[mack]

I am so tired of hearing this on the news that I have to clean this up. THERE IS NO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CNN< FOX< NBC!!!

here is what the constitution says to clear it up, honestly, i really wonder how people can say that faith based programs are a violations of the 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."

 

[Silver]

Um, because faith based programs establish a de facto preference for one religion over another, maybe?

 

[mack]

um, well what is the major religion in the united states? Christianity is it, thats why, its not a preferance. It a whose going to get the job done better, the christiants because there is a church in every town. And even if it is a prefrance its not a violation of the constitution. All im saying is that people should stop using the words seperation of church and state.

 

[Silver]

It's an end run around the first amendment. You have to think this through a little bit...it becomes a preference as soon as you have two religions. The proportions don't matter.

 

[mack]

So your in this political correctivness mindset.

Is their a problem with faith based programs, some are non demoninational (sp?), Id have to say that yes they do have a prefrace, to GOD. So if ur a Satanist you might be upset. I am a atheist, i personally think its a bunch of BS< but it doesnt stop me from respecting other peoples views and wanting to do good.

 

[JRogers]

"religion" = church

"congress" = state

"no law" = separation

Any questions?

 

[Kornphlake]

democracy allows those with religiously skewed values to vote for laws that best serve their values. It's no conicidance that the population of the united states is largely christian and the laws generally reflect christian values. Would you really want to vote for anything if you weren't allowed to vote as your concience would dictate? So you're not christian and you didn't vote with christian minded individuals, it doesn't mean you are not represented, it simply means you don't represent the majority. Our government operates on the basis that the majority is capable of determining what is best for the whole, democracy can't work any other way.

 

[dan-o]

Democracy can also work in cases where the government stays completely removed from religious issues. European democracies are a good example of this since the majority of europeans do not share the religious zeal common in america.

It is also ironic that america, formed by people trying to escape religious persecution, allows the religious values of some (even the majority) to be forced on everyone.

 

[Kornphlake]

so what's the catch there is no legislation to anything that may be morally or ethically questionable in said european countries? It's funny that if I feel one way about something for whatever reason and it happens to agree with the bible then I'm religous, where if I have an idea about something that doesn't agree with the bible then I'm open minded or whatever the term may be even if the motivation for either decision has nothing to do with my religion.

For example, in the town I grew up in a tribe wanted to construct an indian casino, because the property is owned by the city not the tribe the residents had to approve the project. The short version is that the tribe promised so many million over the next 20 years so that the city would provide water, trash, sewer, police, emergency assistance and other public services in addition to the initial purchase of the land. At the end of 20 years the casino would be exempt from paying for these services yet the city would continue to provide the services. My religion teaches that gambling is wrong so you could assume that I voted according to the teachings of my religion... that couldn't be farther from the truth, I voted no on the measure because I didn't want some indian casino freeloading off of the city in 20 years. Sure there are religious factors that may play in many decisions, but there are usually other factors that are much more fundamental.

 

[dan-o]

I don't think there is a catch. Government's role, in my opinion, is to manage the aspects of life which are universal (infrastructure, finances, immigration, military etc), not control the personal beliefs of the population.

The Netherlands policies on drugs and prostitution are an example of this. What's interesting about NL, based on my 2.5 years living there, is that most of the general population doesn't partake of these "vices" but feels each person has the right to make that choice themselves.

 

[DRB]

It is also ironic that america, formed by people trying to escape religious persecution, allows the religious values of some (even the majority) to be forced on everyone.

Which religious values are being forced on you by the government?

 

[dan-o]

Which religious values are being forced on you by the government?

Um, Christian values. Things like wanting to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage, over turn Roe V Wade.....little things like that. I'm neither gay nor a woman but those are areas where the gov't has no business IMO.

 

[DRB]

Um, Christian values. Things like wanting to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage, over turn Roe V Wade.....little things like that. I'm neither gay nor a woman but those are areas where the gov't has no business IMO.

Have either of those occurred yet?

So I'll ask again.

Which religious values are being forced on you by the government?

 

[-BB-]

I am so tired of hearing this on the news that I have to clean this up. THERE IS NO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CNN< FOX< NBC!!!

here is what the constitution says to clear it up, honestly, i really wonder how people can say that faith based programs are a violations of the 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."

