No, I have nothing more to add to this article other than to say that it is a very well-written one on the fundie right-wing takeover of Christianity in this country.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/32/features-lewis.php

Excellent, excellent article.

Thank you Borg for this fine article.

but it is generally the right that tries to kepp christian values like banning gay marriage alive. just because this isnt your belief doesnt make it a 'takeover'. there have always been a religious right. the democrats have just turned away from religion more

Banning gay marriage is not a Christian value.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Banning gay marriage is not a Christian value.

right. i said this wrong. traditional marriage is something that many christians want. i for one dont care if they marry or not, but many christians think that we have to stop gay marriage because to be gay is a horrible thing (you know people think thsi. for example spencer does). even though church shouldnt be mixed with state people think it is morally wrong to have gay marriaqge

Originally posted by no moore please
traditional marriage is something that many christians want.

Just a side note on that comment. During school we were learning about the Renaissance. And it was ironic how marriage in those days, was not about “love” or “religion” but about improving your social status and or wealth. Which is why parents would arrange their marriages, and try and fit them with the best suitable man to improve their status and or income.

So marriage has not always been about religious reasons…

Great article Borg. I find it interesting to note that a great number of Christians, when asked why Jesus died, will say something like "he died for our sins", when the question really should be "why was Jesus murdered?". The answer to that is...politics.

Originally posted by Overdose
Just a side note on that comment. During school we were learning about the Renaissance. And it was ironic how marriage in those days, was not about “love” or “religion” but about improving your social status and or wealth. Which is why parents would arrange their marriages, and try and fit them with the best suitable man to improve their status and or income.

So marriage has not always been about religious reasons…


and the catholics killed jews and muslims like there was no tomorrow. i am just saying what most people know. really religious christians dont like gay marriage

This article is nothing more than extremist propaganda.

Looks more like an attempt by the left to co-opt Jesus for their narrow political purposes to me.

Liberals have the right to support whatever issues they want, including gay "marriage". However, intentionally misrepresenting a major religion's view on this and other issues is pure bigotry.

However, intentionally misrepresenting a major religion's view on this and other issues is pure bigotry.
He wasn't interpreting a "major religion"'s views. Christianity isn't a major religion, because frankly I have yet to meet a Christian. I've met Catholics and Baptists and Methodists and others, but never a Christian. That was his point. Those major religions can skew their predecesor religion as much as they want, just as long as they don't call themselves by the same name as their predecesor religion.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
This article is nothing more than extremist propaganda.

Well...it must be if YOU don't agree with its conclusions.

Looks more like an attempt by the left to co-opt Jesus for their narrow political purposes to me.

Actually the article was about how various groups have used what they call Christianity to put forward their political agendas. Of course it MUST be the "left" that's doing it because no one else would be so dastardly.

Liberals have the right to support whatever issues they want, including gay "marriage". However, intentionally misrepresenting a major religion's view on this and other issues is pure bigotry.

Exactly what views of Chistianity were misrepresented, and which brand of Christianity were you referring to?

I do hope you realize that not all Christian sects agree on every issue.

Originally posted by Vilepagan

Actually the article was about how various groups have used what they call Christianity to put forward their political agendas. Of course it MUST be the "left" that's doing it because no one else would be so dastardly.


Exactly what views of Chistianity were misrepresented, and which brand of Christianity were you referring to?

I do hope you realize that not all Christian sects agree on every issue.

Although I'm tempted to agree with your first statement, Vil, I must submit that this type of propaganda is present on both the left and the right.

I contend that any reasonable person would agree that the purpose of this particular article is to preach to the choir of the far left, rather than to provide any persuasuive evidence to support the contention that Jesus has been co-opted by the right. That being the case, this article falls far short of a standard of "excellence".

Of course, I realize that not all Christians agree on every issue. My point is that over the last half-century, mainline American denominations have increasingly moved toward the left, which would militate against the point of the article.

Originally posted by Blibblob
He wasn't interpreting a "major religion"'s views. Christianity isn't a major religion, because frankly I have yet to meet a Christian. I've met Catholics and Baptists and Methodists and others, but never a Christian. That was his point. Those major religions can skew their predecesor religion as much as they want, just as long as they don't call themselves by the same name as their predecesor religion.

I've met plenty of Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, and members of other denominations who call themselves Christian. Although I may disagree with their views, I'm not going to tell them, "Hey pal, you're not a Christian, you've skewed the predecessor religion".

The author of the LA weekly article does not claim that Christianity is not a major religion. She does not claim that there are no Christians, only Baptists, Methodists, etc. That was not her point.

Her point was that Jesus is being co-opted by the right.

I disagree with her. I think the exact opposite is true.

This article, doesn't shine any light on the debate. Since the author seems relatively intelligent, I'm unable to blame her misinformation on ignorance. Therefore I must assume that her purpose, and that of those who would support her, is to simply insult a large class of people with whom they disagree.

And that crosses the line into bigotry.

I've met plenty of Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, and members of other denominations who call themselves Christian. Although I may disagree with their views, I'm not going to tell them, "Hey pal, you're not a Christian, you've skewed the predecessor religion".
Yeah, they call themselves Christians, but frankly the vast majority of them probably aren't. I haven't met a person who claimed to be Christian but actually lived by that faith. The bible was forgotten for dogma.

The author of the LA weekly article does not claim that Christianity is not a major religion. She does not claim that there are no Christians, only Baptists, Methodists, etc. That was not her point.
The specific point was to say that Christianity has been skewered by politicians and such who aren't Christian. You said "extremist", I gave you extremist.

I disagree with her. I think the exact opposite is true.
And where do you get that? Most leftists I know aren't religious at all. Some democrats are, but frankly they're closer to the bible than the hard right. That's kind of where the term "Religious Right" came from. I've never heard of the "Religious Left", you might have to introduce me some day.

Misinformation? Where? I'm quite prejudiced against bigots, and my bigot radar didn't go off while reading the article, you might have to explain that one.

Yeah, they call themselves Christians, but frankly the vast majority of them probably aren't. I haven't met a person who claimed to be Christian but actually lived by that faith. The bible was forgotten for dogma.
I humbly submit that neither you nor I am qualified to make that judgement. Someone who has met no Christians who live by that faith, has either met very few Christians, or doesn't understand the Christian faith.

You said "extremist", I gave you extremist.
On this point, we agree.

Most leftists I know aren't religious at all. Some democrats are, but frankly they're closer to the bible than the hard right. That's kind of where the term "Religious Right" came from. I've never heard of the "Religious Left", you might have to introduce me some day.
True, most people on the left wing are not religious, but an examination of mainline denominations in America shows that many of the churches have embraced left wing social morals. The term "Religious Right" was invented by extremists to slander Christians. They do not use the term "Religious Left" because they agree with the viewpoint of liberal Christians, and do not want to defame them.

I'm quite prejudiced against bigots, and my bigot radar didn't go off while reading the article, you might have to explain that one.
Perhaps it's because you agree with this particular brand of bigotry.

