Celebrate Diversity

[thmack]

lmao @ this thread

[Felicia Katt]

What you want done "fairly and not arbitarily" is not fair,but purely subjective. You would confer to one group,while denying the same rights to the next aggrieved minority in line,be they polygamists,beastialists,or NAMBLA.

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it. You are saying that the transgendered and homsexuals are no better or more deserving of respect than child molesters and perverts.

If that kind of vile hatred had been there when I replied, I would have done then what I am doing now. refusing to speak to you anymore.

FK

[hondarobot]

Ehhhh, damn, he did seem like he could have been interesting for debate purposes until that.

NAMBLA is clearly wrong, Polygamists just seem a bit weird, and I wasn't aware that "Beastialists" were actually a defined classification.

It's at this point that debate really does seem difficult. Too bad. . .the guy didn't seem like an idiot, but he pulled out some knee jerk reaction nonsense and seems to have dropped the ball.

[Ecstatic]

What you want done "fairly and not arbitarily" is not fair,but purely subjective. You would confer to one group,while denying the same rights to the next aggrieved minority in line,be they polygamists,beastialists,or NAMBLA.

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it. You are saying that the transgendered and homsexuals are no better or more deserving of respect than child molesters and perverts.

If that kind of vile hatred had been there when I replied, I would have done then what I am doing now. refusing to speak to you anymore.

FK

Prior to this point I had considered WMC to be intelligent, articulate, and well-informed, despite his untenable, questionable, even hateful conclusions. However, going back to edit a post (which is an historical document, albeit in a casual and fluid forum environment) in order to undercut his opponent's point of view--a sort of post-pre-emptive strike--is bad form and undermines his argument for those who have followed the course of the debate; only those coming to read the thread after the fact might be fooled by this tactic.

Leaving form aside for the moment, I am struck by the tenor of his point above:

You would confer to one group,while denying the same rights to the next aggrieved minority in line,be they polygamists,beastialists,or NAMBLA.

This is non sequitur: the rights in question are not the same. The fundamental right in question is that of two adults to marry, and if that civil liberty is denied to any minority (be they couples of mixed ethnicity, as blacks and whites were denied marriage rights only a few decades ago, or of same sex couples), then there is an unfair conference of civil liberties. GLBT supporters who argue for same sex equality in such civil liberties (which extends to rights of inheritance and other legal issues involved in the institution of marriage, which issues force marriage to be a state issue and not only a religious issue) do not seek to deny that right to any two adults. Polygamy, bestiality, and Man/boy relations are entirely separate issues as they do not involve two adults.

Polygamy has deep repercusions for society involving medical insurance, inheritance, and a wide range of issues. Personally I find it quite acceptable that more than two adults can be in a loving relationship, but the complexities of declaring such a relationship in a legally binding marriage are vast, and as this is a red herring, I do not wish to pursue the subject here. Beastiality and man/boy relations? The very concept of equating these with adult love between two people of whatever gender is an insult.

So long and thanks for all the red herring.

[Ecstatic]

Hi all,

Just thought I would point out that the separation of church and state doesn't exist in the constitution, federalist papers, or declaration of independence.

The constitution only asserts that congress can make no laws affecting organized religions. Or congress can't touch religion. Religion did touch politics... Heck the school they taught in was where they worshiped on sundays is just one example.

Just to set the record correct on that one...


Enjoy

Max

True, in a simplistic way, Max. The declaration of independence and the Federalist papers really don't apply since, while they are quite vital historical documents which influenced the development of the US government, they do not directly form any part of that government. The constitution does, and as has been the case since it was framed, we see a brilliantly structured, carefully worded document which covers an astounding range of issues but whose very terse nature leads to sometimes endless interpretation and modulation.

Very simply put, the priniciple of separation of church and state is inherent in the First Amendment. For example, if the US government passes a law making marriage between one adult male and one adult female only, that law intercedes with the beliefs of many faith groups in the US, including but not limited to Unitarians, Reform Jews, Buddhists, and Wiccans.

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992. Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage to same sex couples based on the ascendency of the central Christian one man/one woman definition of marriage countravenes this principle. This is precisely why the Massachusetts Superior Court recognized the legality of same sex marriage: under the existing laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, such couples, being comprised of two adults, are guaranteed the civil liberty of marriage. The state can make no law binding such marriage in the eyes of any given church, but neither can any church or body of faithful practioners enforce their definition of marriage on the general public.

And this is what I mean by preventing the tyranny of the majority.

[trish]

Nicely done, Ecstatic. Just a thought on the side. The IRS refuses to recognize some religions as such and thereby establishes others by tax exemption. If the wall between religion and state were truely impermerable we would tax all churches.

[White_Male_Canada]

What you want done "fairly and not arbitarily" is not fair,but purely subjective. You would confer to one group,while denying the same rights to the next aggrieved minority in line,be they polygamists,beastialists,or NAMBLA.

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it. You are saying that the transgendered and homsexuals are no better or more deserving of respect than child molesters and perverts.

