolatry. It does condemn individuals who secretely try to start a movement to idolatry (vv. 6-11). It does condemn cities which establish another religion and subvert the law-order of the nation (vv. 13-18), and this condemnation must be enforced by man to turn away the judgment of God (v. 17).

This condemnation does not apply to a missionary situation, where the land is anti-God to begin with: this is a situation for conversion. It does require a nation grounded in God's law-system to preserve that order by punishing the basic treason against it.

Some key points to note are that:

* Reconstructionism does not seek to legislate beliefs, only actions.
* Reconstructionism is not totalitarian -- it allows for "in house" schisms, and does not go about attaining its goals by force or privation -- it presupposes a nation in wilfull submission to God's revealed law- word (nominally and numerically, if nothing else).
* Reconstructionism doesn't impede the "rights" of anybody, it seeks to establish and uphold the only true justification of the very idea of "rights", viz., God's law-word, which gives meaning and significance to man and shows him how he was created (and is still required) to live.


[*] Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law [The Craig Press, 1973], pp. 38-40.

[**] The affix 'law-' is used in Reconstructionist nomenclature to designate the corpus, while the suffix is used to indicate the aspect or topic; so, for example, 'law-order' would refer to the civil aspects of the corpus of the law (which is understood from various Newer Testement passages to include the entire Old Testament, as well as the law of the conscience, which is but a sin-marred version of the same law that was carved in the tables of stone, cf. Rom. 1-3).

If there were sufficient political support to actually create a coalition for a new prohibition, I would support it, sure.

I see no positive aspects to alcohol nor tobacco consumption. Alcohol consumption leads to higher crime rates, higher insurance costs, etc. States with stricter alcohol laws generally enjoy lower crime rates, and lower numbers of fatalities from drunk driving.

Tobacco... yeah. I wouldn't shed a tear if it all disappeared tomorrow. The effects of second-hand smoke, higher insurance rates due to treatment for the various health issues smokers have and cause, etc. It really has no redeeming value.

"Only Christians get married!"
Silly me, my marriage license must be a figment of my imagination then! Plenty of non-christians in this country, from hindus to atheists to wiccans, get married, as in have legal recognition of their spouses you ass. Gays want equal legal recognition to that, not separate but equal. Nice way to completely ignore the point so you don't have to refute it though. I'm not changing any institution because christians didn't invent the institution. They don't have a patent on it either. The government doesn't need to spell out the right to marriage. It doesn't spell out your right to eat froot loops in the morning does it? Do you need that to know its wrong for the government to try and keep you from it? If we conversely didn't hae a right to it and they granted the priviledge on a case by case basis for who should and shouldn't be married, they wouldn't keep issuing britney spears one. The constitution based on the spirit of its own laws doesn't give governments the right to deny anyone discriminatorily a marriage license. So what if the Federal Protection of Marriage Act is there? Slavery was once backed by the government too. Things change when its the right thing.

"Politics is the practice of imposing your beliefs and opinions on others"
And the constitution has a practice of protecting individuals from that practice.

The "only christians get married" statement was, of course, sarcastic. I find it difficult to believe anyone could have taken it otherwise in context.

as in have legal recognition of their spouses you ass

Well, well. Let's continue the name-calling! First, I'm a bigot for not supporting the political beliefs of others I disagree with. Now, I'm:

"A vain, self-important, silly, or aggressively stupid person."
"2. A dull, heavy, stupid fellow; a dolt. --Shak."
[link]

Hey, let's just keep up the name-calling!

You're right, Christianity does not hold any patent on marriage. Oddly enough, I also never claimed it did... so... why you're arguing from that point, I'm not quite sure.

So what if the Federal Protection of Marriage Act is there?

You argued that the courts would strike down any such ammendment, I provided a law that would make that more difficult than you assumed. I also noted that Article IV Section I of the constitution could be in disagreement with this law in an effort to give a somewhat balanced response to your assertion that any law supporting gay marriage would be immediately struck down by the courts.

I could have also reported that the US House of Representitives recently voted to remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to even rule on issues regarding homosexual marriage issues. The Congress' authroity to do this is based in the constitution, incidentally. Of course, I'm sure you'll consider their actions unconstitutional.

Can't you even remember your own arguments, Squee?

Slavery was once backed by the government too.

So, would you equate a lack of homosexual marriage to slavery?