I humbly submit that neither you nor I am qualified to make that judgement. Someone who has met no Christians who live by that faith, has either met very few Christians, or doesn't understand the Christian faith.
I read the bible, and I don't see anything that says "Make war", "Hate other races, religions, sexes, beliefs". I saw, "Love thy neighbor", "Love thine enemy". I saw it preaching tolerance, a Sameritan helping a Jew, that must have pissed off the Jews that were listening to him. I could have sworn Jesus said that the one who has not sinned be the first to throw the stone. I don't see this in major religions, I don't see this in "Christians", and I damn well don't see that in the politicians.

True, most people on the left wing are not religious, but an examination of mainline denominations in America shows that many of the churches have embraced left wing social morals.
You mean the ones in the bible? Are "Christians" finally becoming Christian? They probably still have a long way to go.

The term "Religious Right" was invented by extremists to slander Christians.
Slander christians? The Religious Right consists of bigots and assholes like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I don't know of anybody else who is so distorted in their views of Chrisianity then them. Point out one thing they say that Jesus said.

Perhaps it's because you agree with this particular brand of bigotry.
I'm not bigoted or predjudice against Christians, I am against "Christians". You can call that bigotry, I'll call it recognising assholes for who they are. I'm sorry if the highly liberal Jesus doesn't fit into the hard right's politics very well.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Although I'm tempted to agree with your first statement, Vil, I must submit that this type of propaganda is present on both the left and the right.

I would agree that both the right and the left are capable of producing propaganda.

I contend that any reasonable person would agree that the purpose of this particular article is to preach to the choir of the far left, rather than to provide any persuasuive evidence to support the contention that Jesus has been co-opted by the right. That being the case, this article falls far short of a standard of "excellence".

I think that the salient point of the article was that the teachings of Jesus are often ignored by the far right-wing.

Of course, I realize that not all Christians agree on every issue. My point is that over the last half-century, mainline American denominations have increasingly moved toward the left, which would militate against the point of the article.

Perhaps the main-line denominations have, but that has just increased the extremism of the far-right.

The idea here is that fundamentally all Christian denominations trace their roots, or should, to the teachings of Jesus. After all that's why they call themselves "Christians" and not "Mosesites", or "Biblicans". The Bible itself revolves around the teachings of Jesus and the followers who believed in his divinity and the subsequent salvation of his followers. The point of the article is that the far right has moved away from the core teachings of jesus, e.g. tolerance, charity, and love for one's fellow man, and now preaches intolerance and hatred for those who do not believe as they do. The same cannot be said for the far left in this country.

Okay Vil, a couple of points:

1) Traditional values only seem extreme today because of how far the U.S. has fallen towards the left. Values called "far-right" today, were mainstream a few decades ago.

2) You seemed to indicate that "intolerance" and "hatred for those who do not believe as they do" do not exist on the far-left. I'm quite certain I misunderstood you, as this is patently false.

If you read liberal newspaper columnists, listen to liberal talk radio, and see what other liberals post in forums like this, you see that plenty of hatred and intolerance spews from the far-left.

(I tried to respond earlier, in the usual "bullet" format, but I had technical difficulties, most likely due to my own technological ineptitude.):@@:

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Okay Vil, a couple of points:

1) Traditional values only seem extreme today because of how far the U.S. has fallen towards the left. Values called "far-right" today, were mainstream a few decades ago.

Okay Unc, let's discuss "traditional" values. Do you mean traditional for white Americans or black Americans? Your family's traditions or mine? A few decades ago it was "traditional" to arrest whites and blacks who married each other in Virginia. 150 years ago it was "traditional" to keep slaves.

Traditions change over time and from one part of our society to another. What's traditional for you might be a radical departure from the norm for someone else. The fact that some things that were mainstream decades ago are now considered far-right doesn't mean we've drifted to the left, it means our values have changed.

2) You seemed to indicate that "intolerance" and "hatred for those who do not believe as they do" do not exist on the far-left. I'm quite certain I misunderstood you, as this is patently false.

If you read liberal newspaper columnists, listen to liberal talk radio, and see what other liberals post in forums like this, you see that plenty of hatred and intolerance spews from the far-left.



I'm sure there is a certain amount of intolerance from the far-left directed towards the far-right, but I don't hear calls by liberals to criminalize the behavior of people from the far right who are anti-gay. I don't see liberals proposing censorship. I dont see or hear anything from the left that I would describe as "hatred" directed towards the right. Yes, some freaks like ELF are starting fires and whatnot, but you don't see the politicians from the left trying to pass legislation that would deny a segment of society of their rights, nor do you see the politicians from the left trying to bring their personal religious beliefs into the political arena.

Originally posted by Vilepagan

I'm sure there is a certain amount of intolerance from the far-left directed towards the far-right, but I don't hear calls by liberals to criminalize the behavior of people from the far right who are anti-gay. I don't see liberals proposing censorship. I dont see or hear anything from the left that I would describe as "hatred" directed towards the right. Yes, some freaks like ELF are starting fires and whatnot, but you don't see the politicians from the left trying to pass legislation that would deny a segment of society of their rights, nor do you see the politicians from the left trying to bring their personal religious beliefs into the political arena.

aclu (http://www.aclu.org)

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org)

People "for" the American Way (http://www.pfaw.org)

Just click on any of the above links for hate speech, attempts to censor, and people trying to force their (anti) religious beliefs on others.

Also, read the New York Times editorial page. Then browse on over to the "news" section and look for the article of the man in Sweden jailed for denouncing homosexuality, and Canada's "hate-speech" laws.

If you still think the left is largely tolerant, you're not being honest.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
If you still think the left is largely tolerant, you're not being honest.

I still think the left is largely tolerant, in this country anyway. The far left is not. 4.5 years on campus demonstrated that pretty clearly.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
aclu (http://www.aclu.org)

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org)

People "for" the American Way (http://www.pfaw.org)

Just click on any of the above links for hate speech, attempts to censor, and people trying to force their (anti) religious beliefs on others.

Why do you describe being for the separation of church and state as "anti-religious"?

Perhaps you could show me an example of "hate speech" by the ACLU...censorship? I doubt it.


If you still think the left is largely tolerant, you're not being honest.

Perhaps you have some actual examples of censorship by the left, or anti-religious sentiments...all you've posted are three links and suggested that all I need to do is look inside and I'll see these things...

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Why do you describe being for the separation of church and state as "anti-religious"?

Perhaps you could show me an example of "hate speech" by the ACLU...censorship? I doubt it.



Perhaps you have some actual examples of censorship by the left, or anti-religious sentiments...all you've posted are three links and suggested that all I need to do is look inside and I'll see these things...

Yes. All you have to do is click on the links. These groups are happy to post all kinds of instances where they have abused the judiciary to deny people their First Amendment rights.

The reason you're having such a hard time recoginizing left-wing hate speech and intolerance is that it is so prevalent, we've all gotten used to it.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Yes. All you have to do is click on the links. These groups are happy to post all kinds of instances where they have abused the judiciary to deny people their First Amendment rights.

The reason you're having such a hard time recoginizing left-wing hate speech and intolerance is that it is so prevalent, we've all gotten used to it.
Please post specific instances. We can't debate the way you're providing your "evidence".

