YOUR OPINION ON GAY RIGHTS?

[EpiPaul03]

you CANNOT use religion as a device for legislation. freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. imagine what all you xians would do if a bunch of muslims took over and started legislating THEIR religion here...you'd be up in arms, and that's what us NON xians are saying...don't make laws that apply to me based off of YOUR beliefs. that's what separation of church and state is all about.

 

 

But everyone who is not completely blind knows that no matter what the law says about freedom of/from religion, it is everywhere in this country. Like it or not, this is a Christian founded nation. It dates all the way back to the first settlers such as William Bradford and the rest of the Puritans. It is impossible to rid the country of these morals and values. Look at all the laws, for had it not been for religion some kind religious background, would not be in existance. Everything is influenced by a creator, and our creators were for the most part Christians.

 

You are confusing what is on paper and what happens in reality. In a strict sense, no, religion should not be in law. But in reality, yes, it does happen and it's inevitable.

[knucklefux]

Again, it's tradition that marriage is between a man and a woman. It was that way back thousands of years ago. And seeing as how religion wasn't even involved in the first marriages, the tradition isn't related to religion. Many people look at this tradition and feel it should be the same way, regardless of what religion they belong to. So no, religion is not the ultimate cause for this point of view.

 

 

 

i see you totally ignored the part where i said that traditions change. it used to be traditional for blacks to sit in the back of the bus. before that, it was traditional for them to pick cotton.

 

you've got to leave tradition out of it, because tradition has nothing to do with right and wrong.

 

and agnostic just means you lack the courage of your convictions, which means that any disparaging remarks from you are the essence of irony. nothing like being insulted by a coward.

[telephant]

But everyone who is not completely blind knows that no matter what the law says about freedom of/from religion, it is everywhere in this country. Like it or not, this is a Christian founded nation. It dates all the way back to the first settlers such as William Bradford and the rest of the Puritans. It is impossible to rid the country of these morals and values. Look at all the laws, for had it not been for religion some kind religious background, would not be in existance. Everything is influenced by a creator, and our creators were for the most part Christians. You are confusing what is on paper and what happens in reality. In a strict sense, no, religion should not be in law. But in reality, yes, it does happen and it's inevitable.

Congrats on defining exactly whats wrong with this country.

[knucklefux]

But everyone who is not completely blind knows that no matter what the law says about freedom of/from religion, it is everywhere in this country. Like it or not, this is a Christian founded nation. It dates all the way back to the first settlers such as William Bradford and the rest of the Puritans. It is impossible to rid the country of these morals and values. Look at all the laws, for had it not been for religion some kind religious background, would not be in existance. Everything is influenced by a creator, and our creators were for the most part Christians. You are confusing what is on paper and what happens in reality. In a strict sense, no, religion should not be in law. But in reality, yes, it does happen and it's inevitable.

 

 

 

WRONG!!! this country was founded by deists. get your facts together, n00b.

[EpiPaul03]

how the hell do you know religion wasnt involved in the first marriages? oh wait, you dont. no one knows that.

 

 

It is said that religion was not involved in the first marriages because the most likely reason people would marry would be for some sort of personal gain, whether it being marrying royal blood or marrying to have alliances with others.

 

"How old is the institution?

The best available evidence suggests that it

[Neilrocks25]

[EpiPaul03]

WRONG!!! this country was founded by deists. get your facts together, n00b.

 

 

I believe it was William Bradford and the Puritans who laid the foundations of the first constitution of the United States on Plymouth Rock in 1620. This was the foundation of our Constitution that we have today, so any other settlements you may be speaking of are irrelevant. This is what historians point to as the beginnings of America.

[EpiPaul03]

i see you totally ignored the part where i said that traditions change. it used to be traditional for blacks to sit in the back of the bus. before that, it was traditional for them to pick cotton. you've got to leave tradition out of it, because tradition has nothing to do with right and wrong. and agnostic just means you lack the courage of your convictions, which means that any disparaging remarks from you are the essence of irony. nothing like being insulted by a coward.

I see you totally ignored my statement that freedom, justice, and equality are all relative.

[Neilrocks25]

I said

[EpiPaul03]

and agnostic just means you lack the courage of your convictions, which means that any disparaging remarks from you are the essence of irony. nothing like being insulted by a coward.

 

 

I'm an agnostic because I'm not going to deny the possibility of something existing that probably could not be proven against nor could we understand if it did in fact exist. Agnostics are by default atheists, you do know, right?

