Keep them at home

[mattyc4]

Hey Buddy, good to see you here too…

Homosexuality has not ever been proven to be a disorder born to some either…so what’s your point?

Please…Christians are the most persecuted people alive today! We can’t pray in schools, we can’t worship in public, we can’t celebrate Christmas in public, we can’t wear religious jewelry in public, we can’t speak publicly and openly about religion in any institution or business, we can’t run for office without being dragged through the mud over religious beliefs, we can’t even appoint judges without asking them to pass a religious litmus test!

Let’s not forget that at the same time we are being threatened by Islamic nuts who want nothing more than to behead each and every one of us…including you!

After reading your posts, I have been forced to conclude how brilliant your satire actually is. There is no possibility you could be serious with this most recent post. It must be a satirical arguement.

Christians are the most persecuted people alive? What is wrong with you? This is not even close to the truth. I would love to see some data backing this ridiculous and deceptive assumption. Perhaps it was true in the past, but now there is far more of a problem with homophobia and racism than religious persecution. Read Douglas Massey and Putnam and see for yourself.

My point is, you are ASSUMING it is a choice, when you just admitted nobody knows. That, buddy, is deliberately deceptive. Your whole argument in this thread is based on your erroneous conception of choices…so why should anyone agree with you if you just made an argument based on a faulty rationale?

 

[leftistdestroye]

One big difference is how the gays are using the judicial system(government) to dictate to society as to what will be accepted or not. That is in now way, an intent of the government.

The Bill of Rights is a contract between the governmnet and the people, not the people vs. the people. The Constitution is under the same contract. SOme of you here seem to think that the Constitution is a set of societal rules. It is not, it is an agreement between the government and the people. If I want to discriminate when hiring, I have every right to do so and the government cannot tell me otherwise. It is the governmnet that cannot do so.

Barbarian, can you explain to me why when I say CONGRSSS SHALL PASS NO LAW, you mention the 14th amendment? I am not following as to why that is relavent. I am not talking about states rights here, I am talking about the interprtation of the 1st amendment.

Bill of Rights also protects your right to do that. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing after all, um?

Stick to the issue will you? This is a red herring on your part. You deliberately overlooked the context of Neat62’s comment in order to bring up an issue that is not relavent to the topic. Her poit: A singular teacher, is not the government. And that IS NOT clear in the law. That is an interpretation of the law. For the 15th time, CONGRESS shall pass no law…A teache r is not CONGRESS. She is a private citizen.

 

[leftistdestroye]

mattyc4;3688444]

Wow. Now you have a right to marry someone of the same sex too–its not exclusive to homosexuals. They do not want to marry someone of the opposite gender.

No, we don’t. There is no right to gay marriage. Gay marriage does not exist. Ther is no state interest in gay marriage. The law, as it is written now, applies to a man and a woman. The government is not telling gays that they are forbidden to marry, under that application. The ONLY way to legally achieve gay marriege, is to pass a law stating that the definition of marriage applies to anybody. A law that expresses the opposite of DOMA. There is no historical precedent that acknowleges a union between gays.

Not only that, but homosexuality has not even been proven to be a choice, so your argument about “lifestyle choices” is not empirically valid.

The freedom to have sex or not, is always a choice.

Furthermore, the decision said the current laws violated the equal protection clause–which I’m sure you will create a good reason why that should be abolished in the case of homosexuals.

What it means is that society cannot determine it’s own destiny, that the courts are the sole rulers. That society at large, has no control over how it behaves or functions. If this is government protection, then it is time to get remove any and all perks to married couples. It is time to promote simple marriage ceremonies between two people only. That they make personal vows to each other and that is it. No more marrige liscences, no more tax breaks for burdened families with children. No more benfits for married couples, that may relvieve some of the burdens of providing the next generation of workers and tax payers. Nothing.

Furthermore, the decision was quite clear in saying it was not to be used as a precedent for polygamous, incestuous, or beastiality.

Wow. So the government is discriminating against those who would seek to marry more than one? The government is discriminating against those who would seek to have sex with their own children? Dogs? How dare they. The governmnet has NO RIGHT to discriminate simply because a majority of society are against such behaviors! For thinking that having sex with a dog may be absolutley crazy, is how I feel about gay marriage, but it does not matter what a homophobe bigot like me thinks, as long as people are “free” to do what they want, right? THAT is EXACTLY what you are saying, but you will never admit that, will you? And that it is ok to discriminate against other questionable behavioral acts, just as long as it is not gays. RELEASE WARREN JEFFS! HE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALY CONFINED BY THE GOVERNMENT!

