jgrimes80 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 [Mod Edit - Series of Unhelpful/Flame bait Posts removed] Who said anything about this country being free? Everyone should agree that it isn't... barring homosexual marriages (and not homosexualism) is absurd. Why? What does a {censored} person with a piece of paper do to you that he wouldn't do without one? How does a {censored} person with a piece of paper infringe upon any one of your rights? Does a {censored} person not have the same rights as yourself? Are {censored} people second class citizens? Here's a question for you to answer.... Are you afriad of {censored} people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 If that happens again this thread gets closed, which would be a shame cause it's otherwise a rather interesting debate. Question for an american: If the constitution officially separated church and state why do dollar bills carry the motto "In God We Trust"? I think the answer is that - there is no separation. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." which means the government can't choose an official religion and they can't prevent citizens from choosing to believe whatever they want. Limiting marriage to between men and women does neither of these things. If the government added an amendment which said everyone had to believe homosexuality was wrong then that would be unconstitutional. But then again i'm a brit what would i know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 I'm sure there are more than one God depending on your religion. Although I'm sure the forefathers didn't mean it that way . We need to stop throwing sticks and stones. This just isn't civilized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 If that happens again this thread gets closed, which would be a shame cause it's otherwise a rather interesting debate. Question for an american: If the constitution officially separated church and state why do dollar bills carry the motto "In God We Trust"? I think the answer is that - there is no separation. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." which means the government can't choose an official religion and they can't prevent citizens from choosing to believe whatever they want. Limiting marriage to between men and women does neither of these things. If the government added an amendment which said everyone had to believe homosexuality was wrong then that would be unconstitutional. But then again i'm a brit what would i know? While we can debate about this for quite some time... It's meant to essentially mean that the Church from law, but for the first 150 years of the British colonies... A. you had to be a Christian (or some variation thereof) to be a "full citizen" B. Most had religion rooted values. So it's only natural for our Protestant forefathers to have been influence by their beliefs in the generating of the Consistution. It's had already had it's roots in allining with the "Church." Over the years, Most have had no objection (raical/ethical persecution but that's a different story) so it stayed. But it's important to note that it DOES work... the Church doesn't dictate anything in this country. It bear very little political influence (especially today...) where most representatives don't even declare association with organized religion (except BUSH) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Ouch Potato: Actually, an amendment saying that Jews should die would be legal, because the supreme court cannot declare an amendment unconstitutional. It wouldnt be ratified, or even pass either house, but it would still be perfectly legal. The reasoning behind the yes-to-{censored}-marriage thing is that the State says no to it. The courts are concerned about that "cant". Telling people they can't do something, but for no legitimate reason is absurd to our legal system. Most courts that take up this issue have ruled that there is no legitimate state interest in barring {censored} people from marriage. Since obviously any religious ideas about marriage cannot be used by the government to advocate man-woman marriage, procreation is a matter of personal choice, marriage is not forever, and the government gives rights to married people that would include most of the rights of blood, there's very little reason why {censored} people shouldnt be able to get married. Someone, please think of a legitimate state need that would cause government to prohibit {censored} people from getting married to one another. (I just picked Jews at random) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 39 of 50 states already prohibit same sex marriage, if democracy is essentially rule of the majority then presemably it's clear that a significant majority of americans are opposed to permitting same sex marriages. Surely it is the purpose of "the state" to enforce the will of the significant majority of it's people? I think it's a stretch to insinuate that this will would cause suffering (i.e the definition of persecution) and it does not violate any other rights granted under the constitution (AFAIK) Polygamy is illegal in the US but there doesn't seem to be the same outcry from the various religious groups which condone/encourage it. Why all the fuss about same-sex marriage? Most of the legal 'fringe benefits' are attainable via other legal devices anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 39 of 50 states already prohibit same sex marriage, if democracy is essentially rule of the majority then presemably