ANSWER THIS ASSHOLES

Quote :

""No, they have to explore it in order to consider gay marriage. If gay marriage doesn't exist, they may never understand themselves." Are you kidding me? Are you this stupid? "

7/13/2006 4:26:15 PM

Quote :

"for the fact that civil unions don't get the same legal benefits as marriages"

I thought that was the proposal of civil unions...what's the deal?

Also, can someone tell me about the benefits? (see above for my actual request)

7/13/2006 4:26:41 PM

they are different from state to state, but here's california for an example:

Quote :

"Domestic partnership is a legal status similar to marriage that has been available to same-sex couples (and certain opposite-sex couples) in California since 2000. California domestic partnership was the first registry for same-sex couples in the United States to be created by a legislature not mandated to do so by a court. Originally granting only hospital visitation rights, the scope of domestic partnerships was gradually expanded over a three year period. In 2003, A.B. 205 was passed and signed by Gov. Gray Davis. Taking effect on January 1, 2005, A.B. 205 extended to domestic partnerships virtually all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage in California. Thus, domestic partnership in California has been effectively transformed into a civil union status. The laws governing domestic partnership are codified at § 297 et seq. of the California Family Code. Text of code. In practical effect, of course, the legal rights and duties of California domestic partners are greatly inferior to those of opposite-sex spouses for the simple reason that the vast array of federal rights and responsibilities are still unavailable under federal law to same-sex couples and other unmarried partners. Only a change in federal law will allow California same-sex couples full equality under the law."

7/13/2006 4:36:13 PM

Ok, but I was talking about on a federal level, I just never specified.

What benefits though...

7/13/2006 4:37:08 PM

bgmims, there's another good example on page 3 i think.. a very long post. You can't miss it.

Quote :

""No, they have to explore it in order to consider gay marriage. If gay marriage doesn't exist, they may never understand themselves." Are you kidding me? Are you this stupid?"

Look. A lot of people are gay AND DO NOT KNOW IT. One of them might be you. Yes, it is that deep-seated. The fact that society is anti-gay (and banning gay marriage is part of this) makes many of these people never consider that they might be gay. They will live straight lives and have straight marriages. Then later perhaps they discover they're gay, via introspection in a midlife crisis for instance. They decide they haven't really lived their lives, they've been living a lie, they don't know who they are, and so they have to leave their marriage and explore their sexuality because they didn't know they were gay. They didn't have the choice to know. Their lives were fucked over by anti-gay society, and a ban on gay marriage played a role.

Hence: If gay marriage doesn't exist, they may never understand themselves.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 4:54 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2006 4:53:15 PM

Federal Laws are a bitch

Even though it's legal to grow and sell medical marijuana in California, the feds raided a bunch of dispensaries in San Diego last week and arrests were made. While this particular issue might not seem to matter much, it actually presents some pretty serious issues- constitutional and otherwise.

7/13/2006 5:02:46 PM

Thanks for the heads up on the benefits...I'll look into them in detail later

Although I still assert that jointly filing taxes sucks balls, because it increases the taxes you owe...you know "the marriage penalty"

But, others, like the marital exclusion seem legit.

7/13/2006 5:04:56 PM

Quote :

"Look. A lot of people are gay AND DO NOT KNOW IT. One of them might be you. Yes, it is that deep-seated. The fact that society is anti-gay (and banning gay marriage is part of this) makes many of these people never consider that they might be gay."

What? Just hang on a god damned second. You have to at least consider you might be gay at some point long before the fact that you can't get married actually plays a role. This is about the dumbest shit I have heard in awhile. That's nearly a chicken in the egg thing. You have to at least be aware of something different about yourself for the barriers to it to be apparent.

I'll go as far to say you have to full well know exactly who you are to completely deny who you are, because lets face it, sexual orientation is a lot different form a guy thinks he is a 9 on the looks scale when most people would call him 7 and thus he can't bag the ultra hot chicks like he thinks he should be able.

7/14/2006 9:12:12 PM

Fuck it, let them get married. Just don't force any religious organization to perform the ceremony if they don't want to. It's not that big a deal.