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Yes. All you have to do is click on the links. These groups are happy to post all kinds of instances where they have abused the judiciary to deny people their First Amendment rights.

Then cite one...

The reason you're having such a hard time recoginizing left-wing hate speech and intolerance is that it is so prevalent, we've all gotten used to it.

I think I recognize intolerance when I see it but so far you've shown me none...

If have heaps of evidence that proves you utterly wrong...all you have to do is look for it in here...*points towards the internet*...:rolleyes:

How does one "abuse" the judiciary?

Okay, I'll try it one last time. This article:aclu abuses court to violate free speech (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16102&c=38)

you will see an example of the aclu restricting the right for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in the courtroom. Although there is no Constitutional prohibition for this display of the basis of many of our laws, the hate groups nebulously cite "The First Amendment" to justify their actual violation of same.

Now the aclu web site has pages and pages of articles on court cases they are bringing to restrict the religious speech of students, teachers, and even public park goers.

Now. There's another example. I really don't think I should need to post each link to each instance when the aclu has done such a fine job of organizing examples of their intolerance for all to see.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
you will see an example of the aclu restricting the right for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in the courtroom. Although there is no Constitutional prohibition for this display of the basis of many of our laws, the hate groups nebulously cite "The First Amendment" to justify their actual violation of same.
Um, yes there is, and you stated it: the First Amendment. The government cannot show preference to one religion over another. I don't see how you can just dismiss that argument as "nebulous".

And how is that violating the First Amendment? Wait, let me guess: they're curtailing the judge's right to free speech? Let me spell it out for you:

Citizen putting religious statue on own private property = OK.

Employee of the government putting religious statue on government property = showing preference to one religion over another.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
you will see an example of the aclu restricting the right for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in the courtroom. Although there is no Constitutional prohibition for this display of the basis of many of our laws, the hate groups nebulously cite "The First Amendment" to justify their actual violation of same.

When the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly supported your position it's not considered abuse of the judiciary.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BorgHunter
Um, yes there is, and you stated it: the First Amendment. The government cannot show preference to one religion over another. I don't see how you can just dismiss that argument as "nebulous".

So, which religion did the judge prefer? Was it Islam? If so, what branch, Shi'a? Sunni? Or was it Judaism? Orthodox? Reformed? Maybe you think it was Christian, and since your buddy Borg says there are no Christians anymore, it must be Catholic. No wait, Baptist. Methodist, maybe? Or perhaps Orthodox. No, wait, Pentecostal. That must be it.

If you are going to state that this judge respects the establishment of a religion, you must state which one it is. You cannot in this case, therefore, posting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom does not violate the Establishment Clause.

And how is that violating the First Amendment? Wait, let me guess: they're curtailing the judge's right to free speech? Let me spell it out for you:

Because the First Amendment prohibits the restriction of the free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you must check your religious convictions at the door, just because you work for the government.

Citizen putting religious statue on own private property = OK.
Well, you are right about ONE thing, although I suspect the extremists will try to stop that, too.

Employee of the government putting religious statue on government property = showing preference to one religion over another.
Maybe. It depends on what the statue is. However, placing a statue on government property does not constitute making a law, so it still would not violate the First Amendment.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
When the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly supported your position it's not considered abuse of the judiciary.

It is when the Supreme Court discards the Constitution when making those decisions.

Or perhaps you agree with Dred Scott

I give up, Mr. Duck. You are obviously too sure of your beliefs to be convinced of anything, and you are obviously living in Fantasy World if you think Scalia, Thomas, and Moore are protecting the Constitution rather than using it as toilet paper. Ignorance must really be bliss, as they say.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I give up, Mr. Duck. You are obviously too sure of your beliefs to be convinced of anything, and you are obviously living in Fantasy World if you think Scalia, Thomas, and Moore are protecting the Constitution rather than using it as toilet paper. Ignorance must really be bliss, as they say.

Gee, Borg. I'm sorry you feel that way. God bless you though.:)

Now, where did that fire-breathing dragon hide my pixie dust on this blissfully happy day?:D ;) :p

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
These groups are happy to post all kinds of instances where they have abused the judiciary to deny people their First Amendment rights.


You seem to think it would be OK for a judge to put the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the courthouse, or hang them from the wall of "his" courtroom because it's an expression of his religious freedom. The fact is that his courtroom isn't "his", It's a public place and his religious beliefs have no business being there whether they are "Christian" beliefs or not. I doubt as a Christian that you would feel that you were going to get a fair trial if you went to court and saw pentagrams and black candles adorning the halls of justice, while you were waiting for the judge to finish sacrificing a goat.

You are all for the Christian faith being allowed into our public buildings and our government, but I wonder how you'd feel if it was a religion that you personally didn't believe in.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the moment we tear down the wall of separation between church and state is the moment various Christian denominations start fighting with each other over which is the correct version of the 10 commandments gets posted or whether or not the Pope's picture should go in the courthouse.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
You seem to think it would be OK for a judge to put the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the courthouse, or hang them from the wall of "his" courtroom because it's an expression of his religious freedom. The fact is that his courtroom isn't "his", It's a public place and his religious beliefs have no business being there whether they are "Christian" beliefs or not.

It is appropriate to post the Ten Commandments in a courtroom because it is a document that has had a profound influence on our laws. Yes, the courtroom is a public place. It does not belong to the judge any more than the Oval Office belongs to the President. However, the Constitution does not prohibit a judge from posting a document, widely held in esteem by the Founders and applicable to our laws, in a public place. As one of the bases of our law, it is appropriate and Constitutional to post the Ten Commandments regardless of their religious connotation. I would agree that it would be inappropriate to post other sacred scripture that had no basis in our laws, in a courtroom.

I doubt as a Christian that you would feel that you were going to get a fair trial if you went to court and saw pentagrams and black candles adorning the halls of justice, while you were waiting for the judge to finish sacrificing a goat.

Moot. Almost everyone who loses a court case feels they were treated unfairly. Do you believe all U.S. Supreme Court cases are adjudicated unfairly just because there is a depiction of Moses carrying the Ten Commandments in their courtroom?

I would not condone the burning of black candles or sacrificing a goat in a courtroom, just as no one is saying we should have baptisms, circumcisions, or communion. These are religious rites which have no bearing on our laws.

You are all for the Christian faith being allowed into our public buildings and our government, but I wonder how you'd feel if it was a religion that you personally didn't believe in.

Let's say that the Pentagram you mentioned earlier represents a document that the Founding Fathers held in high esteem. Let's also say we had laws against stealing, lying and murdering which we could trace back to this document. Then, I would accept this document being posted in a courtroom as a matter of our national legal heritage, even though it may contain religious language personally offensive to my own religious convictions.

I don't care whether my judge is Pagan, Muslim, atheist, or whatever. I care that he/she supports the rule of law.

It doesn't matter how I feel anyway. What matters is that the U.S. Constitution does not give the right to the judiciary to restrict this kind of speech.

originally posted by LionelHutz
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the moment we tear down the wall of separation between church and state is the moment various Christian denominations start fighting with each other over which is the correct version of the 10 commandments gets posted or whether or not the Pope's picture should go in the courthouse.