If that kind of vile hatred had been there when I replied, I would have done then what I am doing now. refusing to speak to you anymore.

FK

Cut `n run, just like the left loves to do.


"What is right for one individual may be wrong for the next; and what is sin and abomination to one may be a worthwhile part of the next individual's life."

Alfred Kinsey

Check out Table 34 of his book. He used pedophile research who kept detailed records of their child sex, including those of a baby of 5 months and a 4-year-old he sexually manipulated for 24 hours.

Kinsey wrote that the psychic damage to children who have sex with adults comes from the horrified reaction of adults, not from the sex itself.

Do we care to cling to Kinsey and his "studies" or are we going to cherry pick only the parts we like.

January 12, 2006
OTTAWA -- A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships. ``Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,'' says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
``The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed.''


This before Canada took a closer step to less government in electing the Conservative party and thereby nulifying the "study" done by liberal hacks designed to give the Liberal party cover.

So drawn to it`s logical conclusion,the next aggreived minority to have it`s laws repealed would be those whose practice was incest,beastiality and sex with minors.

To subjectively draw a line in the sand and delcare,"we are ok,but THEM !? To Jail ! " is arbitrary,intolerant,subjective,and creates millions of demi-gods,who decide for the rest what is "moral" for some,illegal for the rest.

[White_Male_Canada]

Just thought I would point out that the separation of church and state doesn't exist in the constitution, federalist papers, or declaration of independence.

The constitution only asserts that congress can make no laws affecting organized religions. Or congress can't touch religion. Religion did touch politics... Heck the school they taught in was where they worshiped on sundays is just one example.

Just to set the record correct on that one...


Enjoy

Max
True, in a simplistic way, Max. The declaration of independence and the Federalist papers really don't apply since, while they are quite vital historical documents which influenced the development of the US government, they do not directly form any part of that government. The constitution does, and as has been the case since it was framed, we see a brilliantly structured, carefully worded document which covers an astounding range of issues but whose very terse nature leads to sometimes endless interpretation and modulation.

Very simply put, the priniciple of separation of church and state is inherent in the First Amendment.

Brilliantly,wrong. Max is closer to the historical facts than you`ll ever be,being a leftist.

The words “separation of church and state” was in a letter from Jefferson. But it only became a constitutional position in the 1940s by a bare majority vote of the United States Supreme Court. It was stuck in the opinion(Everson Vs.Board of Education); it wasn’t even a part of the decision, by Hugo Black. Do you know who Justice Hugo Black was?

When Black was put on the court, he was a Senator from Alabama. He was put on the court by FDR. Do you know that before Robert Bird, he was a member of the KKK? And did you know that Justice Hugo Black despised the Catholic religion? He had all these conspiracy theories about the Pope. He’s the one who slipped that language in that decision. He’s the one that you`re quoting.

So, when we hear socialists going around, “separation of church and state”, they’re not quoting Jefferson,a Deist, and his letter to the Danbury Baptists. They’re quoting Hugo Black who was a member of the KKK.

After Jefferson wrote that letter? He attended morning prayers.Where? They freely held them in Congress then ! LOL

And here`s the rest of the letter from Jefferson:

" ... I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man,and tender you,for yourself,and your Religious Associations,assurances of my high respect and esteem."

Thomas Jefferson Jan.01,1802


Jefferson`s letter was written 14 years after the Bill of Rights were adopted. And several of the states ratifying the Bill of Rights actually had official state religions. If today's "separation of church and state" viewpoint existed back then, the Bill of Rights never would have been ratified by the states, including the states that had official religions.

Know what`s worse than that? Take a tour of the Supreme Court building. In it you`ll find copies of the Decalouge,written in stone,carved into the building itself.

The US Constitution can only be modulated via the Amendment process , is not fluid and open to personal interpretations.If it were then it would be called a "living document". A living document means the original context are dead,therefore,the Constitution means whatever an unelected black robed judge says it means.That is a judicial oligarchy.

[White_Male_Canada]

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

Some context here that undercuts your argument. The specifics of L vs W was Providence's practice of soliciting ministers for prayers and then controlling the content of the prayer and had nothing whatsoever to do with sex.

The Supreme Court allowed the phrase "one nation, under God" (a phrase that was added to the pledge in 1954 during the Cold War) to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance , reversing a district court decision that stated that the phrase "under God" in the pledge constituted "a profession of religious belief" in public schools and therefore violated the Establishment Clause.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States permitted a student-initiated graduation prayer under a rationale compatible with reconciliationism in Jones v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist.,easily passing the Lemon test.

Clearly stated,the School cannot solicit a specific Rabbi,priest,minister or any other to recite a prayer. But student initiated prayer is permissable.

[Ecstatic]

Nicely done, Ecstatic. Just a thought on the side. The IRS refuses to recognize some religions as such and thereby establishes others by tax exemption. If the wall between religion and state were truely impermerable we would tax all churches.

Agreed! Good point, Trish.