Are gays getting more rights than the rest of us?

[utvolpj]

What's the word for atheists who push their non-belief on people?

That's the part I don't get about many atheists - they rant about religious zealotry but love to tell everyone why their beliefs are absolutely right and more intelligent.

It would be nice if both parties would STFU and believe or not believe whatever they like.

I try my best not to take threads in that direction but anytime you get in this type of discussion the "but the bible says" line is pulled out. Sadly the "but the Constitution says" line doesn't seem to work like it should

 

[CSpindizzy]

It's because "the Constitution says" is flailed around in discussions where it often does not even apply. It's like the 'right to healthcare', etc. Show me where the Constitution says for said arguments it is used in and that person can continue. This line is one of the most overused and abused in political discussions.

 

[utvolpj]

It's because "the Constitution says" is flailed around in discussions where it often does not even apply. It's like the 'right to healthcare', etc. Show me where the Constitution says for said arguments it is used in and that person can continue. This line is one of the most overused and abused in political discussions.

I don't believe I've ever used it in the way you're looking for but could be mistaken. It would have no place except to be used against the "right to healthcare" people.

 

[CSpindizzy]

It wasn't directed at you. Just pointing out how that phrase is not always a 'winner' over the 'Bible says' justification argument. It gets just as much abuse. I'm just saying that the phrase is not always indicative of 'right' as well.

 

[KiffinKiller]

It's because "the Constitution says" is flailed around in discussions where it often does not even apply. It's like the 'right to healthcare', etc. Show me where the Constitution says for said arguments it is used in and that person can continue. This line is one of the most overused and abused in political discussions.

The fact that the Bible is quoted by people in respect to Law - shouldn't even be in the equation - we have had our basic laws for hundreds of years now.

 

[CSpindizzy]

So now you're saying people should not have any standard of morals other than what law is on the books? Are you telling me you agree or are willing to accept every law on the books despite your personal feelings, upbringings, ethics, morals, etc?

 

[KiffinKiller]

So now you're saying people should not have any standard of morals other than what law is on the books? Are you telling me you agree or are willing to accept every law on the books despite your personal feelings, upbringings, ethics, morals, etc?

What I'm saying is the bible has no reason to be mentioned along with the constitution - Our fathers intended religion and state to be separate for a reason. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with actual law.

 

[CSpindizzy]

What I'm saying is the bible has no reason to be mentioned along with the constitution - Our fathers intended religion and state to be separate for a reason. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with actual law.

Actually it can have every reason to some. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with the law? Really? So how are laws changed? Personal feelings have everything to do with law. What do you think elections are? What do you think debate in Congress is? What do you think political parties are? These are based on beliefs.

History lesson for you....the abolitionist movement was founded and pushed by a pretty devout group of Christians. Constitutionally, slavery was legal. Explain what those religious nuts were doing arguing against something spelled out in the Constitution and upheld as being Constitutional by the courts?

 

[volfanjustin]

What I'm saying is the bible has no reason to be mentioned along with the constitution - Our fathers intended religion and state to be separate for a reason. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with actual law.

Wrong.

 

[IPorange]

Actually it can have every reason to some. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with the law? Really? So how are laws changed? Personal feelings have everything to do with law. What do you think elections are? What do you think debate in Congress is? What do you think political parties are? These are based on beliefs.

History lesson for you....the abolitionist movement was founded and pushed by a pretty devout group of Christians. Constitutionally, slavery was legal. Explain what those religious nuts were doing arguing against something spelled out in the Constitution and upheld as being Constitutional by the courts?

What religion were the people in favor of slavery? Oh, that's right.

 

[IPorange]

Wrong.

Yes, they were quite clear on wanting a theocracy.

 

[utvolpj]

Actually it can have every reason to some. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with the law?

I have personal feelings but try to separate those. If more people did then many of these things wouldn't be an issue. Most of the issues come when someone tries to push their belief on another. It's ridiculous how much control people want over others when they can barely handle themselves.

 

[KiffinKiller]

I'm confused. I'm under the impression the founding fathers wanted to separate church and state....

 

[bamacheats]

Are you still under the Mosaic Law? For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. Sin itself separates us from God. It is through Christ we are restored. It was the act of taking a fruit God said not to that brought sin into the world - not mass murder, not devil worship, etc. Using the Mosaic Law, that we are not bound to (but you can choose to be if you wish), is not a good scriptural method to explain sin.

I live in a country that allows for people to vote to decide law, standards, etc. If the specific act of marriage is something that remains in the domain of the state, then the state and those within it can vote on how that is defined. We define the age of consent, we define limits on drinking, smoking, gambling, we define limitations on voting. Consent is a broad term. And if this notion of consent is freely allowed, be mindful of what all you will allow.