7/14/2006 9:20:30 PM

Quote :

"You have to at least consider you might be gay at some point long before the fact that you can't get married actually plays a role."

Wrong. If gay marriage is an accepted part of society, you are more likely to accept that you might be gay. And then you might explore it where otherwise you might not. I'm not saying it's required, but I am saying that societal intolerance causes individuals to be intolerant of potential truths about themselves, and therefore to avoid thinking about it. People spend their lives running from what they don't want to be, even when that's what they are, and it's founded in the intolerance of others.

[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 11:43 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2006 11:40:20 PM

Quote :

"tell me why two men or two women should be barred from sharing the same legal union that any adult man and woman can have?"

7/15/2006 1:06:39 AM

marriage is a legal and social institution. religious sanction is only a peripheral issue, and is not required.

any religious arguments against (or for) gay marriage are moot.








[Edited on July 15, 2006 at 1:16 AM. Reason : ]

7/15/2006 1:14:21 AM

Quote :

"I see, so we should only be concerned about the civil liberties of people that are easy to monitor and enforce using our current system?"

Huh?

You're definitely the archetypal "context-free thinker." We can't have a discussion about one thing, it has to be a discussion about all possible things.

So we start off and you say:

"if we deal with gay marriage, then we have to deal with polygamy."

Then I say:

"No, polygamy is much more complicated than gay marriage."

Now you come back with "Oh, so we don't deal with really complicated things now?"

Ummmm ... you might need to lay off whatever you're on. It's not good for your mental state.

7/15/2006 6:04:42 PM

^ youre so clever in your dismissal.

i dont think anyone has ever tried that tactic before.

7/17/2006 4:21:33 AM

Now let me paraphrase our conversation for you

You "You're taking away people's rights! It's all about people's rights!!!"
Me "If we deal with gay marriage, we'll need to deal with polygamy"
You "Well, polygamy can be complex to deal with"
Me "So, you don't care about the rights of those in complex situations?"
You "Why can't we focus on one aspect of the issue, my head hurts"

7/17/2006 7:44:16 AM

Just to bring it back up for page six...

What are the practical reasons for not allowing gay marriage/unions?

7/17/2006 8:54:08 AM

Practical reasons for not allowing gay marriage include:
* Making parents feel better when they're in denial about their children's homosexuality
* Encouraging the Klan and neo-Nazis to leave black people alone for awhile
* Keeping the popular vote on the Right

7/17/2006 10:42:21 AM

bgmims, I see nothing wrong with polygamy and think it should be completely legalized.

7/17/2006 10:45:11 AM

Quote :

"What rights are being infringed? Gay people can do exactly the same things that straight people can do - the only thing is that the government is not going to label their relationship marriage. So what right is being infringed? What exactly are gay people being told they cannot do? Are the police going to burst in on a gay "marriage" ceremony and arrest them all? Is a court going to grant an injunction against two gay people living together and loving each other? Clearly not. This is a mis-statement of the issue."

The right to equal treatment under law, which is embodied in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. Marriage, in a legal sense, is a contract between to individuals and by denying a particular group their right to contract, you are discminating against said group.

Quote :

"Morality is not subjective. This leads to a dictatorship of relativism, where there are no standards whatsoever. I prefer not to live under a dictatorship of relativism, but stay firm to the absolute moral standards."

How do you define "absolute moral standards"? There is no such thing as absolute moral standards, as everyones moral compass is different. You cannot logically justify how your moral standards are "superior" to anyone elses (if only for the reason that superiority is a point of view as well).

Quote :

"I understand this. But what about when the judiciary oversteps its bounds? What check is there upon the power of the judiicary?"

Then the legislature/executive takes appropriate steps to remove said officials from office.

7/17/2006 10:52:22 AM

Whether there are practical reasons or not is moot.

There are practical reasons for disallowing poor people from getting married and having children.

But we have this "freedom" thing keeping us from doing so.



[Edited on July 17, 2006 at 10:58 AM. Reason : .]

7/17/2006 10:53:28 AM

Quote :

"You "Why can't we focus on one aspect of the issue, my head hurts""

No, I think I spent a good amount of time explaining why, specifically, in the gay marriage case it should be allowed, and by implication (read: obviously) none of those reasons applied to polygamists. I suppose it's too much to expect you to think critically.