[knucklefux]

I'm an agnostic because I'm not going to deny the possibility of something existing that probably could not be proven against nor could we understand if it did in fact exist. Agnostics are by default atheists, you do know, right?

 

 

i didn't question WHY you claim agnosticism, i STATED that agnostics are cowards. agnostic=/=atheist. they ARE NOT synonyms. i'm an atheist, which means i do not believe that there is a god. that is not nearly the same as saying that there MIGHT be a god.

 

and explain to me, oh wise one, how EQUALITY is anything but absolute.

 

you're full of {censored}, and your neocon influences show much too easily. shouldn't you be watching fox news?

[EpiPaul03]

i didn't question WHY you claim agnosticism, i STATED that agnostics are cowards. agnostic=/=atheist. they ARE NOT synonyms. i'm an atheist, which means i do not believe that there is a god. that is not nearly the same as saying that there MIGHT be a god. and explain to me, oh wise one, how EQUALITY is anything but absolute. you're full of {censored}, and your neocon influences show much too easily. shouldn't you be watching fox news?

Agnostics are by default atheists you dumbass, did you miss that statement?

By the way, I love, just love, how you are so judgemental to think that I watch fox news and I'm some ultra-conservative guy. I bet you would be shocked to know that I support, what, abortion?! Yes, I do. It seems to me that you are blaming me for being judgemental, but let's see who is actually judging who here. You spout off all this {censored} about how we judge gays, yet you come back and judge me. And let me guess "I deserved to be judged". Bull{censored}, hypocrite.

[knucklefux]

Agnostics are by default atheists you dumbass, did you miss that statement? By the way, I love, just love, how you are so judgemental to think that I watch fox news and I'm some ultra-conservative guy. I bet you would be shocked to know that I support, what, abortion?! Yes, I do. It seems to me that you are blaming me for being judgemental, but let's see who is actually judging who here. You spout off all this {censored} about how we judge gays, yet you come back and judge me. And let me guess "I deserved to be judged". Bull{censored}, hypocrite.

 

 

from this site: http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm

 

"Are agnostics atheists?

 

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial."

 

 

so, who's the dumbass?

 

as to whether or not i judge you, i don't know where you got that idea. and i never really said anything about you bigots judging gays, either. that's what's known as a straw man argument...look it up. the very concept of judgment is predominantly xian in nature...funny that YOU brought it up. and just because you support abortion doesn't mean you're not a neocon. keep drinking the kool aid...you seem to like the taste.

[EpiPaul03]

from this site: http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm "Are agnostics atheists? No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial." so, who's the dumbass? as to whether or not i judge you, i don't know where you got that idea. and i never really said anything about you bigots judging gays, either. that's what's known as a straw man argument...look it up. the very concept of judgment is predominantly xian in nature...funny that YOU brought it up. and just because you support abortion doesn't mean you're not a neocon. keep drinking the kool aid...you seem to like the taste.

 

 

I never said that agnostics and atheists were equal, did I? I simply stated that by DEFAULT, agnostics are atheists.

[EpiPaul03]

 

and explain to me, oh wise one, how EQUALITY is anything but absolute.

 

 

Eqaulity is highly based on the principle of justice, which is relative of in and of itself. Factors such as environment, society, and others all contribute to eqaulity being relative to the person you are.

[knucklefux]

and your statement was WRONG! i'm not gonna argue facts with you, i've got better {censored} to do.

 

you need to learn what "by default" means, and then go to that site that i linked, and read it so that YOU WILL KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT YOU BELIEVE!

 

atheists believe, as xians do, that one can know the nature of god. atheists say there is no god. agnostics just say there is not enough evidence to support in belief in, or lack of belief in, god. this means that YOU ARE WRONG!

 

you should really consider arguing with people who are less informed.

[knucklefux]

Eqaulity is highly based on the principle of justice, which is relative of in and of itself. Factors such as environment, society, and others all contribute to eqaulity being relative to the person you are.

 

 

oh yeah? then you don't understand english.

 

e

[EpiPaul03]

Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, verb, e

[knucklefux]

we're not talking about the treatment of criminals, we're talking about RIGHTS. in your example, they were both given the right to a trial. THAT is equality. to apply your example to this situation, if one of the murderers were gay, the gay man would just be summarily executed while the straight man was given a trial. just because justice is served in one case and not the other has nothing to do with whether they were treated equally.

 

the case here is that a man (or woman) can't marry someone of the same gender.

 

i'll ask again...WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THIS PROHIBITED?