Then Sue...

 

[RhinofromWA]

Um, Christian values. Things like wanting to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage, over turn Roe V Wade.....little things like that. I'm neither gay nor a woman but those are areas where the gov't has no business IMO.

And some would argue that gay couples have no right getting "married"

So what now? Stalemate and a bunch of posturing.

I personally believe calling it a marriage is not correct. A civil union is to plain but I think it fits the bill if needed. I believe that they should have rights and governemtly fordged unions...but marriage is, to me, a hetero institution

It is like me calling Red when it is clearly Blue. They are both colors and deserve there spot in a crayon box. But To call red, blue (Or the other way around is pointless)

Why can't the union of two like sexed people be called something else? It is, as it turns out different.

Have same sex unions with protections and downfalls of legal unions, but call it something else. I think that road would get same sex couples everything except the title of "Marriage". Isn't that the root of the problem? A title for what the union is?

Don't call it marriage......but that isn't good enough for some. They claim they are being misstreated. I don't think so. I think they are trying to call the color red, blue.

 

[mack]

Gay couples getting married i dont think is so much about religion as it is about 'nature' and taxe breaks. You can argue this subject to death, because yes, it is clearly a religouse based subject. But in terms of government and marriage, gay couples should not get tax breaks cus they cant have kids. Sure they can adopt, but so can a single straight guy.

 

[dan-o]

Have either of those occurred yet?

So I'll ask again.

You are the master of splitting hairs.

How's this" i find it ironic that our government is TRYING to force religious values on the citizens."

My comment to Kornflake is that democracy doesn't need to incorporate religious beliefs, as evidenced elsewhere.

 

[dan-o]

Gay couples getting married i dont think is so much about religion as it is about 'nature' and taxe breaks. You can argue this subject to death, because yes, it is clearly a religouse based subject. But in terms of government and marriage, gay couples should not get tax breaks cus they cant have kids. Sure they can adopt, but so can a single straight guy.

It's actually more about partner rights such as inclusion in health care plans, legal rights etc. It's about religion when the Bible definition of marriage is used as the argument against it. Speaking as a married father, the tax breaks aren't worth jack in the grand scheme of things.

 

[RhinofromWA]

It's actually more about partner rights such as inclusion in health care plans, legal rights etc. It's about religion when the Bible definition of marriage is used as the argument against it. Speaking as a married father, the tax breaks aren't worth jack in the grand scheme of things.

I am sure there are more than a few men that can vouch for that break not being very much....

Actually it is also known as a Marriage "penalty" as far as tax reasons go.

But that does not change the fact that Marraige is the union of a man and a woman....and I am not so religious. That is why I brought up the legal union idea of some sort. Giving unionized couples the access to the pitfalls and messy divorces of all the heteros And that other partner rights....hospital stuff, insurance stuff, etc....

 

[dan-o]

And some would argue that gay couples have no right getting "married"

So what now? Stalemate and a bunch of posturing.

I personally believe calling it a marriage is not correct. A civil union is to plain but I think it fits the bill if needed. I believe that they should have rights and governemtly fordged unions...but marriage is, to me, a hetero institution

It is like me calling Red when it is clearly Blue. They are both colors and deserve there spot in a crayon box. But To call red, blue (Or the other way around is pointless)

Why can't the union of two like sexed people be called something else? It is, as it turns out different.

Have same sex unions with protections and downfalls of legal unions, but call it something else. I think that road would get same sex couples everything except the title of "Marriage". Isn't that the root of the problem? A title for what the union is?

Don't call it marriage......but that isn't good enough for some. They claim they are being misstreated. I don't think so. I think they are trying to call the color red, blue.

I'm not arguing either way as I honestly don't care. It was just a supporting example.

 

[BurlyShirley]

This smiley just about sums up this thread...

 

[Kornphlake]

I'm not arguing either way as I honestly don't care. It was just a supporting example.