Personally, even as a Protestant, I don't care whether or not a judge posts a picture of the Pope, or Mohammed, or whomever in the courtroom as long as he followed the rule of law in his judgments. Most courtroom depictions of the 10 commandments, like the one in the Supreme Court, and the one in the Alabama courthouse are small representations anyway, not the entire text, so I don't see a whole lot of problems over which "version" they would post.

Far more troubling than this is the fact that President Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, assuring them they would not be discriminated against, and the left has taken a phrase from this letter, applied it in the exact opposite way Jefferson intended, and given it Constitutional authority.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

It is appropriate to post the Ten Commandments in a courtroom because it is a document that has had a profound influence on our laws. Yes, the courtroom is a public place. It does not belong to the judge any more than the Oval Office belongs to the President. However, the Constitution does not prohibit a judge from posting a document, widely held in esteem by the Founders and applicable to our laws, in a public place. As one of the bases of our law, it is appropriate and Constitutional to post the Ten Commandments regardless of their religious connotation. I would agree that it would be inappropriate to post other sacred scripture that had no basis in our laws, in a courtroom.

There are three commandments which are currently reflected in the laws of most states, the ones prohibiting killing, stealing, and lying. Some states may still have laws against adultery as well. I would also like to point out that the Ten Commandments are not a list of Civil Laws they are a list of transgressions against God, and the laws against lying, only prohibit it under certain circumstances. So we have maybe four out of ten that actually have any bearing on our laws whatsoever, yet you claim this means that this document has had a profound effect on our laws. I would disagree.

Since the code of Hammurabi, most civilized societies have outlawed killing, stealing, and lying to the authorities, yet people are fond of claiming that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. I think it's wishful thinking on their part. The laws of this country are based on English Common law, not the Ten Commandments.

You also state that the Ten Commandments was held in high esteem by our founding fathers, and while this would be true in the case of some of them, it would be equally utrue for other members of that group. What we can be sure of, is that the founding fathers were very intent on keeping religion out of government. The evidence for this is the fact that the very first sentence of the first amendment to the Constitution says that Congress will make no laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Let's say that the Pentagram you mentioned earlier represents a document that the Founding Fathers held in high esteem. Let's also say we had laws against stealing, lying and murdering which we could trace back to this document. Then, I would accept this document being posted in a courtroom as a matter of our national legal heritage, even though it may contain religious language personally offensive to my own religious convictions.

Your contention that we can trace our laws back to the Ten Commandments is one of convenience. You can trace these laws back farther than that. You may believe that they are based on this religious document but it's not historically accurate to do so.

I don't care whether my judge is Pagan, Muslim, atheist, or whatever. I care that he/she supports the rule of law.

Which is precisely why Judge Moore was removed from the bench...he didn't follow the rule of law.

It doesn't matter how I feel anyway. What matters is that the U.S. Constitution does not give the right to the judiciary to restrict this kind of speech.

This may be your belief, but the facts don't support that statement. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that in fact the Constitution does give the courts the authority to prevent religious items from being displayed in government buildings.

Far more troubling than this is the fact that President Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, assuring them they would not be discriminated against, and the left has taken a phrase from this letter, applied it in the exact opposite way Jefferson intended, and given it Constitutional authority.

The "left" did nothing of the kind. The Supreme Court has sole authority to interpret the Constitution, and again they have consistently ruled that religion and government should be separate. Your opinion of what Jefferson's intentions were when he coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" is also not born out by history. I know you'd like to believe that the "founding fathers" were all devout, Commandment spouting Christians, but it's just not true.

In summary, your whole argument seems based on the premise that the Ten Commandments are first and foremost a historical, or legal document. I believe that if you asked 100 people whether the Ten Commandments were more of a historical document than a religious one, the answer would be 100 no's. It's pretty obvious that the commandments are a religious statement regardless of their debateable historical impact on our legal system.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

The first four of the ten commandments, do those look like legal pertaining laws? They look like religous law which has no place here. The rest of them is stuff that we have heard over and over again in basically every set of laws around the world before and after the ten commandments. The ten commandments can't be seen as an influence to the founders because almost every other civiization throughout history had similar laws. The ten commandments have no place in modern law.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan
You also state that the Ten Commandments was held in high esteem by our founding fathers, and while this would be true in the case of some of them, it would be equally utrue for other members of that group. What we can be sure of, is that the founding fathers were very intent on keeping religion out of government. The evidence for this is the fact that the very first sentence of the first amendment to the Constitution says that Congress will make no laws respecting an establishment of religion.
Once again, you conveniently take a part of the First Amendment out of context. It also states that congress shall not restrict the free exercise thereof.

Your contention that we can trace our laws back to the Ten Commandments is one of convenience. You can trace these laws back farther than that. You may believe that they are based on this religious document but it's not historically accurate to do so.
I never made that contention. I merely stated that they formed one of the bases of our laws, and that they were held in esteem by our founders. That IS historically accurate.


Which is precisely why Judge Moore was removed from the bench...he didn't follow the rule of law.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how. Judge Moore certainly did not violate the First Amendment, so which rule of law did he violate? I've addressed this before in this thread, and no one has been able to tell me.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that in fact the Constitution does give the courts the authority to prevent religious items from being displayed in government buildings.
Exactly my point. The Supreme court exceeded it's authority when it engaged in this type of censorship. Just because the liberal federal judiciary is fond of granting itself new and exciting powers does not mean it's Constitutional.

The "left" did nothing of the kind. The Supreme Court has sole authority to interpret the Constitution, and again they have consistently ruled that religion and government should be separate. Your opinion of what Jefferson's intentions were when he coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" is also not born out by history. I know you'd like to believe that the "founding fathers" were all devout, Commandment spouting Christians, but it's just not true.
I just relied on Jefferson's letter when he coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state". I also rely on the Constitution. The Constitution does not have that phrase. I don't believe that the founding fathers were "devout, Commandment spouting Christians," either. But I also don't believe they were anti-Christian bigots.

In summary, your whole argument seems based on the premise that the Ten Commandments are first and foremost a historical, or legal document. I believe that if you asked 100 people whether the Ten Commandments were more of a historical document than a religious one, the answer would be 100 no's. It's pretty obvious that the commandments are a religious statement regardless of their debateable historical impact on our legal system.
I'm obviously not communicating well. My whole point is that the federal judiciary, and left-wing hate groups are discriminating against people for their religious beliefs and they do not have the right, or authority to do that.
Although it is clear that the Ten Commandments are a historical document, and a religious one, they also have some status as a legal document. I'm not saying they must be posted in the courtroom, I'm saying that it is not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and as such, the ultra-left has no legal standing to engage in this type of discrimination.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

Once again, you conveniently take a part of the First Amendment out of context. It also states that congress shall not restrict the free exercise thereof.

People are free to exercise their religion on private property.

I never made that contention. I merely stated that they formed one of the bases of our laws, and that they were held in esteem by our founders. That IS historically accurate.

It would be accurate for some of our founders.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how. Judge Moore certainly did not violate the First Amendment, so which rule of law did he violate? I've addressed this before in this thread, and no one has been able to tell me.

