Religious Fundamentalists

Wanna talk about politics, your favorite hockey team... vegetarian recipes?
ATX
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:59 am
Location: NOVA

Postby ATX_Skins » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:09 pm

I really shouldn't have commented on that dudes post...

Oh well, let's do this!
Support the troops, especially our snipers.

cappster
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Postby Cappster » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:10 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote: don't think marriage should be a government function and gay marriage just deepens it.

So can a justice of the peace not marry people, in your opinion? Or do you believe in civil unions, and categorize marriage as a religious ceremony?


I see no reason that the personal relationship between any two people needs to be a government function. It's got nothing to do with what you call it, marriage or civil union.

As I said that's government, I support marriage as a private affair. It could be religious, contractual, or whatever private citizens want to set up. But I don't stay with my wife because we have a piece of paper from the government saying we're married.


Well, the system is setup to where two people who are married have social benefits from the fact that they are married. In order for what you say to be true, government should recognize no marriage of any kind. I don't see that happening so what is the next step? Legalizing gay marriage on the federal level. And the is where one of the main issues will be secular vs non-secular inclusion into the nations laws.
Sapphire AMD Radeon 6870, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15881
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:13 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:As I said that's government, I support marriage as a private affair. It could be religious, contractual, or whatever private citizens want to set up. But I don't stay with my wife because we have a piece of paper from the government saying we're married.

Of course, you don't, but as a contractual obligation between two people, isn't upholding that contract a function of government?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15881
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:15 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Countertrey wrote:A "separation of Church and State" is not possible, as long as any individual carries their own values and value systems into their efforts to legislate.

Beyond that, there is no edict in the Constitution or any of its many amendments dictating the "separation of Church and State".

The only reference is found in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

An argument can be made (though considerable twisting of intent is required) that "Congress shall make no law respecting an extablishment of religion" would prevent any government acknowledgment of any religious construct. I would, and do, dispute that, but, it is what it is. On the other hand, the following statement: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" VERY CLEARLY INDICATES the the Federal government has NO AUTHORITY to prevent any private expression of religious belief in ANY venue, including Government... so... the government has no authority to forbid students to pray before a game... even on the public High School playing field, or to prevent a student from evoking the name of a deity during his/her salutitorian address at High School graduation. Government doesn't have to like it... and any efforts to intrude are very clear violations of the civil rights of the individual.

I don't pray... not sure that there's anyone to listen... but I will never prevent others from attempting to do so. I am not inconvenienced... and do not believe that any antitheist is ever inconvenienced, either. Unfortunately, the feigning of injury is common. The feigning of injury, just to try to stick it to someone, seems to be the primary motivation of whining antitheists. Are they bullies or babies? I can't tell... don't even care.

Suck up and deal.

So where do you stand on Jefferson's letter, used by the courts to define the intent of the 1st Amendment, with regards to the "wall of separation between church and state?"


You realize Jefferson wasn't assuring government they were free from religious interference, he was assuring ministers their church was free from government?

How is that relevant to my question?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

kazoo
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:17 pm

Cappster wrote:Well, the system is setup to where two people who are married have social benefits from the fact that they are married

Again social = government? Can you stop saying that, it makes me queasy.

As for the statement though, I agree there should be no government "benefit" to marriage, but unlike gay marriage supporters I'm willing to wage that battle constitutionally through the legislature rather then with a judge who's willing to legislate.

Cappster wrote:In order for what you say to be true, government should recognize no marriage of any kind. I don't see that happening so what is the next step?

Yes, I said in the beginning there should be no marriage of any kind, that's my position.

As for the next step, the majority disagree with us both. They want marriage, they do not want gay marriage. All I can tell you is you don't always get what you want, but if you try some time, you just might find, you get what you need.

I think personally gays can somehow get through life without a piece of paper from the government that says their relationship is a relationship just like I think I can get through life with government recognizing marriage and doing a lot of other things that it does I don't agree with.

Cappster wrote:Legalizing gay marriage on the federal level. And the is where one of the main issues will be secular vs non-secular inclusion into the nations laws.


There is no Constitutional authority for government to legalize gay marriage, it would be a constitutional abomination for them to do so. That is unless you follow the constitutional process of 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

The good news for you is there is no constitutional authority for the feds to outlaw gay marriage either. They can only regulate interstate laws, per the full faith and credit clause.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

cappster
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Postby Cappster » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:20 pm

Gays are subject to the same law in exactly the same way as everyone else. They can marry as long as it's between a man and a woman.


Does that really make sense? Two humans want to get married and share their life together, but same sex couples are not afforded the right to do so. How exactly are they equally protected to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?
Sapphire AMD Radeon 6870, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15881
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:21 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:There is no Constitutional authority for government to legalize gay marriage, it would be a constitutional abomination for them to do so.

But DOMA isn't?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

kazoo
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:22 pm

Deadskins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:As I said that's government, I support marriage as a private affair. It could be religious, contractual, or whatever private citizens want to set up. But I don't stay with my wife because we have a piece of paper from the government saying we're married.

Of course, you don't, but as a contractual obligation between two people, isn't upholding that contract a function of government?


I was referring to a private contract. That contract could be negotiated between a couple. Organizations could adopt them, like if you want a "Catholic" wedding recognized the church then you both sign the contract they give you. It would be privately negotiated.

