• Anti-Gay Marriage Groups Aim to Keep Transparency Out of the Court
    97 replies, posted
people cartoonishly evil enough to take away basic human rights from an oppressed group of people use underhanded tactics in an attempt to silence the truth? what a surprise!!! fuck these people forever. [QUOTE=lolwutdude;19492674][media]http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs46/f/2009/215/6/c/I_am_a_good_person_by_PaMikoo.jpg[/media] i hate the art though. something about it just rubs me the wrong way.[/QUOTE] it's probably the huge anime eyes and lack of noses. still a sad comic though. this shit actually happens in real life, dudes, think about that before you go "it's just marriage, what's the problem, why don't gay people just deal with civil unions?"
[QUOTE=smurfy;19491013]I was reading the Wikipedia article on Prop 8 just now, when I came across a section with the tile "Religious organisations". "Oh shit" I thought and got ready to rage. FFFFF "All six Episcopal diocesan bishops in California jointly issued a statement" FFFUUUUUU "opposing Proposition 8" wait wot "Southern California's largest collection of rabbis, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, voted to oppose Proposition 8." WTF mate "Los Angeles Jews were more opposed to Prop 8 than any other religious group or ethnic group in the city." whatchu been smokin, gimme somma dat sheet "In addition, the California Council of Churches issued a statement urging the "immediate removal of Proposition 8"" WHAAAAAT[/QUOTE] The Episcopalian Church has been damned liberal in the past 30 years or so. I'm not surprised.
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493436]The Episcopalian Church has been damned liberal in the past 30 years or so. I'm not surprised.[/QUOTE] you mean not fundamentalist
[QUOTE=Zeke129;19492996]So strip all legal rights from religious marriage and make it purely ceremonial. Have legal marriage be performed only by the state. Problem solved.[/QUOTE] Problem there is, this country was designed to have a government that's in people's lives as little as possible. Your plan goes against that in every way. [editline]06:18PM[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;19493451]you mean not fundamentalist[/QUOTE] Define 'fundamentalist'. I've seen it used in so many different ways.
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493466]Problem there is, this country was designed to have a government that's in people's lives as little as possible. Your plan goes against that in every way. [/QUOTE] No. Allowing a religious group to issue legal rights is a joining of church and state and is a violation of the US constitution. I'm not an American citizen however, for the record.
I don't see why people feel the need to protest something that doesn't affect them.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;19493652]No. Allowing a religious group to issue legal rights is a joining of church and state and is a violation of the US constitution. I'm not an American citizen however, for the record.[/QUOTE] There is nothing in the Constitution that says 'separation of Church and State'. That was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493436]The Episcopalian Church has been damned liberal in the past 30 years or so. I'm not surprised.[/QUOTE] ohhhhh noooooo, they aren't ~*True Christians*~ because they hold non-horrible political opinions [img]http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/negativeman-55f.png[/img] [QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493466]Problem there is, this country was designed to have a government that's in people's lives as little as possible. Your plan goes against that in every way.[/quote] cool, too bad there's a little thing called "seperation of church and state" that should make something like he's proposing necessary [quote][editline]Define 'fundamentalist'. I've seen it used in so many different ways.[/QUOTE] it's pretty simple, dude. just look at pretty much any american baptist (especially in the south). [QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493707]There is nothing in the Constitution that says 'separation of Church and State'. That was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.[/QUOTE] haha are you literally mentally disabled
[QUOTE=Urkel01;19493734]cool, too bad there's a little thing called [B]"seperation of church and state"[/B] that should make something like he's proposing necessary[/QUOTE] Not in the Constitution, buddy. [editline]06:29PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Urkel01;19493734]haha are you literally mentally disabled[/QUOTE] I mean it. Look through the Constitution for it. Also, I find it amusing that when you are confronted with a fact, all you can do is insult me for your lack of a proper rebuttal.
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493466]Problem there is, this country was designed to have a government that's in people's lives as little as possible. Your plan goes against that in every way. [editline]06:18PM[/editline] Define 'fundamentalist'. I've seen it used in so many different ways.[/QUOTE] [quote] 1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs 2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>[/quote] the actual definition
[QUOTE=Urkel01;19493734]ohhhhh noooooo, they aren't ~*True Christians*~ because they hold non-horrible political opinions [img]http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/negativeman-55f.png[/img] cool, too bad there's a little thing called "seperation of church and state" that should make something like he's proposing necessary it's pretty simple, dude. just look at pretty much any american baptist (especially in the south). haha are you literally mentally disabled[/QUOTE] Urkel is this going to end up a repeat of last time?
Alrright then. It's just that many people I speak with use 'fundamentalis(t/m)' as a substitute for 'radical'.