He violated the order of a higher court to remove the monument, and was disciplined according to the law.

Exactly my point. The Supreme court exceeded it's authority when it engaged in this type of censorship. Just because the liberal federal judiciary is fond of granting itself new and exciting powers does not mean it's Constitutional.

The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution.

I'm obviously not communicating well. My whole point is that the federal judiciary, and left-wing hate groups are discriminating against people for their religious beliefs and they do not have the right, or authority to do that.
Although it is clear that the Ten Commandments are a historical document, and a religious one, they also have some status as a legal document. I'm not saying they must be posted in the courtroom, I'm saying that it is not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and as such, the ultra-left has no legal standing to engage in this type of discrimination.

You seem convinced that this was done by "left-wing hate groups", whoever they are, and the "ultra-left". It was done by courts who interpret the Constitution. You claim that the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, but you ignore the rulings of the very courts whose job it is to decide what the Constitution says. The Constitution doesn't grant you the right to privacy, but I doubt you have a problem with the fact that the courts say it does.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
People are free to exercise their religion on private property.
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However the law does not allow you, or any judge, to enforce your own prejudices against others.

He violated the order of a higher court to remove the monument, and was disciplined according to the law.
By requiring Judge Moore to violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the higher court acted illegally. Judge Moore was oath-bound to disobey a higher court which had overstepped its authority.


The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution.
Gold Star, Vil! However, when the Supreme Court makes its own extra-Constitutional law, the people rightly rebel.


You seem convinced that this was done by "left-wing hate groups", whoever they are, and the "ultra-left". It was done by courts who interpret the Constitution. You claim that the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, but you ignore the rulings of the very courts whose job it is to decide what the Constitution says. The Constitution doesn't grant you the right to privacy, but I doubt you have a problem with the fact that the courts say it does.
Oh, man. I don't even want to open the "privacy" can of worms.;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Originally posted by Vilepagan
[b]People are free to exercise their religion on private property.
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However the law does not allow you, or any judge, to enforce your own prejudices against others.

He violated the order of a higher court to remove the monument, and was disciplined according to the law.
By requiring Judge Moore to violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the higher court acted illegally. Judge Moore was oath-bound to disobey a higher court which had overstepped its authority.


The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution.
Gold Star, Vil! However, when the Supreme Court makes its own extra-Constitutional law, the people rightly rebel.


You seem convinced that this was done by "left-wing hate groups", whoever they are, and the "ultra-left". It was done by courts who interpret the Constitution. You claim that the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, but you ignore the rulings of the very courts whose job it is to decide what the Constitution says. The Constitution doesn't grant you the right to privacy, but I doubt you have a problem with the fact that the courts say it does.
Oh, man. I don't even want to open the "privacy" can of worms.;)

And you're still confused about left-wing hate groups? There's a link to one in your signature block.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
[QUOTE]
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However the law does not allow you, or any judge, to enforce your own prejudices against others.

Nope


By requiring Judge Moore to violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the higher court acted illegally. Judge Moore was oath-bound to disobey a higher court which had overstepped its authority.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, however the lower courts can't just ignore the rulings of the higher courts, and that's not an opinion, it's the law.

Gold Star, Vil! However, when the Supreme Court makes its own extra-Constitutional law, the people rightly rebel.

The Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution says, and what it means as well...

Oh, man. I don't even want to open the "privacy" can of worms.;)

I take it that you don't like the fact that you have a right to privacy?

And you're still confused about left-wing hate groups? There's a link to one in your signature block.

You are mistaken, the link in my signature block goes to morons.org, a news site run by a libertarian. I'm a contributing author on the site so I can assure you it's not a left-wing "hate" group.

Religion is hard to know who is right...but just know as long as we can choose which God we worship its all good! Don't let them take that away from us.

Originally posted by Vilepagan


The Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution says, and what it means as well...
The Supreme Court does not rule by judicial fiat. Our government rules by the consent of the governed. When any court behaves unconstitutionally, we have the obligation to take action to correct their error.

You are mistaken, the link in my signature block goes to morons.org, a news site run by a libertarian.
The "about us" link on morons.org describes how the site was started because of the hatred the founder wanted to express toward a good Christian group.

I'm a contributing author on the site so I can assure you it's not a left-wing "hate" group.
Now that's funny!

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
The Supreme Court does not rule by judicial fiat. Our government rules by the consent of the governed. When any court behaves unconstitutionally, we have the obligation to take action to correct their error.
Obviously you are ignorant of the Constitutional job of the Supreme Court: to interpret the Constitution and apply it to laws which may or may not be unconstitutional.
The "about us" link on morons.org describes how the site was started because of the hatred the founder wanted to express toward a good Christian group.
Focus on the Family is a "good Christian group"?

Excuse me for a moment...

::runs into the bathroom; wild, uncontrolled laughter emits from the closed door for about five minutes::

Oh, that was a good one...::wipes tears from eyes::

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/focus.html

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

The Supreme Court does not rule by judicial fiat. Our government rules by the consent of the governed. When any court behaves unconstitutionally, we have the obligation to take action to correct their error.

Quite correct, and when it comes to the Supreme Court, you vote for someone who will appoint members whose beliefs you agree with, or in the case of gross misconduct, you impeach them. What you don't do is ignore their rulings because you think you know better.

The "about us" link on morons.org describes how the site was started because of the hatred the founder wanted to express toward a good Christian group.

This is the "about" statement to which you referred. If you'll notice, the word "hate" doesn't appear in it, but it does say that he started the site because of the "hurt" caused by a right-wing Christian group. If it's the use of "moron" and "moronic" that have you convinced that it's a "hate" group, I'd remind you that morons.org is the name of the site.


Morons.org started when founder spatula read with dismay an article in the news about the moron Christian group "Focus on the Family" and how hurtful and moronic they were being toward homosexuals and their families.

Your definition of "hate" is overly broad Uncool...if you see hatred in that message I think you must see hatred anytime someone disagrees with your point of view, or someone calls someone else a name.

Now that's funny!

What is it that you find funny Uncool?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Quite correct, and when it comes to the Supreme Court, you vote for someone who will appoint members whose beliefs you agree with, or in the case of gross misconduct, you impeach them. What you don't do is ignore their rulings because you think you know better.
In a perfect world, that is true, but sometimes, civil disobedience is necessary. Our founding fathers weren't willing to wait until the King died, hoping for a better one. Rosa Parks wasn't willing to wait and hope that eventually Alabama would start treating African Americans like human beings. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't either. Judge Moore, you and I will be long dead before we could elect Senators who will quit playing politics with qualified judicial nominees. We'll be long dead before we will be able to appoint judges who will not abuse their duty of Constitutional review and instead legislate from the bench.


This is the "about" statement to which you referred. If you'll notice, the word "hate" doesn't appear in it, but it does say that he started the site because of the "hurt" caused by a right-wing Christian group. If it's the use of "moron" and "moronic" that have you convinced that it's a "hate" group, I'd remind you that morons.org is the name of the site.