I would argue that polygamists enjoy their right of marriage equally under the 14th amendment, within reason. Rights are always balanced against the needs of the state. It's not reasonable for us to say "ok, the state has to fundamentally reform itself to meet the specific needs of minority group X in the name of right Y." If we did, we would spend a fortune making every institution meet everyone's needs all the time.

Allowing gay marriage works specifically for two reasons:

1. It's the right thing to do. Gays fundamentally are unable to "marry" in a real sense without it.
2. It's not an unreasonable burden on the state, because it basically amounts to striking out a gender clause.

In the case of polyamists, the first reason is arguable. They can marry to meet their basic biological imperatives, if not their religious ones. The second reason is totally moot -- because it'd be a huge burden on the state to reform marriage to suit them.

Gay marriage isn't some ivory tower issue that automatically brings up all forms of marriage. It should be allowed for its own specific reasons, and the polygamists can argue their case on their own.

7/18/2006 2:46:48 AM

Quote :

"In the case of polyamists, the first reason is arguable. They can marry to meet their basic biological imperatives, if not their religious ones. The second reason is totally moot -- because it'd be a huge burden on the state to reform marriage to suit them. "

Thank God you started that sentence with "arguable" because otherwise you'd look totally stupid when you say "biological imperatives" in the same breath as "gay marriage"

7/18/2006 7:24:51 AM

can we be clear that the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with biology, it is a legal contract. oh yeah and no one has even bothered to respond to my question:

Quote :

"tell me why two men or two women should be barred from sharing the same legal union that any adult man and woman can have?"

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 8:17 AM. Reason : spacing]

7/18/2006 8:17:21 AM

because it is immoral. that is all.

7/18/2006 8:33:28 AM

However, that doesn't give us a good reason to make a law about it. Adultery is legal.

7/18/2006 8:34:45 AM

^^and you're into making people's moral decisions for them? especially when they do not directly affect anyone except those wanting the union?

this argument sounds an awful lot like arguments against allowing interracial marriage

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 8:42 AM. Reason : ^^]

7/18/2006 8:42:43 AM

Quote :

"because it is immoral. that is all."

so is prostitution, gambling, adultery, divorce


OH WAIT, I FORGOT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING LEGAL SYSTEM AND NOT YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS






[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 9:01 AM. Reason : dylesxia]

7/18/2006 9:00:54 AM

mathman should be concerned with passing Knowing What the Fuck You're Talking About 101 before he proceeds to more graduate studies.

7/18/2006 9:32:32 AM

Quote :

"and you're into making people's moral decisions for them?"

Everyone who believes there is a single valid function of civil government is "into making people's moral decisions for them." Government is, by definition, brute force applied to some who agree to it, and some who don't.

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 9:38 AM. Reason : a]

7/18/2006 9:37:44 AM

I think the implication here was religiously-charged morals, many of which have no relevance to actual life (this one included).

7/18/2006 10:12:13 AM

What do you mean by "no relevance to actual life"?

I would argue that all morals are religiously charged, along with all laws and all policies of a government.

A government will take a moral and religious stance on every issue under the sun. It is inescapable. There is no 'neutrality.'

7/18/2006 11:26:32 AM

Yeah there is.

Plenty of concepts like "don't kill other people" are common sensical in nature, not religious. In trying to preserve other peoples' rights it doesn't suggest anything about religion at all. There are things we'd all like to have the freedom to do so that we can be as happy as we possibly can be while we're alive. The idea that you're free to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon others' rights is a pretty basic concept, and isn't religious (or if this is arrived at religiously, religion is not a necessary component).

Exclusively religious morals tend to deal with victimless behavior.

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

7/18/2006 11:31:20 AM

Quote :

"I would argue that all morals are religiously charged, along with all laws and all policies of a government."

And you would be fucking wrong.

7/18/2006 1:30:55 PM

Quote :

"However, that doesn't give us a good reason to make a law about it. Adultery is legal."

it shouldn't be.

Quote :

"^^and you're into making people's moral decisions for them? especially when they do not directly affect anyone except those wanting the union? "

Given the overeaching tendency of our government to tell buisnesses, local schools and just about anything else who they can/can't employ it certainly will have a "directly affect". When the local school employs one of these openly married homosexuals you are telling me that you will be for them never mentioning it to my kid as a normal thing etc... I mean the effects will be many and given the fickle nature of the courts in this country there is no telling what else they will force us to go along with once homosexuals have a degree or two more of legal legitimacy.

Quote :

"so is prostitution, gambling, adultery, divorce OH WAIT, I FORGOT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING LEGAL SYSTEM AND NOT YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS"

prostitution, gambling, adultery, divorce all should be illegal for the good of soceity. I would argue that following God's laws is what is best for soceity, and because last time I checked this was still a democratic republic I am well within reason to try to encourage those principles to be law in this country. You are free to disagree, but you should not be free to just outright deny that such laws are legally possible from the get-go.

To outright deny me the possiblility of making such laws is nothing more than secular tyranny.

In essence, what you guys are saying is that I am not allowed to lobby for my laws because they are religious in origin. On the flip-side you seem to suggest that only those moralities which are "nonreligous" should be law. But what determines what is "nonreligous" morality ? Basically whatever you guys think.

Quote :

"mathman should be concerned with passing Knowing What the Fuck You're Talking About 101 before he proceeds to more graduate studies."

I forgot that if I don't agree with you then I'm stupid, thanks for the reminder, I forgot this was middle school.

Quote :

"Everyone who believes there is a single valid function of civil government is "into making people's moral decisions for them." Government is, by definition, brute force applied to some who agree to it, and some who don't. "

exactly.

Quote :

"I think the implication here was religiously-charged morals, many of which have no relevance to actual life (this one included).... Plenty of concepts like "don't kill other people" are common sensical in nature, not religious. In trying to preserve other peoples' rights it doesn't suggest anything about religion at all. There are things we'd all like to have the freedom to do so that we can be as happy as we possibly can be while we're alive. The idea that you're free to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon others' rights is a pretty basic concept, and isn't religious (or if this is arrived at religiously, religion is not a necessary component). Exclusively religious morals tend to deal with victimless behavior."

Big surprise the opponent of organized religion thinks that only those moralities that he sees as areligious should be implemented in laws. In other words, he should not have to follow anyone else's religious laws. This is nothing more than his personal belief , deeply correlated with the fact that he for all intents and purposes thinks that religion is irrelevant to everyday life. So from the beginning he wishes to have law in this country defined in such a way that it is illegal to have any laws except those which stem from his own areligious personal value system.

I just want the same, I want to live in a country where the laws reflect my value system. I don't want to be put in a position where my $$ support of the government actually subsidizes activities which I find immoral. And so long as my vote actually means something I will vote for individuals that try to make my morality that of the US. The people are the government in some limited sense so it is my duty to pursue this goal, afterall I believe that the things like "prostitution, gambling, adultery, divorce" are harmful to soceity, family and so on. Of course I'm going to do whatever I can to thwart them through government, just like you guys are going to do whatever you can to make them legal because you don't really think they are that bad, or that they just hurt one person.

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 7:53 PM. Reason : crazy code is not Latex.]

7/18/2006 7:50:35 PM

Quote :

"Amendment I 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. "

Secular tyranny!

The great part about the Constitution is, I shouldn't have to put up with your religious horseshit via the government. You have the right to practice this idiocy in a private way that doesn't affect me past perhaps having to listen to it.

7/18/2006 10:33:53 PM

ya, the funny thing is that amendment somehow was not interpreted to mean what you say until about when, 1960 or so ? There is a clear difference between legislating morality consistent with a particular religion and the religion itself. The whole point was that there be no Anglican church here, no official state religion,they were certainly not trying to create the Godless utopia all ya ll seem to read into it. It was freedom of the church from government interference, not the other way around. They were merely trying to prevent the state from choosing a denomination and making all the other's illegal. Of course you probably don't really give a damn what the original intent was, if I had to hazard a guess I'd say most of you would be for bending the document any which way you can just for the sake of striking down traditional morality. Then end justifies the means even if that end ultimately makes all law in the US one big joke.

7/19/2006 2:17:11 AM

The only joke in the US legal system is victimless crime.

7/19/2006 2:28:13 AM

Quote :

"It was freedom of the church from government interference, not the other way around. They were merely trying to prevent the state from choosing a denomination and making all the other's illegal."

1. Any attention to the historical context of the Constitution or the beliefs of most of the founding fathers makes it blindingly obvious that the 1st Amendment was meant to protect the state from the church as well as to protect the church from the state.

2. You lack basic critical thinking skills if you can't recognize protection of church from state and state from church as being two sides of the same coin. They're just as fundamentally dependent on one another now as they were in 1789.



[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 3:51 AM. Reason : .]

7/19/2006 3:46:48 AM

Quote :

"I just want the same, I want to live in a country where the laws reflect my value system."

I don't. I want to live in a country where the laws allow you to do whatever you wish, so long as noone elses rights are violated. I may disagree venemously with Christianity/Islam/etc and may view it as nonsense, but I want to live in a country where these people are able to practice their religion w/o persecution. Everyone should push for as limited government as possible, where the government only intervenes when rights are being violated. Your rights are not violated in any shape, form, fashion, by allowing homosexuals to marry or any of the other things you mentioned.

Quote :

"I don't want to be put in a position where my $$ support of the government actually subsidizes activities which I find immoral."

Marriage is simply a legal contract that is all. I donot support any of these faith-based initiatives that BushCo has been pushing, but I'm pretty sure you have no problem with money being wasted on them so long as it fits your point of view. Also, I donot feel married couples should get any sort of tax benefits period. Their relationships (whether they be heterosexual or homosexual) are of no greater importance than any other relationship. There again, I think you have no problem with such a thing.

Morality is subjective, and noones morality should dictate what a grown adult should be able to do.

7/19/2006 8:21:50 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-marriage19jul19,1,1289241.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

I loved this part:

Quote :

""Marriage is not about love; it's about a love that can bear children," said Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.). "Marriage is about bringing the next generation along, and it works best when it's one mom and one dad.""

Marriage isn't about love guys. Its about fucking to insure that there is a next generation. Idiot Republicans.

7/19/2006 8:24:24 AM

Quote :

"Given the overeaching tendency of our government to tell buisnesses, local schools and just about anything else who they can/can't employ it certainly will have a "directly affect". When the local school employs one of these openly married homosexuals you are telling me that you will be for them never mentioning it to my kid as a normal thing etc... I mean the effects will be many and given the fickle nature of the courts in this country there is no telling what else they will force us to go along with once homosexuals have a degree or two more of legal legitimacy."

maybe it'll do your kids a little bit of good, giving them a reality-based and non-bigoted point of view on homosexuality.

7/19/2006 8:46:04 AM

I want to live in a country where the laws respect human rights, such as my right to financial privacy.

7/19/2006 8:50:35 AM

Quote :

"It was freedom of the church from government interference, not the other way around."

good one, a real knee-slapper

7/19/2006 8:55:08 AM

Quote :

" I don't want to be put in a position where my $$ support of the government actually subsidizes activities which I find immoral."

I know some moral-vegetarians who have got that shit covered. And there are a lot of Catholics in this country, but we still execute. And there are a lot of people who love peace, but we still sell weapons.

It's not morality that rules this country, it's opinion. We recognize abridging liberties and using people's money for things they don't intend is not ideal, but we do those things in order to secure our country's prosperity. However there are some changes, like legalizing gay marriage and letting black kids in the white bathroom, which make us more free but which do not spoil our country's dominance or prosperity.

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

7/19/2006 11:39:50 AM

Quote :

"boonedocks 1. Any attention to the historical context of the Constitution or the beliefs of most of the founding fathers makes it blindingly obvious that the 1st Amendment was meant to protect the state from the church as well as to protect the church from the state. "

If by church you mean the Catholic church then sure, I think that was the main idea, to avoid the religious persecution that many had suffered in Europe from state-run churches. But, notice that nobody wants to set up a state run church, all we want is to be free to practice our religion in all of our daily lives. Wether it is in school or in congress. There is a big difference between legislating an ideal consistent with a religion and setting up a state-run religion. Fortunately for you progressives the religious right still believes in
the honest rule of law so it is going to take some time to overturn the nonsense like abortion that has been cheated into law by a corrupt lying supreme court.

Quote :

"boonedocks 2. You lack basic critical thinking skills if you can't recognize protection of church from state and state from church as being two sides of the same coin. They're just as fundamentally dependent on one another now as they were in 1789."

sure, I don't disagree, I just don't see congress making us all methodists anytime soon. On the other hand I will not be at all suprised if in the coming years the government makes it illegal for us to educate our children as we ought, instead forcing everyone into goverment run secular schools. Do you deny that there are many in the educational community that would like to squash private education to complete the monopoly. It's not to bad in NC, but in other states homeschooling is already difficult to do. I'm sure you see other non-religious reasons for those trends but your naive if you don't think there are individuals that are attempting to gain an intellectual stranglehold on education precisely to reduce the number of people who think like I do.

(ok that's a pretty good set up for an insult, don't disappoint.)

Quote :

"ProtostarI don't. I want to live in a country where the laws allow you to do whatever you wish, so long as noone elses rights are violated. I may disagree venemously with Christianity/Islam/etc and may view it as nonsense, but I want to live in a country where these people are able to practice their religion w/o persecution. Everyone should push for as limited government as possible, where the government only intervenes when rights are being violated. Your rights are not violated in any shape, form, fashion, by allowing homosexuals to marry or any of the other things you mentioned."

Ideally I agree with you, but as long as the progressive movement tries to make more and more of life a function of government I am forced to argue otherwise.

Precisely because of comments like this,

Quote :

"sarijoulmaybe it'll do your kids a little bit of good, giving them a reality-based and non-bigoted point of view on homosexuality."

sooner or later the "maybe" will morph into a demand rather than a suggestion.

As the state gobbles up more and more of our daily existence, it necessarily reduces the role that the church can play. If government is to be seperated from church and the government controls many aspects of life then it minimizes the role that religion can play in our daily existence. It's risky as a goverment employee to speak out about God and salvation to your clients. Our state-run education is a good example. We used to have Bible stories and such integrated into the education but the progressives have made that a legally precarious thing to do.

Quote :

"ContrastI know some moral-vegetarians who have got that shit covered. And there are a lot of Catholics in this country, but we still execute. And there are a lot of people who love peace, but we still sell weapons. It's not morality that rules this country, it's opinion. We recognize abridging liberties and using people's money for things they don't intend is not ideal, but we do those things in order to secure our country's prosperity. However there are some changes, like legalizing gay marriage and letting black kids in the white bathroom, which make us more free but which do not spoil our country's dominance or prosperity."

"It's not morality that rules this country, it's opinion." exactly. And just because my opinion happens to line up with a particular religion that ought not immediately disqualify it from being official policy. Conversely, if you guys can gather the support of the people and so on and go through the proper legislative channels
to change the status quo then fine. But that's not what has happened, the majority alot of places still thinks that homosexuality in immoral and as such it should not be sanctioned by the government. We've even voted on this in certain states, then what happens? A few liberal judges ignore the people and illegally legislate their own morality violating the will of the people.

Anyway, much of what I have argued here is more for other debates. Objecting to homosexuality is not really
localized to one religion. Good grief, I have atheist friends who object to it on completely different grounds.

I must sleep. That is all.

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 2:23 AM. Reason : /]

7/20/2006 2:19:57 AM

Quote :

"If by church you mean the Catholic church then sure, I think that was the main idea, to avoid the religious persecution that many had suffered in Europe from state-run churches."

Protestant tyranny, too. Remind me who were we declaring our independance from?

Quote :

"But, notice that nobody wants to set up a state run church, all we want is to be free to practice our religion in all of our daily lives. Wether it is in school or in congress. There is a big difference between legislating an ideal consistent with a religion and setting up a state-run religion."

No one wants to set up a state church-- they just want all the trappings of one.

There's a word for everyone being "free to practice our religion in all of our daily lives." It's called secularism. It's the only policy a government can adopt if it wants to guarantee all its citizens freedom of religion. You all seem unable to comprehend the fact that the ability to force your religion on others is not one of your religious freedoms.

Quote :

"Fortunately for you progressives the religious right still believes in the honest rule of law so it is going to take some time to overturn the nonsense like abortion that has been cheated into law by a corrupt lying supreme court."

lol.

Quote :

"On the other hand I will not be at all suprised if in the coming years the government makes it illegal for us to educate our children as we ought, instead forcing everyone into goverment run secular schools. Do you deny that there are many in the educational community that would like to squash private education to complete the monopoly."

I do deny that. I've taken many education classes, I have a teaching license, and have taught high school, and I've yet to meet anyone possesing those views. You're confusing "public money going into religious schools is bad" with "people going to religious schools is bad."

In fact, I wish the Religious Right would homeschool even more. It would mean less of them would reach any positions of power.

Quote :

"(ok that's a pretty good set up for an insult, don't disappoint.)"

I'd rather spite you

7/20/2006 2:56:37 AM

Quote :

"However there are some changes, like legalizing gay marriage and letting black kids in the white bathroom, which make us more free but which do not spoil our country's dominance or prosperity."

Well said.

Quote :

"Conversely, if you guys can gather the support of the people and so on and go through the proper legislative channels to change the status quo then fine."

And not so well said.

Seriously -- the whole "activist judges" thing is getting tired. California passed gay marriage in both houses, and the governator ... governated it. Why?

Well, see, it's ok for most bills to pass through normal legislative channels. But when you're a REPUBLICAN governor, apparently it's all about the direct will of the "people."

And look at Massachusetts -- the "activist judges" brought gay marriage into being, but the legislature has yet to do anything decisive about it. So whose fault is it really that the mechanism is in place?

It's pretty obvious to me that gay marriage is one of those rare issues that is purely political. The California legislature didn't pass it because they love gays, they passed it because it would put Schwarzenegger in a "perfect squirm" situation -- he either vetoes it and alienates most of the state's considerably liberal population, or he allows it and alienates his conservative base. In Massachusetts, the legislature can't deal with the issue for many of the same reasons.

And in the South and Midwest, the fundamental issue will never budge but it'll continually be talked about as evidence of some phantom liberal oppression. So it'll be over-legislated and over-referendumed to death.

Ultimately the courts serve the useful purpose of taking the issue out of the realm of politics. They put it into the context of action and rights. That's the same purpose the courts ultimately served with regards to black Civil Rights.

If you want to complain about this necessary function of the judicial system, I'd also love to hear your spiel about the abuse of judicial power in overturning Separate but Equal, and enforcing integrated school systems.

Quote :

"Objecting to homosexuality is not really localized to one religion. Good grief, I have atheist friends who object to it on completely different grounds."

Well, that may be, but objecting to homosexuality is just fundamentally stupid. It's like objecting to thunderstorms. You may find lightning morally wrong, but it's gonna be there.

7/20/2006 3:29:49 AM

Quote :

"tell me why two men or two women should be barred from sharing the same legal union that any adult man and woman can have?"

7/20/2006 9:21:34 AM

Quote :

"You all seem unable to comprehend the fact that the ability to force your religion on others is not one of your religious freedoms."

Quote :

"You all seem unable to comprehend the fact that the ability to force your religion on others is not one of your religious freedoms."

Quote :

"You all seem unable to comprehend the fact that the ability to force your religion on others is not one of your religious freedoms."

Quote :

"You all seem unable to comprehend the fact that the ability to force your religion on others is not one of your religious freedoms."

Quote :

"You all seem unable to comprehend the fact that the ability to force your religion on others is not one of your religious freedoms."

7/20/2006 10:13:00 AM

No one is forcing their religion on anyone. It's just that people are not going to have the recognition of the federal government (that is, America's recognition) of their relationship.

The ability to force me to legally recognize something that I find abominable, and call it "marriage" and give it the same rights as marriage, is not part of ANY freedom.

You can do whatever you want - but don't impose your views on me regarding having to recognize it.

7/20/2006 1:38:52 PM