Government marriage is not a "contract" in the same way. I'm not saying there's not some sort of analogy, but when you use the same word with a different meaning I'm not sure what you're asking me exactly.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

kazoo
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:23 pm

Deadskins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:There is no Constitutional authority for government to legalize gay marriage, it would be a constitutional abomination for them to do so.

But DOMA isn't?


DOMA is clearly constitutional under the full faith and credit clause, I said that at least twice.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15881
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:25 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:As I said that's government, I support marriage as a private affair. It could be religious, contractual, or whatever private citizens want to set up. But I don't stay with my wife because we have a piece of paper from the government saying we're married.

Of course, you don't, but as a contractual obligation between two people, isn't upholding that contract a function of government?


I was referring to a private contract. That contract could be negotiated between a couple. Organizations could adopt them, like if you want a "Catholic" wedding recognized the church then you both sign the contract they give you. It would be privately negotiated.

Government marriage is not a "contract" in the same way. I'm not saying there's not some sort of analogy, but when you use the same word with a different meaning I'm not sure what you're asking me exactly.

No. If I make a private contract with you, and then break the terms of that contract, you have to have some recourse backed up by the government, ie the courts, correct?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

kazoo
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:26 pm

Cappster wrote:
Gays are subject to the same law in exactly the same way as everyone else. They can marry as long as it's between a man and a woman.


Does that really make sense? Two humans want to get married and share their life together, but same sex couples are not afforded the right to do so. How exactly are they equally protected to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?


As I said, the 14th amendment says that the law must be applied to everyone the same way, it is. The 14th does not say, what you think is fair...or what you think makes sense... It was written to solve a specific problem, where blacks were subject to the same laws differently. It solved that. It is not an "analogy" law as you are trying to make it.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

kazoo
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:28 pm

Deadskins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:As I said that's government, I support marriage as a private affair. It could be religious, contractual, or whatever private citizens want to set up. But I don't stay with my wife because we have a piece of paper from the government saying we're married.

Of course, you don't, but as a contractual obligation between two people, isn't upholding that contract a function of government?


I was referring to a private contract. That contract could be negotiated between a couple. Organizations could adopt them, like if you want a "Catholic" wedding recognized the church then you both sign the contract they give you. It would be privately negotiated.

Government marriage is not a "contract" in the same way. I'm not saying there's not some sort of analogy, but when you use the same word with a different meaning I'm not sure what you're asking me exactly.

No. If I make a private contract with you, and then break the terms of that contract, you have to have some recourse backed up by the government, ie the courts, correct?


If a couple who "marry" (under my system) decide to sign a legal contract regarding their marriage, then yes. A woman could say if I am going to quite my job and bear your children and you dump me, I want 100K. The guy can agree to that or not. But it's free choice.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

kazoo
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:32 pm

Cappster wrote:
Gays are subject to the same law in exactly the same way as everyone else. They can marry as long as it's between a man and a woman.


Does that really make sense? Two humans want to get married and share their life together, but same sex couples are not afforded the right to do so. How exactly are they equally protected to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?


The 14th amendment is literal, you can't keep saying it's not fair so the 14th amendment applies. The 14th amendment is not a "things that aren't fair are unconstitutional" amendment.

You can go to the State legislatures and get gay marriage enacted, you can go to congress and have them ensure other States recognize it, or you can go 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Those are your constitutional choices, period. There are also unconstitutional choices like go to a judge, convince him the 14th amendment says that anything that's not fair (to you) is unconstitutional and get him to decree it's the law of the land because he can.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

kazoo
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:34 pm

Deadskins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Countertrey wrote:A "separation of Church and State" is not possible, as long as any individual carries their own values and value systems into their efforts to legislate.

Beyond that, there is no edict in the Constitution or any of its many amendments dictating the "separation of Church and State".

The only reference is found in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

An argument can be made (though considerable twisting of intent is required) that "Congress shall make no law respecting an extablishment of religion" would prevent any government acknowledgment of any religious construct. I would, and do, dispute that, but, it is what it is. On the other hand, the following statement: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" VERY CLEARLY INDICATES the the Federal government has NO AUTHORITY to prevent any private expression of religious belief in ANY venue, including Government... so... the government has no authority to forbid students to pray before a game... even on the public High School playing field, or to prevent a student from evoking the name of a deity during his/her salutitorian address at High School graduation. Government doesn't have to like it... and any efforts to intrude are very clear violations of the civil rights of the individual.

I don't pray... not sure that there's anyone to listen... but I will never prevent others from attempting to do so. I am not inconvenienced... and do not believe that any antitheist is ever inconvenienced, either. Unfortunately, the feigning of injury is common. The feigning of injury, just to try to stick it to someone, seems to be the primary motivation of whining antitheists. Are they bullies or babies? I can't tell... don't even care.

Suck up and deal.

So where do you stand on Jefferson's letter, used by the courts to define the intent of the 1st Amendment, with regards to the "wall of separation between church and state?"


You realize Jefferson wasn't assuring government they were free from religious interference, he was assuring ministers their church was free from government?

How is that relevant to my question?


Jefferson never said government was free from religion, pretty straight forward.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15881
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:48 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:There is no Constitutional authority for government to legalize gay marriage, it would be a constitutional abomination for them to do so.

But DOMA isn't?


DOMA is clearly constitutional under the full faith and credit clause, I said that at least twice.

You missed my point. I'm saying that if DOMA is constitutional (which is another debate), then clearly the government has a constitutional authority to legalize gay marriage, which would not be a constitutional abomination, correct?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

Return to The Lounge