The concept of hate appears in the site. The word "hate" does not have to be specifically spelled out in hate speech. And, yes, "Morons.org" does accurately describe some of the sites members, but I think the founder of the site meant the term to apply to a Christian group which most certainly has caused no "hurt".

Your definition of "hate" is overly broad Uncool...if you see hatred in that message I think you must see hatred anytime someone disagrees with your point of view, or someone calls someone else a name.
I do that on purpose. The left is always accusing others of hate, intolerance, bigotry, homophobia, etc. when none actually exists. So, yes, sometimes I use hyperbole to demonstrate the absurdities of the left. In this particular case, someone has actually gone to the length of creating a website to rail against a group which has done no harm, caused no hurt to anyone.

Notwithstanding, there is plenty of hatred, intolerance and bigotry promoted by the left. Far more than by the right.

What is it that you find funny Uncool?

This:
:woohoo:

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

In a perfect world, that is true, but sometimes, civil disobedience is necessary. Our founding fathers weren't willing to wait until the King died, hoping for a better one. Rosa Parks wasn't willing to wait and hope that eventually Alabama would start treating African Americans like human beings. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't either. Judge Moore, you and I will be long dead before we could elect Senators who will quit playing politics with qualified judicial nominees.

I have no problem with civil disobedience, but engaging in it doesn't automatically mean you are right, and if you are going to engage in it, you must be willing to face the consequences.

We'll be long dead before we will be able to appoint judges who will abuse their duty of Constitutional review and instead legislate from the bench.

I suspect this isn't what you meant to say.

The concept of hate appears in the site. The word "hate" does not have to be specifically spelled out in hate speech. And, yes, "Morons.org" does accurately describe some of the sites members, but I think the founder of the site meant the term to apply to a Christian group which most certainly has caused no "hurt".

I don't think you are in a position to know the IQ of any of the members of the site, and if you were gay, you might not feel that this "Christian" group had caused "no hurt".

I do that on purpose. The left is always accusing others of hate, intolerance, bigotry, homophobia, etc. when none actually exists. So, yes, sometimes I use hyperbole to demonstrate the absurdities of the left.

I'll accept that your definition of this website as a "hate group" was hyperbole.

In this particular case, someone has actually gone to the length of creating a website to rail against a group which has done no harm, caused no hurt to anyone.

Again, you wouldn't neccessarily feel this way if you were a member of a group that Focus on the Family targets.

Notwithstanding, there is plenty of hatred, intolerance and bigotry promoted by the left. Far more than by the right.

I disagree, but since it's a difficult thing to quantify, I doubt either one of us can back up his postion in any meaningful way.

What is it that you find funny Uncool?

This:
:woohoo:

Hilarious. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I have no problem with civil disobedience, but engaging in it doesn't automatically mean you are right, and if you are going to engage in it, you must be willing to face the consequences.
Yes, but you keep working for justice.

I don't think you are in a position to know the IQ of any of the members of the site, and if you were gay, you might not feel that this "Christian" group had caused "no hurt".
Nor is the creator of the site in a position to know the IQ of Christians. And yes, it is always painful when someone points out that an activity I engage in is wrong, but it, in fact does no hurt when it protects me or someone else from my harmful activities.


I'll accept that your definition of this website as a "hate group" was hyperbole.
Perhaps, but the site is still worthy of condemnation.


Again, you wouldn't neccessarily feel this way if you were a member of a group that Focus on the Family targets.
I am. Focus on the Family targets families. They help equip them to protect themselves against attack from those who hate families and seek to destroy families.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

Nor is the creator of the site in a position to know the IQ of Christians.

Quite true, but I'd like to point out that despite the statement about why morons.org was created, the site doesn't direct it's criticism to Christians or religious organizations exclusively. More often the site points out the perceived stupidity of politicians, celebrities, other organizations both public and private, and reports on bizarre stories that appear in the news.

And yes, it is always painful when someone points out that an activity I engage in is wrong, but it, in fact does no hurt when it protects me or someone else from my harmful activities.

Are you suggesting that someone else's homosexuality causes you harm?

I am. Focus on the Family targets families. They help equip them to protect themselves against attack from those who hate families and seek to destroy families.

A difference in semantics. Here is a statement by the organization that wants to "help" families:

Focus on the Family Action is placing ads in six states — North and South Dakota, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arkansas and New Hampshire — holding accountable U.S. Senators Byron Dorgan, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Russell Feingold, Blanche Lincoln and John Sununu for their July 14 votes to kill the Federal Marriage Amendment. Focus Action maintains that their votes were a slap in the face of every American child, all of whom deserve a mother and father.

How does this "help" families?

I also have to ask Uncool...who are you referring to when you mention "those who hate families and seek to destroy families?"

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I'd like to point out that despite the statement about why morons.org was created, the site doesn't direct it's criticism to Christians or religious organizations exclusively. More often the site points out the perceived stupidity of politicians, celebrities, other organizations both public and private, and reports on bizarre stories that appear in the news.
Great! I'll have to visit again to see all their criticisms of Michael Moore, Al Franken, Alec Baldwin, NAMBLA, and the DNC.


Are you suggesting that someone else's homosexuality causes you harm?
When they try to force their views down my throat and that of my children, yes.


A difference in semantics. Here is a statement by the organization that wants to "help" families:
Focus on the Family Action is placing ads in six states — North and South Dakota, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arkansas and New Hampshire — holding accountable U.S. Senators Byron Dorgan, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Russell Feingold, Blanche Lincoln and John Sununu for their July 14 votes to kill the Federal Marriage Amendment. Focus Action maintains that their votes were a slap in the face of every American child, all of whom deserve a mother and father.

How does this "help" families?
By informing them of a harmful act these Senators have taken to weaken marriage by allowing it to be redefined by a runaway judiciary. Come on Vil, most Americans support equal rights for gays. They support full employment benefits for gay couples. They support survivor and hospitalization benefits. They support civil unions like they have in Vermont. In other words the only thing we don't support is using the term "marriage". Even John Kerry, the most liberal Senator in the Senate agrees with this.
Gay couples can have the full rights of society without redefining marriage. However they intend to harm families by insisting on co-opting the term.

I also have to ask Uncool...who are you referring to when you mention "those who hate families and seek to destroy families?"
Anyone who takes action against marriage and the family as an institution. People who "shack up" for example. People who have multiple marriages/divorces for little or no reason. Men who abuse their wives and children. People who neglect their children. People who cheat on their spouses.(Yes. even Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani) People, groups, politicians etc. who support this type of activity.

For example, Britney Spears recently got married and divorced a day later. Unfortunately, young people listen to Britney, they want to emulate her. By her actions, Britney says, "marriage is just a big joke." I consider this an attack on the family.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

Great! I'll have to visit again to see all their criticisms of Michael Moore, Al Franken, Alec Baldwin, NAMBLA, and the DNC.

Please do.

When they try to force their views down my throat and that of my children, yes.

Why do people always use the "force down my throat" phrase when talking about gays? Is it Freudian?

Gay couples can have the full rights of society without redefining marriage. However they intend to harm families by insisting on co-opting the term.

I can accept everything you've said except that last part part...

1. How the hell do you know what "gays" intend?

2. How can you justify the statement that gays want to "harm" families? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

3. How would gays using the term "marriage" harm you, or your family?

I also have to ask Uncool...who are you referring to when you mention "those who hate families and seek to destroy families?"
Anyone who takes action against marriage and the family as an institution. People who "shack up" for example. People who have multiple marriages/divorces for little or no reason. Men who abuse their wives and children. People who neglect their children. People who cheat on their spouses.(Yes. even Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani) People, groups, politicians etc. who support this type of activity.

For example, Britney Spears recently got married and divorced a day later. Unfortunately, young people listen to Britney, they want to emulate her. By her actions, Britney says, "marriage is just a big joke." I consider this an attack on the family.

I notice gays aren't in this last group.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Why do people always use the "force down my throat" phrase when talking about gays? Is it Freudian?
Apparently it is, in your case.


I can accept everything you've said except that last part part...

1. How the hell do you know what "gays" intend?
By their actions. They are already being offered every right they theoretically demand. To redefine marriage to include homosexual couples wouldn't help them one bit. Since their demands for this don't help them, I can only conclude that they wish to harm others.

2. How can you justify the statement that gays want to "harm" families? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
Again, by their actions. This whole push for gay "marriage" does not help homosexuals, when they could accept civil unions and get all the rights they claim to want. I'm sure it does sound riiculous. Clear thinking always does sound ridiculous to the extreme left.

3. How would gays using the term "marriage" harm you, or your family?
Because I would increasingly be surrounded by people who do not understand what a marriage really is. My children would not understand what one was. They would have the view that they could radically redefine any social institution they want just because it didn't personally appeal to them. This would change societal behavior in a detrimental way. And it would de-legitimize the vows married people have taken, which they consider sacred.

I notice gays aren't in this last group.
The extremist homosexual agenda is only one threat to our society. The others I mentioned, also greatly weaken marriage. I need to bring those up, because sadly, we have come to largely accept our high divorce rate, out-of-wedlock births, and extra-marital sex. Today, we err when we make this a gay vs. straight debate. Straight people have done far more damage to marriage, the family and our society than gays ever will.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

Apparently it is, in your case.
That might make sense, except I didn't use the phrase.



By their actions. They are already being offered every right they theoretically demand.

Except the right to be "married". And there's nothing "theoretical" about what we want, it's very simple. We want the same rights you have.

To redefine marriage to include homosexual couples wouldn't help them one bit.

That's absurd, of course having the right to marry would help gays.

Since their demands for this don't help them, I can only conclude that they wish to harm others.

Your conclusion is based on a false premise.

Again, by their actions. This whole push for gay "marriage" does not help homosexuals, when they could accept civil unions and get all the rights they claim to want.

You obviously are confused about what gay's want. We don't want to be treated as "separate but equal"... just equal will be fine.

I'm sure it does sound riiculous. Clear thinking always does sound ridiculous to the extreme left.

This is the same kind of "clear thinking" that led to separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks.

Because I would increasingly be surrounded by people who do not understand what a marriage really is.

I'm sure this same argument was used when interracial couples wanted to be allowed to marry.

My children would not understand what one was.

Then I'm sure you could explain it to them. I also don't think I should accept second class status just because someone else's children can't understand something.

They would have the view that they could radically redefine any social institution they want just because it didn't personally appeal to them.

First of all, I don't see this as a "radical" change. Secondly, this change is not being accomplished by a "person", it is being accomplished by a whole segment of society.

This would change societal behavior in a detrimental way.

Please explain how my gay marriage would be detrimental to society.

And it would de-legitimize the vows married people have taken, which they consider sacred.

If you consider your marriage vows to be sacred that's fine, but that's between you and your god, and has NOTHING to do with me, the state, or the law. If you think your vows are so fragile that they will be harmed by my marriage, I think your marriage isn't very strong.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
That might make sense, except I didn't use the phrase.




Except the right to be "married". And there's nothing "theoretical" about what we want, it's very simple. We want the same rights you have.


That's absurd, of course having the right to marry would help gays.


Your conclusion is based on a false premise.


You obviously are confused about what gay's want. We don't want to be treated as "separate but equal"... just equal will be fine.


This is the same kind of "clear thinking" that led to separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks.


I'm sure this same argument was used when interracial couples wanted to be allowed to marry.


Then I'm sure you could explain it to them. I also don't think I should accept second class status just because someone else's children can't understand something.


First of all, I don't see this as a "radical" change. Secondly, this change is not being accomplished by a "person", it is being accomplished by a whole segment of society.


Please explain how my gay marriage would be detrimental to society.


If you consider your marriage vows to be sacred that's fine, but that's between you and your god, and has NOTHING to do with me, the state, or the law. If you think your vows are so fragile that they will be harmed by my marriage, I think your marriage isn't very strong.

THANK YOU, NOEL.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
By their actions. They are already being offered every right they theoretically demand.
We are not being offered the right to marriage, which is instituted into law. It’s a right heterosexual couples have, that homosexual couples do not have.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
To redefine marriage to include homosexual couples wouldn't help them one bit.
Why wouldn’t it? It would provide something to make 10% of our population have a more stable, and long lasting relationship.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Since their demands for this don't help them, I can only conclude that they wish to harm others.
What harm would homosexuals be causing to you if they got married…?

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Again, by their actions. This whole push for gay "marriage" does not help homosexuals, when they could accept civil unions and get all the rights they claim to want.
That little trick does not fly. White supremacist’s in the South gave African American’s water fountains, schools, and everything the whites had. Yet, it wasn’t equal nor fair. Which is why a Civil Union is not acceptable. Yes it’s the same, but it’s not equal in the eyes of the law.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Clear thinking always does sound ridiculous to the extreme left.
No, actually I think fairly clear. Maybe it’s the extreme right wing who doesn’t understand common sense logic.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Because I would increasingly be surrounded by people who do not understand what a marriage really is.
The last I heard marriage was about loving the other person…and the last I checked every human is capable of offering love.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
My children would not understand what one was.
They should understand it’s between two consenting adults who love each other.
Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
And it would de-legitimize the vows married people have taken, which they consider sacred.
The vows would be the same. Do you promise to love, honor, comfort, and keep in sickness and in health; forsaking all others, be true to him or her as long as you both shall live?

And, again…the last I heard every human is capable of doing these things for another human, regardless of sexuality.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
The extremist homosexual agenda is only one threat to our society.
You sound exactly like the White Supremacists giving reasons against interracial marriage. It will threaten our society if we let them marry…which is just false logic the Right Wing loves to spew.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I need to bring those up, because sadly, we have come to largely accept our high divorce rate, out-of-wedlock births, and extra-marital sex. Today, we err when we make this a gay vs. straight debate.
That just proves, that the heterosexuals are capable of brining the “sanity” of marriage to nothing. It’s the heterosexuals who are ruining marriage and trashing its meaning. And maybe before you deny another group of citizens a right, you should work on having your group not abuse their right.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Except the right to be "married". And there's nothing "theoretical" about what we want, it's very simple. We want the same rights you have.
You already have the same rights I have.