The majority of voters disagree with you, like I said earlier, if you're in a minority you have to depend on the majority's sense of responsibility to get your way. I guess in a sense america has voted to ban the separation between church and state. In the end it doesn't really matter, gay's will continue to be gay, they just won't be able to get the economic benefits, such is life, I don't get the economic benefits I did when I was a student, my children won't even get the benefits I did when they're in college.

 

[DRB]

I am so tired of hearing this on the news that I have to clean this up. THERE IS NO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CNN< FOX< NBC!!!

here is what the constitution says to clear it up, honestly, i really wonder how people can say that faith based programs are a violations of the constitution...


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Because they haven't done one of two things...

1. Haven't established a state religion.

2. Haven't passed a law that restricts the free exercise of someone to practice their religion.

That's what that portion of the first amendment means. By supporting faith based programs the government has done neither.

 

[manimal]

It is also ironic that america, formed by people trying to escape religious persecution, allows the religious values of some (even the majority) to be forced on everyone.

actually, to put it correctly, it was formed by people trying to GAIN religious FREEDOM to practice protestant christianity instead of the overly oppressive and invasive catholic government instituted by the monarchy. The original ideal behind the "separation of church and state" was to keep the GOVERNMENT out of the CHURCH, not the way it is today. After all, that is why they left England in the first place.

 

[mack]

thats what Civil Unions are for. Marriage is for tax breaks and making it official.

 

[jaydee]

From Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

 

[BurlyShirley]

So now Webster is defining law. Forget the bible or the Supreme court, everyone just check webster from now one.

 

[smedford]

What is different? If two women or two men love each other, isn't it the same? Wouldn't they take the same vows? I don't think that it should be called a different name just because they are the same sex.

 

[BurlyShirley]

What is different? If two women or two men love each other, isn't it the same? Wouldn't they take the same vows? I don't think that it should be called a different name just because they are the same sex.

So why not just call it marriage when one man and 4 women love each other? Why not call it marriage when a son and daughter love each other and live together? Why not call it marriage when I love bratwurst? Why dont you piss in the sink?
Because traditionally, that's not what's accepted...at least here.

 

[jaydee]

Just adding fuel to the fire; I'm not making any statement of beliefs. I'm happily married to one human female and that works for me. Webster doesn't define law, but it defines the meaning of the word, which would seem to disagree with Rhino and a few others. Unless you can get a bratwurst to form a contractual agreement with you, I don't think you could call it a marriage. And Webster seems to think the bratwurst would have to feel the same way about you as you do about her/him. As far as multiple mates go, Mormons think they can marry more than one. Why anyone would want to is a whole other thing.

 

[manimal]

So why not just call it marriage when one man and 4 women love each other? Why not call it marriage when a son and daughter love each other and live together? Why not call it marriage when I love bratwurst? Why dont you piss in the sink?
Because traditionally, that's not what's accepted...at least here.

all sarcasm aside, BS has a good point. Should the definition of marriage be changed to include same sex, then i assure you that every other focus group will be following suit. if it's ok for homosexuals to wed then why can't a Morman man legally marry more than one spouse? Why can't a NAMBLA member wed his boy lover? if gay marriage passes then would it not be unfair to deny these other dysfunctional groups to wed?

another possible problem to ponder.... with civil unions or marriage of homosexuals, our already taxed health care system could, quite possibly, collapse. The disease rate and healthcare usage is statistically higher in homosexuals. the ability to add a gay lover as "spouse" onto health insurance at the discounted rate provided by civil unions/marriage would be the final straw. insurance is a business of wagering in risks, therefore, allowing a gay couple to purchase the same health plan as a traditionally hetero couple would be financial suicide when the statistical risks are calculated.

 

[jaydee]

if it's ok for homosexuals to wed then why can't a Morman man legally marry more than one spouse? Why can't a NAMBLA member wed his boy lover? if gay marriage passes then would it not be unfair to deny these other dysfunctional groups to wed?

So anyone who doesn't think and act the same way you do is dysfunctional? It's hard to believe that so much of the world has survived despite their dysfunctional behavior. Many societies have been built on multiple-mate unions, marriage between 12 year olds, marriage between older males and adolescent females. It's good that you came along to enlighten them. The ancient Greeks, who had at least a bit of culture, though I'm sure they weren't quite as learned and refined as yourself, had no qualms with homosexuality. Putting gay couples in the same category as pederasts shows where you are coming from in this discussion.