it's clear that a significant majority of americans are opposed to permitting same sex marriages. Surely it is the purpose of "the state" to enforce the will of the significant majority of it's people? I think it's a stretch to insinuate that this will would cause suffering (i.e the definition of persecution) and it does not violate any other rights granted under the constitution (AFAIK) Once upon a time the majority of people in this country didn't want women voting because women should stay home and raise babies instead of interfering with matters of law. Sometimes the majority's opinions are still unfair. Equality protects everyone, not just the majority or the popular opinion. When there is no legitimate reason to deny someone a freedom granted to others we have an imbalance of freedom, which is not equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 That's the point of Bush's plan for constitutional ammendment. To disallow ANY state and it's court to make it's own decisions. Yes most of the states are against it, but the people in those states want to settle the argument themselves and not allow the federal government to interfere. That's the great thing about check and balance system, when it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Yeah... our democracy doesnt work like that. Liberty is more freedom from intereference than it is freedom to tell the minority how they need to live their life ;-p At least, that's how the courts view it. The majority of people in this country are white (so far anyways), but that doesnt mean that we drive black people or asians into the sea, or write laws that say that black people or asian people dont have rights. Popular rule is a fine and good thing. Majority rule is dangerous. PS. Republicans are FOR states rights. Supposedly. As it is now, no state must recognize a {censored} marriage established in Massachusets or New York or Washington... that's what DOMA's all about Though DOMA is currently being fought at the federal level as a possibly unconstitutional law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnniecarcinogen Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 It is a complicated topic that is unfairly categorized as simply 'marriage'. I think that perhaps there is some kind of compromise? It is unfair that from my earlier post you categorize me as homophobic, and I think that most anti-same sex marriage proponents are not homophobic. I think that if another word was used rather than marriage for same sex couples with all of the same benefits and status there wouldn't be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 There is a compromise. The benefits of marriage now are taken away from marriage and given to "civil unions". If you want to be church-married but not be civilly united, then fine. But There are lots of churches that would be more than happy to marry {censored} couples if it were up to them. The thing is, it's hard to come up with valid, sensible reasons why two people of any gender, race, background or age cant be allowed to join together to form a cooperative union. Marriage is about "cooperative unions". Obviously, same-sex marriage proponents want to change the rule from 1 man + 1 woman to 2 of any sort. But what's wrong with 3 people of any gender, etc. Or 4. Obviously you cant marry a chicken, because by doing so, you're giving an animal legal status on par with a human, and we're REALLY not ready for that; Why shouldnt siblings get married? Is the reason because incestuous unions are bad genetic practice? Well, we could avoid that easily by licensing childbearing. ;-p Honestly, the real reason why most people want to get married is because marriage gives some sort of social status. Married people look down on the non-married all the time. Married people are, for the most part, afraid that if {censored} people can get married, their marriage wont be as socially neat. I personally am against {censored} marriage. The reason is that if {censored} people can get married, then I wont have an excuse for being an old maid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 It is a complicated topic that is unfairly categorized as simply 'marriage'. I think that perhaps there is some kind of compromise? It is unfair that from my earlier post you categorize me as homophobic, and I think that most anti-same sex marriage proponents are not homophobic. I think that if another word was used rather than marriage for same sex couples with all of the same benefits and status there wouldn't be a problem. I really doubt there would be much opposition to coining a Federal recognition as "Civil Union" or some sort so long as it REALLY is a "marriage." <- by marriage, I mean all the benefits are included... But you should know, there are many Churches that marry {censored} couples... they(the "married" couple) are just not officially recognized by the Gov(except in MASs)... Yeah... our democracy doesnt work like that. Liberty is more freedom from intereference than it is freedom to tell the minority how they need to live their life ;-p At least, that's how the courts view it. The majority of people in this country are white (so far anyways), but that doesnt mean that we drive black people or asians into the sea, or write laws that say that black people or asian people dont have rights. Popular rule is a fine and good thing. Majority rule is dangerous. PS. Republicans are FOR states rights. Supposedly. As it is now, no state must recognize a {censored} marriage established in Massachusets or New York or Washington... that's what DOMA's all about Though DOMA is currently being fought at the federal level as a possibly unconstitutional law. DOMA is unconstitutional... because {censored} marriage doesn't conflict with current Federal Law; and current Federal Law includes the following: Article IV Section I Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Each state must honor the public acts, records and judicial proceedings.. in other words, If I was married to a man in Mass, under the Consistution, I'm married in Texas... <- but several states... ^ that's what's being tried in the Supreme Court (eventually) ... the violation of Art. 4 Sec. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaselineAce Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 cool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm It's not a matter of "majority rules" It's a matter of "civil rights" However, those statistics (valid or not) indicate an extrodinarily powerful woe in favor of Homosexual with, say even 30%... Perhaps you could spell out a point? (what you were hoping we would get out of it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 If that happens again this thread gets closed, which would be a shame cause it's otherwise a rather interesting debate. Question for an american: If the constitution officially separated church and state why do dollar bills carry the motto "In God We Trust"? I think the answer is that - there is no separation. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." which means the government can't choose an official religion and they can't prevent citizens from choosing to believe whatever they want. Limiting marriage to between men and women does neither of these things. If the government added an amendment which said everyone had to believe homosexuality was wrong then that would be unconstitutional. But then again i'm a brit what would i know? Is that your job? to censor people? Fine {censored} im out. Since you somehow managed to get moderator you turned into an {censored}. You are too far up non-free speech's ass. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. You damn sure don't believe in it do you? This board is damn near FULL of hipocrites. And im sick of it. You SHOUT freedom, amendments, and rights from the roof tops. Yet, you censor people's posts, and then you claim its in the name of the DMCA, or off topic, or some other {censored} to satisfy whatever dictator mood you are in. If you all love freedom so damn much, take your f***ing servers over to where the Pirate Bay has theirs. Otherwise quit bitching and moaning about how you hate the DMCA, then turn around and follow it like a f***ing lemming. You pirate OS X, as well as I. Then you claim how much you all LOVE copyright, and nobody should 'steal' and all this {censored}. I quite frankly don't give a f***. Im pro-piracy. I take what I want, when I want. And its hipocritic bastards like yourselves that spew out the reasons this country is so screwed. Beurocrates that cause OS X to not be free, and open source. You are PRO FREEDOM, and '{censored} MARRIAGE', yet you stomp all over free speech. Its just like your dictator president, and his 'free speech zones'. You know what? f*** Bush, f*** the 'free speech zones', and f*** your censorship. You say you hate bush, then you turn around and act just like him. While all of you idiots were in here talking about this {censored}, the house just MURDERED net neutrality. HEY. WAKE THE HELL UP. You hipocriticle bastards. Don't jack off with your right hand, while praying with your left. This board has turned into one giant beuracracy, and im sick of trying to tear the tangled web of red tape. Absolute power currupts absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Sounds good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 There goes the thread... Ouch Potato was simply "censoring" a flame post (it was deleted and definitely warranted)... it had nothing to do with free speech... Quite frankly, you're not entitled to "free speech" anyways while using something that's not yours. You don't go to your grandmother's house, started yelling "@#$%ing @$$hole you mother@#$%er!" do you? Why? because it's your grandma's house and she can kick your ass (pardon my french)... Maybe you should understand the "Constitution" a little better before referencing to it, or bashing a Moderator who fulfilled his responsibilities. I wish it was me with a ban stick... (now I'm probably going to be banned, sry Ouch Potato, I guess I'm no better) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 What I think is odd is that he's a Communist Christian Anarchist. That's GOT to be a first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Free speech does not apply on the internet. If I own a web site I am fully entitled to control what goes on there. You are still free to make your own web site and {censored} all you want, no one is violating any of your rights. You are simply interpreting them wrong. You think that you have the right to do whatever, wherever, whenever, and that is not the case. You don't know anything about having your freedoms repressed. You are simply a selfish jerk who doesn't care about anyone but himself. So we aren't really going to miss you much now that you're gone. Have a good day. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Is that your job? to censor people? Fine {censored} im out. Since you somehow managed to get moderator you turned into an {censored}. You are too far up non-free speech's ass.Free speech does not mean free of responsibility - the post i deleted was abusive and didn't make a constructive point - in short a waste of bandwidth. You call me a hypocrite yet you claim to be a Christian and at the same time seem treat other people as inferior, and launch abuse at them. Your arguments do nothing but alienate. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the words of Matthew 7:1-5 before judging me and other people here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Free speech does not mean free of responsibility - the post i deleted was abusive and didn't make a constructive point - in short a waste of bandwidth. You call me a hypocrite yet you claim to be a Christian and at the same time seem treat other people as inferior, and launch abuse at them. Your arguments do nothing but alienate. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the words of Matthew 7:1-5 before judging me and other people here. This has absolutely nothing to do with the hiprocracy that goes on here, and im refering to about %95 of this board. I am free to express my points of view, and will do so reguardless. Thats why 'MY' messageboard (on Cyveillance) is not moderated. If you are going to censor my post then censor his as well. Otherwise, leave them BOTH up as they should be. Don't censor your friend's opposition, on this viewpoint. I NEVER insulted him, I insulted his practices. You are NO different then Bush. Only allowing your liberal, majority, ideas to be heard. And HOW can you, as a christian, let someone talk that way about God, then censor my, which wasn't 1/2 as bad as his. My post was actually quite funny, and was meant to be somewhat funny. His opposing post was plain out non-constructive, and offensive, to both you and I, and anyone else that is christian. Stand up for God, or he won't stand up for you at the pearly gates. I hope your concience drills in your head before you go to sleep at night, because thats God telling you you are wrong, and he is right. Judge not lest ye be judged. Ill have to stand before God just as you will. But Im not a fan of hipocracy. I stopped being a hipocrite years ago. Your arguments do nothing but alienate. ??? Because my viewpoints are different than the rest of the 'herd'? Sorry. But im not marching off the cliff in a single file. Ill leave that up to the rest of the world. Free speech does not apply on the internet. The hipocracy returns. (from your above post) Free speech applies everywhere. I don't care if you like it or not. People in this country died for freedom of speech, and In this day in age people don't givea damn. Its a sorry shame. This is where this world is going pro-{censored}, pro-murder, pro-censorship, pro-every-religion-but-christianity, pro-greed, pro-selfishness, and anti-privacy. Its going to hell in a handbag full of flaming dog {censored}. But Ill be the one not stomping it out, but letting it burn. What I think is odd is that he's a Communist Christian Anarchist. That's GOT to be a first. Its better than the hipocriticle liberal non-christian lemmings on this board. You don't have anything on your profile, so I don't really know where you stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 OK - the fact is, whether you insulted him or his practices or his damn cat - insults like the barrage you supplied are not permitted in any way shape or form, whether you thought they were funny or not is beside the point. If you can't express you opinions on this subject in a civil manner then i think we'd all rather you didn't bother expressing them at all. I can argue eternal judgement with you till we're both blue in the face - suffice to say i managed to make my point in a friendly manner and will sleep easy tonight and i don't see why you can't do the same. I don't want to have to start waving the suspension stick around but i want to keep this thread open for legitimate discussions refuse to see it mutilated by stupid posts. To get back to the topic at hand - are folks as cynical about Bush's 'faith' and his motives behind the amendment as the media suggests? I'm a fairly cynical person and i would probably concede that it was a political move regardless of my approval for it. Perhaps that's what angers people more? In my experience people are more tollerant of even my most counter-cultural religious views if they understand that my faith is sincere and that i respect their own opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 To get back to the topic at hand - are folks as cynical about Bush's 'faith' and his motives behind the amendment as the media suggests? I'm a fairly cynical person and i would probably concede that it was a political move regardless of my approval for it. Perhaps that's what angers people more? In my experience people are more tollerant of even my most counter-cultural religious views if they understand that my faith is sincere and that i respect their own opinions. I agree with basically "agreeing to disagree" but yep... particularly in just about all the states with a few exceptions. (California, New York, Florida, Mass and a few others) This country, as great as it may seem (I don't know how you see it...) has always been extrodinarily favorable toward white protestants... with hardcore "faith" errr oppressive in general... 1600-1760, you had to be a "Christian" to be a full citizen... blacks/natives need not apply... The Chinese Exursion Act... The "Southern" Baptists... Opposition towards {censored}... 