 

the constitution is the law of the land, and it does not prohibit same sex marriage. since the constitution is in place to defend the rights and equality of all citizens, it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. that's it. there is nothing else.

[EpiPaul03]

we're not talking about the treatment of criminals, we're talking about RIGHTS. in your example, they were both given the right to a trial. THAT is equality. to apply your example to this situation, if one of the murderers were gay, the gay man would just be summarily executed while the straight man was given a trial. just because justice is served in one case and not the other has nothing to do with whether they were treated equally. the case here is that a man (or woman) can't marry someone of the same gender. i'll ask again...WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THIS PROHIBITED? the constitution is the law of the land, and it does not prohibit same sex marriage. since the constitution is in place to defend the rights and equality of all citizens, it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. that's it. there is nothing else.

 

 

It's not in the constitution, and I never said it was in the Constitution. But there are plenty of other laws in effect that aren't in the constitution, either.

 

For example:

 

I'm 18. I can go to war in Iraq and die for my country; I can buy porn; I can buy cigarettes, which we all know aren't the best for one's health. But I can't sit back on the weekends and have a beer with my buddies. If I'm a legal adult and have all the responsibilities any other adult has, I don't see why I can't have a beer. I sure as hell have equal opportunity to serve my country, but I don't have equal opportunity to get alcohol. In other societies around the world, there are plenty of normal, functioning societies with the drinking age as low as 21.

 

But you know what, it's the law. Your idea of our democracy is what's on paper, the ideal. But like I said, it's not that way in reality.

[chrispsullivan]

It's not in the constitution, and I never said it was in the Constitution. But there are plenty of other laws in effect that aren't in the constitution, either. For example: I'm 18. I can go to war in Iraq and die for my country; I can buy porn; I can buy cigarettes, which we all know aren't the best for one's health. But I can't sit back on the weekends and have a beer with my buddies. If I'm a legal adult and have all the responsibilities any other adult has, I don't see why I can't have a beer. I sure as hell have equal opportunity to serve my country, but I don't have equal opportunity to get alcohol. In other societies around the world, there are plenty of normal, functioning societies with the drinking age as low as 21. But you know what, it's the law. Your idea of a democracy is what's on paper, the ideal. But like I said, it's not that way in reality.

 

 

his point is that the constitution distributes rights equally among everyone. you cant ban someone from marriage just because theyre the same sex. the constitution MUST protect everyone equally.

[Divine Inferno]

 

I never said that agnostics and atheists were equal, did I? I simply stated that by DEFAULT, agnostics are atheists.

 

 

What the {censored} are you trying to say with "by default"? Whatever you think you're trying to say, you've got things really mixed up right now.

[medvejonok]

It's not in the constitution, and I never said it was in the Constitution. But there are plenty of other laws in effect that aren't in the constitution, either. For example: I'm 18. I can go to war in Iraq and die for my country; I can buy porn; I can buy cigarettes, which we all know aren't the best for one's health. But I can't sit back on the weekends and have a beer with my buddies. If I'm a legal adult and have all the responsibilities any other adult has, I don't see why I can't have a beer. I sure as hell have equal opportunity to serve my country, but I don't have equal opportunity to get alcohol. In other societies around the world, there are plenty of normal, functioning societies with the drinking age as low as 21. But you know what, it's the law. Your idea of our democracy is what's on paper, the ideal. But like I said, it's not that way in reality.

 

 

Maybe the law should be changed, maybe it shouldn't. The point is that alcohol is illegal for all people under 21 regardless of color, gender, creed, national origin, religion, or sexuality.

 

As for your example of two murderers, every case is handled differently in terms of evidence available, the handling of the case by investigators and prosecutors, the quality of the defense, etc. However, every defendant is entitled to have uniform standards applied to the process. If one is found innocent despite their actual guilt, it simply means that the state didn't have sufficient tools to convict them, whether in terms of evidence, proper procedural protocol, or poor lawyering. This is the way the system is set up, with the burden on the state, to minimize the number of innocents who are wrongly convicted. Despite the ideals and safeguards of our system (which is supposed to be blindly egalitarian), numerous innocent people have in fact been wrongly convicted and even executed. The flaw that allows this to happen is not the framework of our system of government, but rather is the biases and failings of human nature.

 

Likewise, human failings (like religious dogma and bigotry) are the reason states haved felt it necessary to actively legislate outright bans on same-sex marriage, despite what I believe to be the inescapable fact that these laws are unconstitutional in the eyes of the law.