You are basing your entire argument on “CHOICES” and on religion. This is not a theocracy–just because your religion says something is immoral does not mean the USA should automatically outlaw it (that does not mean that every law laid by religion is bad, just that it has no real value in a secular society)

That is how a democracy works. Look at Barney Frank. He is gay. He also introduces bills and supports bills that favor gays. He supports what is important to him and we support what is important to us. Why should his beliefs be considered more worthy than ours?

A secular society??? Are you equating a society with a secular government? The majority of the nation is against gay marriage. Not everyone is religious, and yet the majorty of the “secular” society is against this. Even in Liberal California, it was voted on a few times and rejected. This is not a theocracy, and it certainly is not a democracy anymore either.

This is NOT a theocracy, religious symbols have no place in court rooms or in government buildings. That is the way the seperation of church and state works. If there is a cross in a government building it could possibly be seen as an endorsement of christianity by the government–which is not acceptable in the USA.

Wrong! CONGRESS shall pass no law…

THAT, is the intent behind the first amendment. And what about Moses on the Supreme Court Building? Should he be removed as well? If so, then how about Confucius and Solon too? They are right beside Moses on that building. How about Muhammad? He is on the supreme court bulidng too.

There are religious inscriptions on public buildings all over the US. Many of them made 100+ years ago and were never considered to be in violation of the first ammendment. Or at least not to the point of removal.

The government owning property which already had across on that property, is not a legislative endorsment of religion. It means that they one the land. The case of Mt Soledad, why did the feds buy that land to begin with? They should have said: Remove the cross, and then we will buy the land.

 

[The_Barbarian]

One big difference is how the gays are using the judicial system(government) to dictate to society as to what will be accepted or not.

Actually, the Bill of Rights dictates what rights they will have. This is the source of your distress. If you’re Catholic, it’s a moot point, since the Church teaches that we must accept them, and accord them equal rights, even if we disapprove of the sin they are attracted to. That doesn’t mean, BTW, we have to agree to homosexual marriage.

The Bill of Rights is a contract between the governmnet and the people, not the people vs. the people. The Constitution is under the same contract. SOme of you here seem to think that the Constitution is a set of societal rules. It is not, it is an agreement between the government and the people.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It merely observes that people have rights by virtue of being people. It happens to enumerate some of them, but our rights are not at the whim of the government.

If I want to discriminate when hiring, I have every right to do so and the government cannot tell me otherwise.

It can, and does. To a degree that I find disturbing myself. And it’s people who abused their power to do so, that made it so. You’re part of the problem.

Barbarian, can you explain to me why when I say CONGRSSS SHALL PASS NO LAW, you mention the 14th amendment?

The Fourteenth Amendment applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to the States.

** Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.**

I am not following as to why that is relavent. I am not talking about states rights here, I am talking about the interprtation of the 1st amendment.

The XIV Amendment extends the limitation put on the Congress to all governments within the United States.

Barbarian observes:
Bill of Rights also protects your right to do that. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing after all, um?

Stick to the issue will you?

It is the issue. People like that insist on having their rights, but want to deny rights to others.

Her poit: A singular teacher, is not the government.

The government may not delegate powers it does not have, to another person. That’s not controversial; it was the intent of the founders, and it is the law.

And that IS NOT clear in the law. That is an interpretation of the law. For the 15th time, CONGRESS shall pass no law…A teache r is not CONGRESS. She is a private citizen.

Give it a try; take that argument to court and see how far you get, if you can find a lawyer willing to make a fool of himself.

 

[leftistdestroye]

The Barbarian;3693266]

I see that you figured out how to quote and post. I thank you.

Actually, the Bill of Rights dictates what rights they will have. This is the source of your distress. That doesn’t mean, BTW, we have to agree to homosexual marriage.

There is no right marriage for gays there. And how society has no real say so as to what it is. Funny how some juges find gay marriage as a right in the Constitution, and other judges do not.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It merely observes that people have rights by virtue of being people. It happens to enumerate some of them, but our rights are not at the whim of the government.

But when the legislatures vote is not good enough, they run to the courts. And I am not sure that the second amendment is a “God given” right. That was created by humans.

It can, and does. To a degree that I find disturbing myself. And it’s people who abused their power to do so, that made it so. You’re part of the problem.

How am I part of the problem?

The Fourteenth Amendment applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to the States.

** Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.**

Yeah, I know all of that. But what does that have to do with the phrase: Congress shall pass no law?

The XIV Amendment extends the limitation put on the Congress to all governments within the United States.

What does that have to do with the phrase: Congress shall pass no law…?

It is the issue. People like that insist on having their rights, but want to deny rights to others.

I am not running to the government. I am just a simple part of society. The government should not tell society what to do. That is not the job of government. If they do not like it, it is they, who can move to Europe and marry. Their legislatue passed that law. Just like abortion in the UK. It is more accpeted their because they voted on it, rather than having a judge “find” that “right” in the COnstitution.