Here's my personal favorite:

"Politics is the practice of imposing your beliefs and opinions on others"
And the constitution has a practice of protecting individuals from that practice.

And the constitution is the RESULT of that practice. It did not fall from the sky, it's the result of political argument.

Dude you're the one who asked me if you were a bigot. I consider myself not to be one because of my social attitude towards gay marriage. Voting against something that does harm to other individuals does not make one a bigot, therefore I don't think I am one at this point when it comes to polygamy and incest. But there have been no successful court cases proving that gay marriage does harm to anyone. They are trying hard but losing roundly in court.You wanna believe in your unsubstantiated opinion that it does harm, fine but just remember its unsubstantiated. Keep in mind the federal constitutional amendment being saught by your presidential candidate is being pursued precisely because state courts are having no success proving the existence of non-religious and real reasons why homosexuals should not be given the right to marry.

And hey, you're probably right that I am bigoted against polygamy and incest if there are situations where it really does no harm. I would be open to hearing from them that I am wrong that it does anyone harm, but until then think it does and therefore don't think its bigoted to disapprove. I would hope the federal constitution would protect those people against my bigotry rather than asking me to give them their rights. Civil rights in the past are something the courts had to enforce. Back in history if they simply asked the people to vote on whether blacks should have equal rights or whatever, that wouldn't have been passed by the public. Courts have to enforce the protection of inalienable rights against the tyranny of the majority.

I took it literally because your sarcasm from earlier doesn't make any sense. Banning marriage for a particular group of people is banning marriage for a particular group of people. How does sarcastically acknowledging that more groups than christians get married mean anything in relation to my analogy? Way to go with refuting my supposedly false comparison there (thats sarcasm too). No kidding multiple creeds all have marriage. And banning one group, say christians, to the exclusion of others is discrimination which the federal constitution isn't supposed to let states allow.

"So, would you equate a lack of homosexual marriage to slavery?"
I would equate it to something the government eventually had to acknowledge was contradictory to its principles and thus had to change its legislature on, yes.

Even with the introduced roadblocks regarding the expansion of homosexual rights, I am hopeful that the ultimate guiding principles of our nation and continued political argument will win out in the end in favor of real equality.

Get a login name. Now.

You are right. But you have to remember that while we SHOULDN'T have the right to mess with others RIGHTS OR FREEDOMS we also don't have the right to tell them that they can't, because if they believe they can based on whyever then we can't tell them that it's wrong to believe that they should vote for Bush based soley on gay marriage even though that has nothing to do with the election.

We have to remain mindful that while we know they don't have the right to impune on others rights and freedoms, they still have the right to believe that gay marriage should be banned.

If you want to extend "equal" marriage "rights", to gays based on the fact that not allowing people who "love" each other to get married, then, sadly, that's discrimination.

Can you think of any good reason why consenting adult siblings shouldn't get married (barring the creation of offspring, of course)?

Can you think of any good reason why consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to enter into plural marriage? Why not marriages of one man to two women? Two men to one women? Why not? If they love each other and they're consenting adults, why shouldn't they be given similar rights as gay couples?

Because marriage is no longer defined as an instution whose principle goal is the creation of children to continue the existence of the state, there would be no need to prevent such relationships.

If you support homosexual marriage, that's all well and fine for you. But you're opening up a can of worms you may prefer be left closed. If homosexual marriage is allowed, then I would expect strongly that polygamy and legalized incest will follow within a few years. As noted earlier, Pro-Polygamy groups are already arguing the legitimacy of their relationships based on the abolishment of sodomy laws.

I suppose it all comes down to your personal preference. But, if you honestly believe that there is no good government reason to not accept gay marriage, you're very short-sighted.

Don't worry about legalize incest, the government doesn't want a whole bunch of Delieverance reject Whittackers (inside joke) running around.

I see what you mean and it wasn't right for Revvy boy to say that. I think that civil unions are pretty dumb and conter productive it makes little sense for civil unions to exist and not marriage for gays.

As to what they said about Christians owning marriage and your marriage being a civil union, all marriages are viewed by the state in the same manner because the state has no religious belief. This is not true about your personal self. Some people view marriage differently and since we
(Che, Xyr, Tek and I) all believe that marriage is between Man, Woman, and God. IMO you can't change that. Ever. No matter what the laws say. Since the law doesn't care about God, the rules it makes about marriage shouldn't care either.

Okay, so I'm dumb.

But single parents could