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493707]There is nothing in the Constitution that says 'separation of Church and State'. That was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.[/QUOTE] A US judge ruled that the 1st amendment is separation of Church and State and of course, also the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
[QUOTE=thisispain;19493838]A US judge ruled that the 1st amendment is separation of Church and State and of course, also the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".[/QUOTE] Nope. That was also in a letter written by Jefferson. [quote=http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html]Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."[/quote]
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493756]Not in the Constitution, buddy. [editline]06:29PM[/editline] I mean it. Look through the Constitution for it.[/QUOTE] have you recently gotten some sort of crippling brain injury? or did you just fall asleep in history class? first amendment, dude, you are thick as hell. oh yeah, and the modern usage of the phrase "seperation of church and state" comes from the Jefferson letter, not the concept as it is practiced in the US. [QUOTE=thisispain;19493838]A US judge ruled that the 1st amendment is separation of Church and State and of course, also the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".[/QUOTE] and yes, the supreme court has established it legally quite a few times [QUOTE=Kyle902;19493787]Urkel is this going to end up a repeat of last time?[/QUOTE] what, where you do literally nothing but insult me the whole time for no discernible reason? ok bro [QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493831]Alrright then. It's just that many people I speak with use 'fundamentalis(t/m)' as a substitute for 'radical'.[/QUOTE] that's because fundamentalism tends to lead to extremism
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493831]Alrright then. It's just that many people I speak with use 'fundamentalis(t/m)' as a substitute for 'radical'.[/QUOTE] [quote] 3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>[/quote] In the US, fundamentalism could be considered radical.
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493885]Nope. That was also in a letter written by Jefferson.[/QUOTE] what part of "in the first amendment" do you not understand holy shit, it doesn't say "seperation of church and state" EXACTLY so the concept doesn't exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[QUOTE=Urkel01;19493955]what part of "in the first amendment" do you not understand holy shit, it doesn't say "seperation of church and state" EXACTLY so the concept doesn't exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE] keep it cool and loose, brotha
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493707]There is nothing in the Constitution that says 'separation of Church and State'. That was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.[/QUOTE] It's the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
[quote=The US Constitution] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [/quote]This means the government can't allow a church to say somebody is legally married, and then give that couple tax benefits because the church says so.
First of all, the first amendment: [quote=US Constitution]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote] Let's take a bit of a closer look. [quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[/quote] Last time I checked, this means that the government cannot interfere with peaceable religious practices. Looking at the whole amendment overall, it says nothing about a religious establishment getting involved in the government; in fact, many of our founding documents and beliefs are religion-based. This bill is saying more 'No, the gov't can't tell you what religion to have', rather than 'Religious ideas cannot influence the gov't'.
Doesn't matter because the Supreme Court ruled it as such.
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19494051]First of all, the first amendment: Let's take a bit of a closer look. Last time I checked, this means that the government cannot interfere with peaceable religious practices. Looking at the whole amendment overall, it says nothing about a religious establishment getting involved in the government; in fact, many of our founding documents and beliefs are religion-based. This bill is saying more 'No, the gov't can't tell you what religion to have', rather than 'Religious ideas cannot influence the gov't'.[/QUOTE] I guess I'm supposed to believe that you're a better interpreter of the Constitution than Supreme Court justices (where it's their job for life). Good job, bro, it's rare that I see a post that's so clearly and blatantly wrong. Especially with the whole "religion-based founding documents and beliefs." That's a real laugh riot! [editline]06:51PM[/editline] government is not able to interfere with religion but religion is able to interfere with government, the ultimate conservative fantasy
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19494051]Last time I checked, this means that the government cannot interfere with peaceable religious practices. Looking at the whole amendment overall, it says nothing about a religious establishment getting involved in the government; in fact, many of our founding documents and beliefs are religion-based. This bill is saying more 'No, the gov't can't tell you what religion to have', rather than 'Religious ideas cannot influence the gov't'.[/QUOTE] "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Read it again. Okay? Good. Letting a church marry someone and give them legal rights is respecting the establishment of religion.
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19494051] 'Religious ideas cannot influence the gov't'.[/QUOTE] That doesn't mean they should ever influence them anyway, ever.
I think gay people have the right to be miserable in marrage just like the rest of us.
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;19496048]I think gay people have the right to be miserable in marrage just like the rest of us.[/QUOTE] you're not married
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19494051]First of all, the first amendment: Let's take a bit of a closer look. Last time I checked, this means that the government cannot interfere with peaceable religious practices. Looking at the whole amendment overall, it says nothing about a religious establishment getting involved in the government; in fact, many of our founding documents and beliefs are religion-based. This bill is saying more 'No, the gov't can't tell you what religion to have', rather than 'Religious ideas cannot influence the gov't'.[/QUOTE] [quote] Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,&#8212;as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,&#8212;and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. [/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11[/url] GTFO please. Edit: actually anyone that was in favor of prop 8 for religious reasons GTFO my country.
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19494051] Last time I checked, this means that the government cannot interfere with peaceable religious practices. Looking at the whole amendment overall, it says nothing about a religious establishment getting involved in the government; in fact, many of our founding documents and beliefs are religion-based. This bill is saying more 'No, the gov't can't tell you what religion to have', rather than 'Religious ideas cannot influence the gov't'.[/QUOTE] Yes it does, congress can pass [B]no law respecting the establishment of religion[/B], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means the Government can't be involved with religion, at all. And a few of our founding father's philosophies were grounded in religion, however most of our founding fathers were staunch secularists, and most were deist, not Christian. [QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19493831]Alrright then. It's just that many people I speak with use 'fundamentalis(t/m)' as a substitute for 'radical'.[/QUOTE] The Fundamentalist Movement is radical. [editline]02:37AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Llivavin;19496927] Edit: actually anyone that was in favor of prop 8 for religious reasons GTFO my country.[/QUOTE] Anyone in favor of prop 8 for any reasons should "GTFO".
Signed the petition.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.