Thinking marriage will be defined by states is pretty ignorant. Supreme Court will allow it, just a matter of time, likely before Oprahbama leaves office.
That doesn't mean my marriage is cheapened because I'm confident that mine is approved by God. I don't care if Homomarriage is legal because it isn't recognized by God as a marriage.
Wasn't Jesus quoted somewhere as saying obey God, not men?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[CSpindizzy]

What religion were the people in favor of slavery? Oh, that's right.

Depends on where and when you are referring this to. So clearly your stereotype of Christians won't work here as well. Nice try but you failed. Slavery is condoned and permitted in society regardless of religion. You clearly missed my point but you would rather just get a cheap shot in at a religious view than actually go with the discussion.

 

[joevol320]

i guess i would need something more if thought it was natural putting one of the most sensitive part of the male body in a place where waste exits. that in itself should warrant some type of mental exam.

 

[bamacheats]

I'm confused. I'm under the impression the founding fathers wanted to separate church and state....

Founding fathers determined no state church. But constitution was built on Christian principles.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[joevol320]

Depends on where and when you are referring this to. So clearly your stereotype of Christians won't work here as well. Nice try but you failed. Slavery is condoned and permitted in society regardless of religion. You clearly missed my point but you would rather just get a cheap shot in at a religious view than actually go with the discussion.

look at the source, IPgator is cheap anyways

 

[IPorange]

Thinking marriage will be defined by states is pretty ignorant. Supreme Court will allow it, just a matter of time, likely before Oprahbama leaves office.
That doesn't mean my marriage is cheapened because I'm confident that mine is approved by God. I don't care if Homomarriage is legal because it isn't recognized by God as a marriage.
Wasn't Jesus quoted somewhere as saying obey God, not men?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

God doesn't approve of many heterosexual marriages. Do you know anyone who ever got divorced and remarried? That isn't in line with God.

 

[utvolpj]

Founding fathers determined no state church. But constitution was built on Christian principles.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

the principles you tout are not uniquely Christian. Also I don't believe the Constitution mentions a god

 

[bamacheats]

God doesn't approve of many heterosexual marriages. Do you know anyone who ever got divorced and remarried? That isn't in line with God.

I've already made that point in this thread. Heterosexuals have already made a mockery of marriage to be claiming homos will cause it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[CSpindizzy]

Thinking marriage will be defined by states is pretty ignorant. Supreme Court will allow it, just a matter of time, likely before Oprahbama leaves office.
That doesn't mean my marriage is cheapened because I'm confident that mine is approved by God. I don't care if Homomarriage is legal because it isn't recognized by God as a marriage.
Wasn't Jesus quoted somewhere as saying obey God, not men?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Pretty ignorant? Really? I guess history on my side for that is ignorant as well. My bad. Precedent is that it has been left to states. You know the whole "by the power invested in me by the great state of X" nonsense.

Um. Where are you going with that last statement? What's your point?

The point is now the domain of this has been plucked out from the states. The federal level which means the courts will have to decide the definition of marriage, who it can be between, the minimum age, etc. Not sure the courts were intended to write this sort of standard - I look forward to seeing what the new definition will be. Say 16 as the minimum age, no blood tests required, polygamy allowed, and who knows what else will be asked.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Founding fathers determined no state church. But constitution was built on Christian principles.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So we are in agreement then. Separate entities remain separate. We've progressed quite a bit since 1776.

 

[IPorange]

Depends on where and when you are referring this to. So clearly your stereotype of Christians won't work here as well. Nice try but you failed. Slavery is condoned and permitted in society regardless of religion. You clearly missed my point but you would rather just get a cheap shot in at a religious view than actually go with the discussion.

You've previously stated you don't understand the "terms" I use, and your way of discussing something is to pelt the other person with questions that lead far off the original discussion. So there really isn't much point in us trying to have a meaningful prolonged conversation.

Say what you want, but you mentioned that abolitionists were Christian with the intent to selectively choose the broader religion's role. I could just as easily say, "nice try but you failed" by pointing out non-Christian abolitionists throughout history.

It isn't a "cheap shot" at religion, but rather an objection to the idea that Christianity has always been a pure force for good in this country. People can believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't try to push those beliefs onto others.

 

[KiffinKiller]

You've previously stated you don't understand the "terms" I use, and your way of discussing something is to pelt the other person with questions that lead far off the original discussion. So there really isn't much point in us trying to have a meaningful prolonged conversation.

Say what you want, but you mentioned that abolitionists were Christian with the intent to selectively choose the broader religion's role. I could just as easily say, "nice try but you failed" by pointing out non-Christian abolitionists throughout history.

It isn't a "cheap shot" at religion, but rather an objection to the idea that Christianity has always been a pure force for good in this country. People can believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't try to push those beliefs onto others.

Good points. The road to hell was paved with good intentions - as they say.