That's absurd, of course having the right to marry would help gays.
It would give them no more "rights" than a civil union.

You obviously are confused about what gay's want. We don't want to be treated as "separate but equal"... just equal will be fine.
Gays already have equality. The radical gay element now wants to force their narrow views on mainstream America and discriminate against anyone who disagrees.

This is the same kind of "clear thinking" that led to separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks.
The two issues are not in any way related.

I'm sure this same argument was used when interracial couples wanted to be allowed to marry.
That's a totally separate issue.

Then I'm sure you could explain it to them. I also don't think I should accept second class status just because someone else's children can't understand something.
No one is asking you to accept second class status. We are just asking you to stop trying to harm our children.


First of all, I don't see this as a "radical" change. Secondly, this change is not being accomplished by a "person", it is being accomplished by a whole segment of society.
Radicals never see their views as radical. Most of society disagrees with this change.


Please explain how my gay marriage would be detrimental to society.
I already have.


If you consider your marriage vows to be sacred that's fine, but that's between you and your god, and has NOTHING to do with me, the state, or the law. If you think your vows are so fragile that they will be harmed by my marriage, I think your marriage isn't very strong.
They way we behave has everything to do with others in society. We all live together and our actions affect others. Your "marriage" will not hurt my marriage, but it will detract from my safety and the quality of life as I interact with more and more people who do not understand proper relationships between the genders. I do not have to embrace your narrow, hurtful agenda to have a strong marriage.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

You already have the same rights I have.

If you mean to suggest that I have the same rights you do in regards to marriage because I too have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, I'm going to ask you to come right out and say it, because I don't want to assume you are making a spurious argument if you meant to imply something else.

Gays already have equality. The radical gay element now wants to force their narrow views on mainstream America and discriminate against anyone who disagrees.

In what way do gays want to discriminate against someone who disagrees?

No one is asking you to accept second class status.

You are when you suggest we should accept a "different" form of marriage, and the courts recognize this fact.

The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.''--SJC opinion.

We are just asking you to stop trying to harm our children.

What harm will come to your children if I'm allowed to marry another man?

Radicals never see their views as radical. Most of society disagrees with this change.

Most of society was also against interracial marriage. Sometimes, most of society is wrong.


They way we behave has everything to do with others in society. We all live together and our actions affect others.

Yes we all have an effect on the society in which we live. Some of our actions, like denying someone equal rights, have more of an effect on others than other actions, like getting married to the person of your choice.

Your "marriage" will not hurt my marriage, but it will detract from my safety and the quality of life as I interact with more and more people who do not understand proper relationships between the genders.

Please explain how my marrying another man will make you "unsafe".

Your opinion of what's "proper" is a personal opinion, likely based on your religious beliefs. Do you think our laws should be based upon your religious beliefs?

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
You already have the same rights I have.
Gays have the right to marry who they love?
It would give them no more "rights" than a civil union.
Who's to say that will stay that way? If heterosexual marriage and gay "civil unions" exist, there exists the possibility that the government could arbitrarily decide to curtail the benefits provided by a civil union. If both gays and straights can marry, why, it would appear to give gays different rights, one would have to "redefine marriage".

"Seperate but equal" never works. Just look at segregation.
Gays already have equality. The radical gay element now wants to force their narrow views on mainstream America and discriminate against anyone who disagrees.
I hear you saying a lot, but I don't see any facts to back this up. I don't see any attempts by the "radical" gays to "force" their "narrow" views on us and discriminate against anyone who disagrees.
The two issues [Segregation and Marriage vs. Civil Unions] are not in any way related.
Segregation:
-Blacks get seperate institutions which are claimed to be "equal"...let's use schools as an example. Black schools end up enormously and deliberately underfunded and dilapidated due to racism. Blacks end up getting a poor education while whites get a better one.

Marriage vs. "Civil Union"
-Gays get a seperate institution which is claimed to be "equal". The gay civil union ends up deliberately edited so as to be unequal. Civil-united gays end up getting fewer benefits than straight married couples.
That's [Interracial marriage] a totally separate issue.
Both have to do with groups of people being unable to marry who they love.
No one is asking you to accept second class status. We are just asking you to stop trying to harm our children.
How do gays getting married affect children in any fashion whatsoever? Gay marriage does not automatically enable gay adoption.
Radicals never see their views as radical. Most of society disagrees with this change.
I don't disagree. I'm straight. Does that make me a radical gay?
I already have.
No you haven't.
They way we behave has everything to do with others in society. We all live together and our actions affect others. Your "marriage" will not hurt my marriage, but it will detract from my safety and the quality of life as I interact with more and more people who do not understand proper relationships between the genders. I do not have to embrace your narrow, hurtful agenda to have a strong marriage.
No one's asking you to embrace anything. Gays want equal rights under the government. You need not embrace anything.

As for "proper relationships", is it really the government's job to teach that? Or is it the parents'? I happen to think that a gay relationship is perfectly proper. I am no threat to anyone's safety or quality of life. I'm curious as to how you think I will be.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Gays have the right to marry who they love?
Not necessarily. We do not have a right to marry whomever we love. There are rules to what defines a marriage. I can't marry my dog, my motorcycle, my mother, or several different people at once just because I claim to love them.

I don't see any attempts by the "radical" gays to "force" their "narrow" views on us and discriminate against anyone who disagrees.
Then you are not paying attention. Gays are in the public schools trying to force their views on our children. They are trying to redefine marriage to include their definition of it. They have already silenced dissent in Canada and Sweden.

originally posted by VilePagan
You are when you suggest we should accept a "different" form of marriage, and the courts recognize this fact.
No. I'm informing you and activist judges that a gay union does not meet the definition of a marriage at all and that my refusal to accept your extreme view does not deny anyone any rights whatsoever.

Please explain how my marrying another man will make you "unsafe".
People who grow up with a distorted view of sexuality, and denied the input of both a father and mother raising them are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior, as we already see from the other societal maladies I mentioned earlier.

Your opinion of what's "proper" is a personal opinion, likely based on your religious beliefs.
So? This makes them no less valid than your opinion, which is based on your desire to fulfill your lusts.

Do you think our laws should be based upon your religious beliefs?
Obviously not. If that were the case I would be advocating the complete criminalization of all homosexual activity.

originally posted by Overdose
And maybe before you deny another group of citizens a right, you should work on having your group not abuse their right.
As I've demonstrated, I'm not advocating denying any rights to anyone. I will, however, condemn those who are trying to harm our families and society. We're only talking about the extremist homosexual agenda because you guys brought it up. I'm more than happy to discuss all the other ways the left is harming America.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Then you are not paying attention. Gays are in the public schools trying to force their views on our children. They are trying to redefine marriage to include their definition of it. They have already silenced dissent in Canada and Sweden.
I have gone through the elementary and middle school portions of public schools and I am currently halfway through the high school portion of it. I have not seen anyone trying to force their views on me...our high school does have a GSA, as I recall, but it's not a mandatory thing...it's a club, just like any other. Other than that, the school has made no mention of homosexuality to me. Ever.