|
Post by jagggar on Oct 19, 2006 12:39:50 GMT -5
If you wanna talk about homosexuality (if it's right or worng), go to the Homosexulaity topic. While Gay Marriage to do with homosexuality, I'd like this topic to reguard laws and regulations surrounding marriage and such, not if it's morally correct or incorrect. I've kind of thought for some time that the government should remove itself from marriage. Marriage is a cultural thing, and in many cultures, it's a religious thing. If you want to make a clear seperation of Church and State, then use a word that doesn't have tons of people screaming at you for "defiling" it.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Oct 19, 2006 23:21:30 GMT -5
It doesnt say in the constitution any seperation of church and state.
|
|
|
Post by Aaron on Oct 20, 2006 11:48:33 GMT -5
It doesnt say in the constitution any seperation of church and state. There should be a seperatoin of church and state and I do believe there is somewhere in there. The church doesn't need to make it like The Middle East..Where the dictator IS the religion leader of that country. -coughs- Pat Robinson -coughs- And to flip that coin....you don't need what King James wanted when he created the King James Bible. He HE! WANTED! to be Pope! He felt threatned by the Pope. Now I understand that not all are Catholic but this is a perfect case of someone who is in office trying to go after the Christian people to get power. Exactly what Bush wanted and used in the last electoin's. Except it would have been worse.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Oct 20, 2006 12:10:53 GMT -5
Point out where in the constitution it says there should be a seperation of church and state.
|
|
|
Post by Aaron on Oct 21, 2006 10:46:01 GMT -5
Point out where in the constitution it says there should be a seperation of church and state. Even if it doesn't we don't need a blurred line between one or the other. That will REALLY jack up this Country.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Oct 21, 2006 16:43:19 GMT -5
No tlike we can jack it up anymore since the democrats started 'greying' the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by jagggar on Oct 22, 2006 18:07:53 GMT -5
Relivent Wiki articles, RE Seperation of Church and State: Seperation of church and stateSeparation of church and state in the United StatesFreedom of ReligionEdit: Blah. Just having links doesn't make for a proper post. But reguardless if you think that Seperation of Church and State is in the Constitution or not, I don't particularly care. I think it's better to have them seperate than not. I likewise think it's better to have some Contract for Two avaliable from the government and marriage avaliable as per whatever tradition you're from, even if that's no tradition and you go the route of common-law type marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Mistress Rell on Oct 22, 2006 18:17:20 GMT -5
To me, a marriage is the union between two people who love each other, whether it be two men, two women, or a man and a woman.
Love each other being the key words here. There is an old saying that you can not choose who you love. The heart wants what the heart wants, and I think it's down right dispicable that any group whether it be religious or political, try to make it illegal for people to fall in love and express that love through marriage.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Oct 30, 2006 10:02:29 GMT -5
A lot of rapists would tell you deep down in their heart they loved their victim, and if you really wanna mess that up think about stolkholm's syndrome where hostage victims find themselves the compulsion to join the criminals. The heart can be strangely perversed fairly easily, the reason why we make distinctions against rape and stolkholm's is because the harm physically and emotionally is very much present. Its only been in the last 20 years or so where the 'gay community' decided to make their big entrance, trying to shove disorganization down our throats and make everyone accept them. This is still America, if we dont want to hear about a gay everyday then we dont have to. But thats not the idea. the idea is to create social anarchy and make everybody who feels good free to do whatever that is. This is called the alternative world, and is gonna result in some pretty nasty outbreaks and some emotional issues.
Mr jagggar, I am fully aware of the constitution, and it simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." let me rephrase, Congress shall make no law. Thats the entire meaning of that clause, and it doesnt mean church and state must be seperate. Just dont make any laws! Isn't it simple!
|
|
|
Post by jagggar on Oct 30, 2006 18:24:51 GMT -5
Rape is more often about power, not love/lust. Mr jagggar, I am fully aware of the constitution, and it simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." let me rephrase, Congress shall make no law. Thats the entire meaning of that clause, and it doesnt mean church and state must be seperate. Just dont make any laws! Isn't it simple! It's Ms. jagggar. If the government makes a law saying only a man and a woman can marry, does that not show a support of religions who say only a man and a woman can be united in marriage and a supression of religions which say that two men or two women can marry?
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Oct 31, 2006 11:37:07 GMT -5
But it didnt say man and woman cannot marry because of a certain religion does it? Its a desicion. Frankly I dont think it fair to suddenly amend the constitution since less than half the population accepts the amendment! Sorry about the gender confusion, it says nothin in your mini profile
|
|
|
Post by jagggar on Oct 31, 2006 12:47:12 GMT -5
Exactly! I don't know if it's to confuse people, test their knowledge of English grammer, or just so I can yell at people when they get it wrong: Now here's where it gets really fun. I don't really know all the current laws. Is an ammendment actually required, or is it only required if we end up with states pratically warring against eachother? And what if they made a law that you couldn't wear anything covering your head. It's not because any religion does or doesn't do it, it's just a decision.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Oct 31, 2006 13:11:01 GMT -5
Now your speculating. No there is no laws saying you cant wear anyhting on your head, so toss that out the window! My big point is all troughout history there has always been a very small amount of homosexual people. Theres always a couple whackos out there. But that amount is too small for everyone to just blatantly let them run the world, so they never advance! They cant admit that, so they go to hollywood which of course needs a new way to be freaks and starts intergrating homosexuality into media (movies, tv, news). The thing is though, hollywood isnt America! We arent all gungho about gays marrying each other since the average american doesnt care, and would rather keep things nuetral instead of becoming a gay country.
Now that ammendment thing, I think some of the states up north (what is it massachusetts?) that already allows gay marraige, so go take your same sex issues up there where they have a nice little (dare I say quarantined) area for you to do whatever! but the country as a whole isnt going to let you destroy the social statuses already established just so you can attain a new high in your sex life!
|
|
|
Post by jagggar on Oct 31, 2006 13:41:06 GMT -5
Now your speculating. No there is no laws saying you cant wear anyhting on your head, so toss that out the window! I'm not speculating. I'm creating a hypothetical situation. Would there be anything wrong with a law which did not allow persons to wear anything covering their heads? Hypothetically speaking of course. Can we actually have accurate numbers if for a great period of time you'd probably be slaughtered or used as kindling if you came out? Wouldn't being as neutral as possible be allowing both heteros and homos to have the same rights? Marriage improves sex? Interesting. . . So you don't know too much about why a law concerning gay marriage would require an amendment either?
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Oct 31, 2006 15:40:15 GMT -5
Now your speculating. No there is no laws saying you cant wear anyhting on your head, so toss that out the window! I'm not speculating. I'm creating a hypothetical situation. Would there be anything wrong with a law which did not allow persons to wear anything covering their heads? Hypothetically speaking of course. Hypothetically that wouldnt happen since in America such laws dont exist. If your looking for grounds for your argument, you wont find them hypothetically. That first part you lost me, what do you want? Second part is simple, homo's arent nuetral. Thats an absolute. There is a far larger percentage hetero than homo, and homosexualty is an extreme of heterosexuality. Extremists rarely get what they want. Now of course your ignoring the percentage of lovey dovey homosexuals getting married, and the scams created around people saying they are a homosexual couple to save a few bucks or gain a few. So its not truly rights most of the time, but preventing financial scams. Marriage improves sex? Interesting. . .[/quote] What are you getting at? I dont recall saying marraige improves sex, maybe your just striking blindly. Lost once more, I think my brain is shutting down on me, but i choose not to answer. Somehow I feel your leading me somewhere, and I wont let my words be your weapon.
|
|