The government may not delegate powers it does not have, to another person. That’s not controversial; it was the intent of the founders, and it is the law.

Again, the intent was to limit the gov’s power of legislature. That is why they said: CONGRESS shall pass no law. These were smart guys, don;'t you think they would have said otherwise if it was their intent? But instead, they limited it to: CONGRESS shall pass no law. THAT, is the seperation of church and state. Here, Jeffersons letter to the baptists:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that ***their legislature ***should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

A teacher is not the government.

Give it a try; take that argument to court and see how far you get, if you can find a lawyer willing to make a fool of himself.

Of course. Does not mean that I am not right though. It means that the first amendment has been twisted for so long, and it was interpreted poorly, and that it is now accepted as truth, when it is not. It is a fact that in many court cases, modern times and personal opinions of judges have lead to certain decisions. They are human too and make mistakes like we all do. Just they are not quick to overturn their mistakes as it effects an entire nation.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, the Bill of Rights dictates what rights they will have. This is the source of your distress. That doesn’t mean, BTW, we have to agree to homosexual marriage.

There is no right marriage for gays there.

There is no right to marriage there for anyone. Indeed, I believe that marriage should be a religious ceremony, and the government should stay entirely out of it.

And how society has no real say so as to what it is.

That’s wrong, too. People have the right to make laws governing human conduct.

Funny how some juges find gay marriage as a right in the Constitution, and other judges do not.

That suggests to me that it’s not clear. Otherwise, they would agree.

Barbarian observes:
The Constitution does not grant rights. It merely observes that people have rights by virtue of being people. It happens to enumerate some of them, but our rights are not at the whim of the government.

But when the legislatures vote is not good enough, they run to the courts.

Turns out that the Constitution is the highest authority. It is, of course, subject to the will of the people also, but the founders wisely made it difficult to modify easily. Hence trivial causes don’t have the endurance to change it.

And I am not sure that the second amendment is a “God given” right. That was created by humans.

For Americans, it’s a God-given right.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No, it’s not law, and the founders didn’t want to establish religion for practical reasons, but they strongly agreed that God is the author of our liberties, not governments.

Barbarian observes:
It can, and does. To a degree that I find disturbing myself. And it’s people who abused their power to do so, that made it so. You’re part of the problem.

How am I part of the problem?

You object to equal rights for some people.

Barbarian observes:
The Fourteenth Amendment applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to the States.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yeah, I know all of that. But what does that have to do with the phrase: Congress shall pass no law?

It means the limitation on Congress was extended to all government agencies in the nation.

Barbarian observes:
It is the issue. People like that insist on having their rights, but want to deny rights to others.

I am not running to the government.

You are, if you want public school teachers to be conducting prayers in school.

Barbarian observes:
The government may not delegate powers it does not have, to another person. That’s not controversial; it was the intent of the founders, and it is the law.

Again, the intent was to limit the gov’s power of legislature. That is why they said: CONGRESS shall pass no law.

The courts agreed that any entity under the Congress was also restricted, since Congress gave them their powers, and therefore could not delegate a power they did not have.

Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Yes. Precisely. A wall of separation.

A teacher is not the government.

A public school teacher is an agent of the government, and therefore subject to the same restrictions. That is the law.

Barbarian suggests:
Give it a try; take that argument to court and see how far you get, if you can find a lawyer willing to make a fool of himself.

Of course. Does not mean that I am not right though.

Yes, it does. That is how we determine such things.

Your disagreement is with the intent of the founders, not just the laws as they exist today.

 

[leftistdestroye]

The Barbarian;3693964]

There is no right to marriage there for anyone. Indeed, I believe that marriage should be a religious ceremony, and the government should stay entirely out of it.

I think that certain perks were granted by the governmnet for hard working married couples who were doing the right thing and having children, the next generation. I have no problem with those perks.

That’s wrong, too. People have the right to make laws governing human conduct.

Sure, and then some groups run to the courts and have it overturned. Some say. Hel California has voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman 3 or 4 times now, and they just had it thrown out.

That suggests to me that it’s not clear. Otherwise, they would agree.

Or some may be activist judges. We have seen it happen.

Turns out that the Constitution is the highest authority. It is, of course, subject to the will of the people also, but the founders wisely made it difficult to modify easily.

It is not subject to the will of the people. Legislators are subject to the will of the people.

For Americans, it’s a God-given right.

No, it’s not law, and the founders didn’t want to establish religion for practical reasons, but they strongly agreed that God is the author of our liberties, not governments.

No, that’s not law, though I agree with it. The second amendment is law, not a God given right.

