Freedom of Marriage

[CoolKoopaTroopa]

I'm actually insulted.

Its okay Skip.
My state gets insulted all the time.

[Ad Bot]

[Skip]

Its okay Skip.
My state gets insulted all the time.

What's an Alabama?

[CoolKoopaTroopa]

What's an Alabama?

Alabama- a state in the southeastern United States on the Gulf of Mexico; one of the Confederate states during the American Civil War
C:

[Skip]

Alabama- a state in the southeastern United States on the Gulf of Mexico; one of the Confederate states during the American Civil War
C:

Because I have no other response I'm going to respond by pointing out that ninja edit.

[CoolKoopaTroopa]

Because I have no other response I'm going to respond by pointing out that ninja edit.

I wanted to put my C: face

[Duckmeister]

First of all, this discussion is stupid, especially on these forums, and it's entirely too obvious that Custard just wants to show off his memorization of the amendments.  Please.  There is a large gap between knowing what the Constitution says and knowing what it means, and you seem to know nothing of the later.

it's not actually freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. which means that the government cannot set up a state religion, and that we are protected from theocracies

This is the only thing here that caught my eye, because it wasn't just another "anyone who is against gay marriage is a handicap" post.  This is a thoroughly modern interpretation of the so called "separation" clause.  If you read any of the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution, you would find that the founders' interpretation was exactly the opposite.  Instead of freedom of government from religion, it is freedom of religion from government.  The "wall" was designed to keep the government out of the affairs of the church, as an extension of free speech.  The practice now of preventing any kind of religion from creeping into the government is an appeal to a non-existent "religious neutrality" that is really just government-supported atheism.

The separation of church and state is one of the most misunderstood doctrines of the constitution.  I highly recommend that you read the book "Wall of Misconception" by Peter A. Lillback.  It's a very thorough discussion on the subject.

[Custard]

First of all, this discussion is stupid, especially on these forums, and it's entirely too obvious that Custard just wants to show off his memorization of the amendments.  Please.  There is a large gap between knowing what the Constitution says and knowing what it means, and you seem to know nothing of the later.

This is the only thing here that caught my eye, because it wasn't just another "anyone who is against gay marriage is a handicap" post.  This is a thoroughly modern interpretation of the so called "separation" clause.  If you read any of the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution, you would find that the founders' interpretation was exactly the opposite.  Instead of freedom of government from religion, it is freedom of religion from government.  The "wall" was designed to keep the government out of the affairs of the church, as an extension of free speech.  The practice now of preventing any kind of religion from creeping into the government is an appeal to a non-existent "religious neutrality" that is really just government-supported atheism.

The separation of church and state is one of the most misunderstood doctrines of the constitution.  I highly recommend that you read the book "Wall of Misconception" by Peter A. Lillback.  It's a very thorough discussion on the subject.

When were you the judge on what we could put on the forums or not? This is Off-topic, we don't force you to read these discussions. We also don't force you to be a giant richard over everything. I'm 13, and I was just trying to point out some contradictions to spark up some discussion. I don't give a forget about your opinion if all you're going to do is desolate the opinions of others. You've got no mind of perspective, so you shouldn't join discussions that involve such opinions, because you would drown yourself in ignorance otherwise.

I never said it was bad to be against gay marriage either, nor did I mention gay marriage in ANY of my posts. This was a discussion over freedom of marriage, not gay rights. Although it could be, in the eyes of some as yourself.

Please come up with something productive next time, instead of useless ranting that gets us no where but long annoying posts such as these.

[Menen]

America has so many problems










 

[Jacky]

America has so many problems










 

!

[Custard]

That's why I love it so much :D

[Duckmeister]

When were you the judge on what we could put on the forums or not? This is Off-topic, we don't force you to read these discussions. We also don't force you to be a giant richard over everything. I'm 13, and I was just trying to point out some contradictions to spark up some discussion. I don't give a forget about your opinion if all you're going to do is desolate the opinions of others. You've got no mind of perspective, so you shouldn't join discussions that involve such opinions, because you would drown yourself in ignorance otherwise.

Really?  Just because I pointed out that serious discussions on forums like these never work, means that I'm being a jerk?  Why so sensitive?

I never said it was bad to be against gay marriage either, nor did I mention gay marriage in ANY of my posts. This was a discussion over freedom of marriage, not gay rights. Although it could be, in the eyes of some as yourself.

The only reason I even mentioned gay marriage is because I hate posts that are of this sort:

Anyone who hates gays and doesn't want them to get married are handicaps.

and I was commenting on how Solid's post wasn't like that, and that's why it caught my eye.

And besides, what else could you be talking about?  Arranged marriages?  It's obvious you want to start a gay-marriage flamewar and then say "but I didn't specifically say gay marriage" in order to not be blamed for starting it.  Maybe I'm being too cynical, but this kind of crap happens all the time.

Please come up with something productive next time, instead of useless ranting that gets us no where but long annoying posts such as these.

I thought my second and third paragraphs were part of the discussion, as I was stating my opinion concerning what Solid was talking about.  I even recommended a book on the topic.  But because you got your feelings hurt on the first paragraph, you hypocritically claim that I'm uselessly ranting when 90% of your post that I'm quoting is just that, useless ranting.

[ZB]

I know this has already been said, but I'd just like to restate it.

The federal government can do nothing about these laws, even if they do violate the constitution. Marriage laws are entirely in the hands of the states, so only state governments can control gays' ability to marry.
By they way, I do support gay marriage.

America has so many problems
 

I know, don't you just wish we could live somewhere like Afghanistan  where life just so much  more simple?

[Custard]

Duck, why go to a discussion topic, say it's stupid, and then begin discussing like nothing ever happened? That's just like going to your friend's party and saying "Gee this party sucks ass, but I guess I'm going to stay anyway because I've got nothing else to do."
Really, I've read a couple of your previous posts, and all I saw was "This topic is dumb" or "Wow this is really handicapped" or some stupid stuff like that. Maybe if you actually thought stuff out before you wrote it, I'd take your opinions and ideas seriously, but obviously we're to childish, or stupid for your superiority. Get the hell out.

[Dodger]

Also, for for anyone who thinks the so-called "pursuit of happiness" means you can do whatever the hell you want, I think there was a quote by 1 or more of out founding fathers that stated, "Only good, self-regulating people can experience true liberty."

[dkamm65]

The separation of church and state is one of the most misunderstood doctrines of the constitution.  I highly recommend that you read the book "Wall of Misconception" by Peter A. Lillback.  It's a very thorough discussion on the subject.

Westminster Theological Seminary is a Presbyterian and Reformed Christian graduate educational institution... ...The current president is Peter Lillback, who also serves as a professor of Historical Theology.

Sure, let's trust a Christian on that subject.