30-some states have banned it KKK... Bounties on Native Americans Taking of the Native's Soil We spend more on our military than every other country in world combined. (why?... well...) Our global military capacity... Driving an SUV that gets 10MPG <- because we "need" the space then b*tching about gas prices like it's an American right We live in houses on lots with backyards/frontyards ... own boats (out of necessity? nope...) Genetrification in the 195- to the present Corporate profits... Annexing of Hawaii... Truman Doctrine... Cold War... World Bank... Occupation of the Philipines Mass deportation (Mexicans) in the 1950-60's Our seat in the UN Security Counsel <- the list can go on and on! Ever notice, this country (the most "charitable" one) will say that Iraqi's needed to be liberated because Saddam, but never mention anything about Russian's needing help...or the genocide in Africa. Or mention why Israel is the premier reciever of American aid? NO!!!!! (in case you don't know, it's a stragetic ploy) This country as a WHOLE is as selfish/cynical as it could get. I'm selfish, I'll admit it. It's only been in my recent years (a death in the family) where I started to realize that I should be living each day like it's my last. I'm constantly extending a hand because I WANT to now. I'm the first to offer financial help to friends (I used to be very stingy)... I used to have no respect for anyone who wasn't "Christian"... I used to blame the poor for their problems (I still do but now I help get them out)...and not getting mad. Why get mad, what if the last thought you had was out of anger? What if someone's last memory of you is being angry? Through all of that I decided to go to school as well and earn a degree (a life-long desire) and I've learned more than I want to particularly in the field of social/economic/politics in American society. Quite frankly, I'm disgusted... I'm not saying this country is terrible (most who come, stay) but overall, America's political/economic imperialism in general should be sufficient proof that American's are as cynical as they come, downright selfish! And now with a media more powerful that ever, with their own political agendas, and a really ignorant fan base, I'd say it's not going to change. Believe it or not, the "American" media is a massive mild propaganda industry. Everything this country does is based on "beliefs" for individual gain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakite Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I am coming into this conversation a bit late, but have read a few of the posts, and it seems it comes down to 3 things, Goverment Policy, Religious standards, and Civil Rights. It is kinda funny that the I think it is up to 75-80% of America is Christian. (Note this is not confirmed by any means, but I just mean to point out it is a large percentage well over half) Now, I am not going to quote the bible because it isn't the words inside of it that make a lick of diffrence it is the interpertation, but they think that {censored} marrage is wrong. I am not saying all do, because that is just silly, but enough do to make it stick. Now the goverment is ran, by these people who believe this, and the ones they want to "protect" are the ones that are like them... Good God Fearing People, I think it is called? Well the rest are a minority, and although there are civil-rights that are supposed to be assured to each minority, in realisitic terms, because it is such a diverse minority it is hard to do. Religion goes past Sex,Race,Sexual orentation in the sense of it doesn't matter what you are, or where you come from, your religion can be one of many many diffrent things. Sure we say it is simple, seperate the goverment from religion, and poof it is fixed, but in reality we can't. The reason we can't are because what little morals those people of goverment have, it is mostly from their religion (Or whatever warped sene of it they have, but that is another topic heh), and to try to take it away in their eyes I think is like tring to take away their scales of right and wrong. In this particular case of {censored} marrage, many (Politicians) were from a day and age where the numbers of people who were openly {censored} were very small, and looked down at like it was some sort of disorder. Where everything they heard said it was wrong, is it any small wonder they would go the way they have on prohibiting it? Thankfully, in this day in age we are a bit more accepting our diffrences, but it still has not filtered the ones with the old believes out yet. I say give it 10-20 years, and all this mess will be over, it will be reinstated (in the places it needs to be). And all the focus can go back to the things that really matter. Sorry if it is offensive, but I speak of this as it didn't matter, because eventually despite the fuss they make over tring to stop it.. It will eventually go through and it would of all been a waste of time fighting something that just doesn't make sense to fight. Now I am sure I kinda tangented somewhere in there heh But I hope some of my points got across. Note- Ageeing to disagree just means ya give up on the topic as a whole (Don't mean it to sound like a flame so please don't take it like that). I think if less people would agree to disagree on this topic, maybe it wouldn't reach the point that it has, but in this case I think I will just follow along with Jgrims on this one heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts