Well, looks like it needs to be introduced as a Bill in Congress.
Certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings on the topic.


[[[smoke]]]

Oh no I am shocked!


I hope this doesn't effect your relationship with your "significant other" Opus

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

I forgot "freedom" in the U.S. is only about getting the highest tax bracket free from progressive taxation, everyone should still submit to specific Evangelical Christian beliefs as part of the law. ^^^^^ You do realize these same people in their next step also want your future (or current) Jewish children to have mandatory instruction in schools about their savior, Jesus Christ? Doesn't personally bother me too much, since I'm Catholic, but the whole idea is I'd respect your right to practice different beliefs under the law.

Still not sure what negative effect would be suffered by allowing a very minute portion of the population to have equal opportunity to give inheritance to certain individuals and hospital visitation rights, etc. would have on the rest of us. This and the Ohio law deny that right altogether, not just using the term "marriage." These people are still going to live the lifestyle they live regardless and it will continue to have no relation as to why the majority of marriages fail. Why is it so important to keep a girl from vistitation rights another girl in the hospital if she wants to grant that access?

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I forgot "freedom" in the U.S. is only about getting the highest tax bracket free from progressive taxation, everyone should still submit to specific Evangelical Christian beliefs as part of the law. ^^^^^ You do realize these same people in their next step also want your future (or current) Jewish children to have mandatory instruction in schools about their savior, Jesus Christ? Doesn't personally bother me too much, since I'm Catholic, but the whole idea is I'd respect your right to practice different beliefs under the law.

Now your just pulling shit out of your ass. Practicing Judiasm, like Catholicim, and other religions in the US had ALWAYS been part of both the cultrually acceptable daily life and if not an inherient universal right than a legal right since colonial pre-constitutional days in America. Try and find me one example where it has not been so.

Thinking they will change now for some reason makes you look like you are grasing for anything and is naive, doomsday, and unfounded.

Homosexuality since pre-constitutional days has not shared cultural acceptance nor legal protection. Not then, and as proven by Alabama not till this day.

The people of Alabama have decided that although they do not discriminate against homosexual invidivudals, they do not believe the institution of marriage whether secular or religious should be expanded outside of its historical scope of thousands of years, between a man and women.

There is no law in the consitution that forbids this nor no law that prevents it. I don't understand why all those that complain the states should decide the matter on gay marriage (like in Massachuttes) are suprised when some states chose against it.

I'm not suprised, but I don't think this should be a state issue, as people move around so much today its an interstate issue, therefore I believe it should be decided federally, and that most likely means a constitutional ammendment. I don't think this will happen though.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Oh no I am shocked! I hope this doesn't effect your relationship with your "significant other" Opus

Well perhaps this is a bit of a difference between you and I. I am not always out to see what just benefits me, my wife, and my family. I also have a vested interest in what benefits my society as a whole.

Now I don't think you necessarily disagree with that sentiment too much despite our differences in politics, but I can't help but take a little swipe at your "me-generation" response.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Now your just pulling shit out of your ass. Practicing Judiasm, like Catholicim, and other religions in the US had ALWAYS been part of both the cultrually acceptable daily life and if not an inherient universal right than a legal right since colonial pre-constitutional days in America. Try and find me one example where it has not been so. Thinking they will change now for some reason makes you look like you are grasing for anything and is naive, doomsday, and unfounded.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Wedge Strategy by the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (a.k.a. Discovery Institute) -attempting to undermine or "wedge" out evolutionary theory and replace it with a more "Christian"-type doctrine:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanave...2437/wedge.html

Coupla excerpts with my own emphasis:

quote:

Part of PhaseI: "The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Excerpt from Phase II:

quote:

Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture."

So I'd say Wolverine isn't too far off here. Let's get real here - if we were to be truly honest and hypothetically give the fundies in power everything they possibly could ask for in the public school system, you honestly think their "Christian educational values" would merely halt at just school prayer and creationism?

Who's really being naive here?

quote:

Homosexuality since pre-constitutional days has not shared cultural acceptance nor legal protection. Not then, and as proven by Alabama not till this day.

And the same was said of slavery, women's right to vote, African-Americans right to vote, interracial marriage, etc. etc.

And that makes it legally and/or rationally correct how?

Times change, thank God. And I must disagree with your point about cultural acceptance:

quote:

In fact, many religious groups in Europe had special marriage ceremonies for gays and lesbians. Also, a recent book by the late Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Christian churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. That book lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies: *Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece. *Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece. *The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic. *Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek. *An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic. *Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/I...arioconsultanA/ http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/great.html Politicians and ministers are fond of referring to the "5000 year history" of one man-one woman marriage. In fact, in some societies [including ancient Israel] there were many forms of legitimate, recognized relationships: *A tomb of a same sex gay couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep was discovered in 1964 in the necropolis of Saqqara, Egypt. The tomb dates to the Fifth Dynasty (circa 2,500 BCE), and shows that homosexual marriages date back over 4 millennia!: http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/niankh.html *Some marriages were and/or were polygamous. In the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) Abraham, David, Solomon, and others had multiple wives. One version of the Creation story mentioned Lilith as Adam's first wife; Eve was his second. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints frequently entered polygamous marriages prior to 1890. Some excommunicated splinter Mormon groups still do. * Some marriages were considered an exchange of property in which total control of the woman was formally transferred from her father to her husband. *Leverite Marriages existed in Biblical times in which a man had an obligation to marry his brother's wife and produce an heir if his brother died. This usually meant that he would be married to at least two women. *Men engaged in sexual relations with one or more concubines. Concubines were women who had a lower marital status than a wife. *Men engaged in sexual relations with their female slaves. Again, in the Hebrew Scriptures, Abraham raped his wife's slave, Hagar. She conceived and bore a son Ishmael. * In all, the Bible mentions eight different family types. Only one of them is the "standard" one-man one-woman in a mutual committed relationship. http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar7.htm

quote:

The people of Alabama have decided that although they do not discriminate against homosexual invidivudals, they do not believe the institution of marriage whether secular or religious should be expanded outside of its historical scope of thousands of years, between a man and women.

Well we would never accuse those darn Alabamans from using a neuron or two upstairs now would we?

Oh, in addition to what I've given above, here's another juicy "historical" tidbit that those darn Alabamans likely overlooked:

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Greeks.html

quote:

There is no law in the consitution that forbids this nor no law that prevents it.

Precisely why it will be deemed unconstitutional to allow one couple to enjoy full benefits that happen to be the opposite sex while denying those same benefits completely to a couple who happens to be the same sex.

quote:

I don't understand why all those that complain the states should decide the matter on gay marriage (like in Massachuttes) are suprised when some states chose against it.

Just because the states decide a matter does not make it any more "right" or constitutionally admissible.

quote:

I'm not suprised, but I don't think this should be a state issue, as people move around so much today its an interstate issue, therefore I believe it should be decided federally, and that most likely means a constitutional ammendment. I don't think this will happen though.

How exactly could that hope up constitutionally without running into discrimination?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Wedge Strategy by the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (a.k.a. Discovery Institute) -attempting to undermine or "wedge" out evolutionary theory and replace it with a more "Christian"-type doctrine: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanave...2437/wedge.html Coupla excerpts with my own emphasis: Excerpt from Phase II: So I'd say Wolverine isn't too far off here. Let's get real here - if we were to be truly honest and hypothetically give the fundies in power everything they possibly could ask for in the public school system, you honestly think their "Christian educational values" would merely halt at just school prayer and creationism? Who's really being naive here?

I believe you are for a couple reason:

1) You believe the Christian fundamentals are behind all moral-leaning law in the USA.
2) You have just proveed it is interest groups that push these agendas, not a wide-ranging mass of "Christian fundamentals" with your Discovery Insitute example above.
3) You are also grasping at straws. Wolverine clearly made it out that these "Christian fundamentals" would eat my baby and take my religion from me if they could. I asked him to prove it, you replied proving that some interest group wants to teach evolution in schools. Thats a big, big, big difference.
4) You believe that Christian fundamentals if in power would really change all laws in their favor. I think many of them just like you are ingrained in the traditions of this country, they realize the role of religion, and they realize the role of its seperation from government.

quote:

And the same was said of slavery, women's right to vote, African-Americans right to vote, interracial marriage, etc. etc.

What, you're trying to tell me you are FOR WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE?
But they're women!

quote:

And that makes it legally and/or rationally correct how?

"It" doesn't make it legal. "It" does make it rational, based upon the historical argument whereby gays didn't marry and Kansas operated socially as it has done for most part without incident... whereby if you change that component the future of social tranquality (although it might stay the same) is unknown.
What does make it legal however is the US Constitution and the right it affords to states.

quote:

Times change, thank God. And I must disagree with your point about cultural acceptance:

Your point only brings up the fact that Greeks are gay. We all know this. You have not demonstrated that in American history (pre-USA or post) that homosexuality has been acceptable (in fact you made the argument that it doesn't matter what happened in the past because it might have been wrong, i.e. blacks and... women.)

Therefore using your same argument, I will say. The past doesn't matter, we made mistakes about blacks and... women then, lets not make the same mistake about gays (which were obvisouly according to your history well treated and allowed to marry). Afterall, look what befall those societies!

quote:

Precisely why it will be deemed unconstitutional to allow one couple to enjoy full benefits that happen to be the opposite sex while denying those same benefits completely to a couple who happens to be the same sex.

The constitution only protects certain inalienable rights. The right/privilege to marriage is not a consitutional right. It is one granted by the State to its citizens, therefore as it stands right now on the books it is no more unconsitutional to grant same-sex marriage as it to taketh away. So stop being a couter.

quote:

Just because the states decide a matter does not make it any more "right" or constitutionally admissible.

E pluribus unam.

quote:

How exactly could that hope up constitutionally without running into discrimination?