You object to equal rights for some people.

No I don’t. They have every right to get married if they want to. marriage is between a man and a woman. They have equal access to that.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It means the limitation on Congress was extended to all government agencies in the nation.

Where does it say all agencies? And yes, it limits states rights, fine. No problem. But that applies only to laws. “No State shall make or enforce any law” But now, the gays want marriage. That has upset many straights, as marriag eIS between a man and a woman and has always been as such. The government has no business telling us that gays can get married. Not the job of the government. It’s a societal issue, not a government issue.

You are, if you want public school teachers to be conducting prayers in school.

No because I do not want it legislated. I want a teacher to be free to say a prayer if she wants to. As long as she does not force the students to say it unless they want to.

The courts agreed that any entity under the Congress was also restricted, since Congress gave them their powers, and therefore could not delegate a power they did not have.

It limits governmental power. A teacher is not government and has no governmental power.

Yes. Precisely. A wall of separation.

“which declared that ***their legislature ***should make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

The SCOTUS was created in 1789 and Jeffersons letter to the baptists was in 1802. He must have known what he was talking about when he refered to the legislature passing laws respecting a religion.

A public school teacher is an agent of the government, and therefore subject to the same restrictions. That is the law.

lol And I am saying that the law is incorrect. And if we have to make a distinction between the government, the actual government and a teacher, then that tells me that the government is too big and is overstepping it’s bounds. Teachers have much, much, much more to do with localities than federal or even state governmnets.

Yes, it does. That is how we determine such things.

No it don’t. It means that I am supporting the correct interpretation of the intent if the Founders. And they have clearly stated that CONGRESS shall pass no law.

Your disagreement is with the intent of the founders, not just the laws as they exist today.

LOL NO! My disagreement is with the interpretation of the intent of the founders. The founders are clear, lawyers are not. You have it backwards.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There is no right to marriage there(in the Constitution) for anyone. Indeed, I believe that marriage should be a religious ceremony, and the government should stay entirely out of it.

I think that certain perks were granted by the governmnet for hard working married couples who were doing the right thing and having children, the next generation. I have no problem with those perks.

If you allow the government to do that, they can also use the same weapon to limit the number of children. Better not to give them that power, and hope they use it wisely.

Barbarian observes:
That’s wrong, too. People have the right to make laws governing human conduct.

Sure, and then some groups run to the courts and have it overturned.

The Constitution is still the final law. Don’t like it? Change it. There’s a procedure for you.

Barbarian on the fact that people do not agree on a Constitutional protection for same-sex marriages:
That suggests to me that it’s not clear. Otherwise, they would agree.

Or some may be activist judges.

As you saw, that cuts both ways. But the fact remains. It is not clear.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out that the Constitution is the highest authority. It is, of course, subject to the will of the people also, but the founders wisely made it difficult to modify easily.

It is not subject to the will of the people.

It certainly is. If enough people object to it, they can change it. And have.

Barbarian observes:
No, it’s not law, and the founders didn’t want to establish religion for practical reasons, but they strongly agreed that God is the author of our liberties, not governments.

No, that’s not law, though I agree with it. The second amendment is law, not a God given right.

That’s wrong, too. God gives us rights. The Constitution merely recognizes some of them.

Barbarian observes:
You object to equal rights for some people.

No I don’t.

Yes, of course you do. Not marriage, but even so far as assailing the idea that we might accept them (which, if you are a Catholic, you are bound to do)

Amendent XIV:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Barbarian observes:
It means the limitation on Congress was extended to all government agencies in the nation.

Where does it say all agencies?

Where it flatly outlaws any violation of individual rights. That prohibition applies to any and all governments or their agents.

The government has no business telling us that gays can get married.

Once you give the government the power to regulate marriage, yes they can tell you that gays can be married.

Barbarian observes:
You are, if you want public school teachers to be conducting prayers in school.

No because I do not want it legislated. I want a teacher to be free to say a prayer if she wants to.

She can, as long as she doesn’t do it in the course of her job. She can’t, for example, read a prayer in front of her class.

As long as she does not force the students to say it unless they want to.

Wrong. She can’t even force them to listen to it. And she can’t tell them to leave while the rest pray. That’s the law, and that’s how it should be.

Barbarian observes:
The courts agreed that any entity under the Congress was also restricted, since Congress gave them their powers, and therefore could not delegate a power they did not have.

It limits governmental power. A teacher is not government and has no governmental power.

Yes, a public school teacher is an agent of the state, and has governmental power. And is therefore restricted in the same way as any other entity of the government.

Barbarian observes:
Your disagreement is with the intent of the founders, not just the laws as they exist today.

LOL NO!

Yep. It is. Read Madison’s “Against Religious Assessments.”