The disease rate and healthcare usage is statistically higher in homosexuals. the ability to add a gay lover as "spouse" onto health insurance at the discounted rate provided by civil unions/marriage would be the final straw. insurance is a business of wagering in risks, therefore, allowing a gay couple to purchase the same health plan as a traditionally hetero couple would be financial suicide when the statistical risks are calculated.

The injury and healthcare usage rate among young males is also high. Maybe we should disallow their health insurance or just chain them to stakes in the backyard until they reach a safe age. I am not an advocate of multiple-mate marriages or pederasty and I am not gay, but your take on this whole issue seems naively intolerant if not downright redneck.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Jaydee, its a shame you've missed out on so many of these type debates that we've had in this forum so you'd know where people were coming from, rather than them having to try and explain it all. I dont think he mean "dysfunctional" in a bad sense, but maybe "abnormal" would have been more apropriate to his point.

 

[mack]

So why not just call it marriage when one man and 4 women love each other? Why not call it marriage when a son and daughter love each other and live together? Why not call it marriage when I love bratwurst? Why dont you piss in the sink?
Because traditionally, that's not what's accepted...at least here.

for once, and only once,

 

[jaydee]

Jaydee, its a shame you've missed out on so many of these type debates that we've had in this forum so you'd know where people were coming from, rather than them having to try and explain it all. I dont think he mean "dysfunctional" in a bad sense, but maybe "abnormal" would have been more apropriate to his point.

Ya, I should check into this forum more often. It's an interesting place, challenges us to go into places we might not ordinarily go and think things through. I agree with the usage of "abnormal" in this case, meaning outside the statistical norm. I didn't mean to go off on Manimal. My back is all messed up and I'm living on Tylenol 3s this weekend, so I'm feeling even more irascible than usual.

 

[Silver]

Why can't a NAMBLA member wed his boy lover? if gay marriage passes then would it not be unfair to deny these other dysfunctional groups to wed?

I really get tired of having to deal with this line of thinking. It's so ****ing stupid, I don't know where to start.

 

[manimal]

I really get tired of having to deal with this line of thinking. It's so ****ing stupid, I don't know where to start.

so tell me, oh wise and jaded one, why is this theory so hard to fathom in todays "tolerant" society? you can't honestly believe that the ACLU wouldn't jump all over the chance to fight for the right of a man to marry more than one wife if the definition of marriage was up for grabs. c'mon, you know as well as i do that it could easily happen in this "i'm special and i deserve special rights and if you don't agree your a biggot/redneck" society

jaydee- perhaps using the word "dysfunctional" wasn't the best choice for some of the situations....but you're telling me that you think NAMBLA is just plain 'ole everday "normal"? i don't care how liberal you are, that's just epitomizes the word "dysfunctional".

redneck? no. firm in my convictions....yes. and don't even bother trying to play the "ignorant" card, do a search on this topic and learn my background. (dad WAS gay...and no, i'm not bitter and don't have issues with this....would i be telling potentially the world via the internet if i was bitter or ashamed?) i just have a lot of firsthand knowledge in the area of sexual addictions, which is more than the average, "i have a friend who's gay and so i know what they're going through" activist.

 

[Silver]

Well, I was referring to the NAMBLA one, my quote of you left a little to be desired, if that helps to clear things up.

If not, I'll be glad to elaborate.

 

[valve bouncer]

Really Manimal it's not hard to figure out mate. I think it goes along the lines of consenting adults or something like that.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Really Manimal it's not hard to figure out mate. I think it goes along the lines of consenting adults or something like that.

Wich has nothing to do with marriage.....historically.

Like I said before.....I think the road to equality would be alot easier if supporters of gay marriage if they didn't insist on calling it marriage. Marriage a word with a heavy religious origin.

Call it something else....because it is....and have the gay couple commit them selves in life and have it recognized by the government.

You are trying to change the meaning of a word to fit your life. It isn't marriage....but it is a commitment. It is not the "same" or else there wouldn't be an issue. I don't think I am being unreasonable here.....I think the ones calling an "apple an orange" are the ones being unreasonable