What are you on about consitutionally this, constitutionally that?
Like I said. There is no "right" to marriage. Just like there is no "right" to drive. Some states make it a right and give it to their citizens, others make it a privilege. I don't understand why you are up on the consitution on this one, as on this matter it is silent. Its not like Kanasas voted to deny gays from their right to fair and speedy trial.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Now your just pulling shit out of your ass. Practicing Judiasm, like Catholicim, and other religions in the US had ALWAYS been part of both the cultrually acceptable daily life and if not an inherient universal right than a legal right since colonial pre-constitutional days in America. Try and find me one example where it has not been so. Thinking they will change now for some reason makes you look like you are grasing for anything and is naive, doomsday, and unfounded. Homosexuality since pre-constitutional days has not shared cultural acceptance nor legal protection. Not then, and as proven by Alabama not till this day. The people of Alabama have decided that although they do not discriminate against homosexual invidivudals, they do not believe the institution of marriage whether secular or religious should be expanded outside of its historical scope of thousands of years, between a man and women. There is no law in the consitution that forbids this nor no law that prevents it. I don't understand why all those that complain the states should decide the matter on gay marriage (like in Massachuttes) are suprised when some states chose against it. I'm not suprised, but I don't think this should be a state issue, as people move around so much today its an interstate issue, therefore I believe it should be decided federally, and that most likely means a constitutional ammendment. I don't think this will happen though.

I honestly don't care all that much about the term "marriage" being applied so much as the same rights are granted to individuals. This action in Kansas also threatens that.

I'm really amazed at how all of a sudden, not just on this issue but many, the right wing is becoming increasingly against states rights. You're not just arguing that Kansas should be able to prevent civil unions in addition to marriage, you're arguing that no state can pass laws to the contrary if you want a federal amendment. If CT, not through the courts, but through the legislature passes it's gay marriage legislation, considering other states do not have recognize the marriage, why can't they will for themselves to allow that?

On religion, I was not saying that other religions would be banned, but Kansas, like most states, has a majority Christian population and many people, particularly in that state are pushing for their religious view to be taught in public schools and other aspects of the public sector. That's really not far fetched to think that
relgious favoritism is desired there, considering a number of recent stories out of Kansas, such as the actions of the Attorney General and teaching of "intelligent design."

The Constitution is a living document. If it is not, why aren't there still African-American slaves who constitute 3/5 of a person without voting rights? Why aren't women still prevented from voting as well? For thousands of years women have been by many cultures and religions as 2nd class citizens, so we should have continued that?

All I can say about Alabama is happy Confederate Pride Month! 23 days left!!!

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus 3) You are also grasping at straws. Wolverine clearly made it out that these "Christian fundamentals" would eat my baby and take my religion from me if they could. I asked him to prove it, you replied proving that some interest group wants to teach evolution in schools. Thats a big, big, big difference.

Eating babies?

quote:

^^^^^ You do realize these same people in their next step also want your future (or current) Jewish children to have mandatory instruction in schools about their savior, Jesus Christ? Doesn't personally bother me too much, since I'm Catholic, but the whole idea is I'd respect your right to practice different beliefs under the law.

My point was that they do want to teach Christianity in public schools. Teaching New Testament principles as fact in public schools would concern most people of other religions. Look at the Alabama 10 Commandments incident, the recent events in Kansas and the poll numbers on teaching creationism in both those states, it's not just a few lobbying groups wanting that.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

Quick question: What happens if a gay couple gets married in one state and moves to a state where gays cannot be married?

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Eating babies?

Oh my bad. A blood-libel must of slipped in there.

quote:

My point was that they do want to teach Christianity in public schools. Teaching New Testament principles as fact in public schools would concern most people of other religions. Look at the Alabama 10 Commandments incident, the recent events in Kansas and the poll numbers on teaching creationism in both those states, it's not just a few lobbying groups wanting that.

Again who is they?

I'm hoping that if you asked most Alabama's if they wanted to have the New Testament taught as fact in your child's school? They'd say, no thank you. If I wanted that, I'd send my kid to some private-chuch school.

What I do think you are seeing with the South however is a bit of resurggence against the left's succesful athiestation of the State.

Taking the 10 commandments out of a court house is evidence of the success of this left-wing atheistic movement that exist in the nation.

The south is pissed that you are turing this tradtionally secular country into an atheist country.

When you look at it objectively and with in the spirit of the tradition of the USA, there was no justified reason to remove the 10 commandments out of the court house.

I mean the Roman's weren't even that cruel, and thats saying something:
Emporer Constantine proclaims that "Christiantiy" as the Empire's official religion (which he did). He does not issue an edict for all and anything polytheistic on state-land to be removed. In turn the statue of a she-wolf suckling the infants Romulus and Remus is not removed from the heart of Rome and there is no public uproar.

Imagine how short that emprorer would have lived if he says, move Romulus and Remus' (who were gods, sons of Mars) out of Rome! Put it somewhere polytheistic!





Thats all I'm saying. The USA is a secular country and thats a good thing. I don't mind if they would teach the old, new testmeant, etc in school so long as they do it in the fashion they teach other literature such as Dante's inferno.

They're is a scare in the USA against religion. And in turn there is a counter-insurgence for religion. I think both sides need to shut up and embrace that a little religion is a good thing. Its when people want too much religion (whether that religion is the religion of no religion or not) that it becomes ugly.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.