T1B

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Left Seater wrote:If the "traditional" definition of marriage is no longer valid, how long until plural marriage is legal? And shouldn't LGBT fans be supporting the "rights" of those who want to practice plural marriage?

Can you produce a compelling reason why it shouldn't?

Not given the court's ruling. That was my point. But I can't imagine the left lining up behind these plural marriage folks.

88 wrote:

H4ever wrote:

88 wrote: But it doesn't matter anymore. Whichever party gets their five people appointed to the Court gets to run the kingdom now.

Then how do you account for the SCOTUS' most recent rulings? ACA, LGBT marriage to name a couple.

You got bad grades in math, didn't you?

In this situation, you can use one hand. You don't even need to take off one of your shoes. When you get to five, just stop because you are done.

Pssst. Republicans and Democrats are the same. Both parties are run by statists. They both believe that massive amounts of power should be concentrated in a large central government. They only disagree about which party should get to control it.

Como? Thought they had the numbers to strike it down.... how's my math?

Coming soon to a court near you: Pluralistic marriage. And after that? Adult/child marriage much to Pedo in Diego's delight. After all, since world culture is the standard to which we now measure ourselves, that form of marriage is acceptable in much of the world.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Left Seater wrote:If the "traditional" definition of marriage is no longer valid, how long until plural marriage is legal? And shouldn't LGBT fans be supporting the "rights" of those who want to practice plural marriage?

Can you produce a compelling reason why it shouldn't?

Just one more step in your NAMBLA agenda, eh?

Felix wrote:...what the fuck does that have to do with establishment of the federal constitution that clearly espouses the separation of church and state.....

The only thing "clearly espoused" here is the fact that you are an ignorant, brain-dead fuckwit.

The establishment clause enjoined the Federal errr national government from interfering with the various officially established religions in the new states. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nine of the thirteen colonies had established religions of one denomination or another and none of them were going to agree on an established national religion of a competing denomination.

Now fuck off and crack a book before you start shooting your dicksucker off again on topics you so clearly know nothing about.

mvscal wrote:The establishment clause enjoined the Federal errr national government from interfering with the various officially established religions in the new states. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nine of the thirteen colonies had established religions of one denomination or another and none of them were going to agree on an established national religion of a competing denomination.

Exactly so.

It has been applied in the exact opposite way it was intended to be applied.

If a person simple reads the 1st Amendment and takes it as written, there is NO WAY they could ever see fit to use it as a hammer against people of faith the way it has been used.

Rooster wrote:Coming soon to a court near you: Pluralistic marriage. And after that? Adult/child marriage much to Pedo in Diego's delight. After all, since world culture is the standard to which we now measure ourselves, that form of marriage is acceptable in much of the world.

False, Chicken Little.

Children have never been viewed as being able to grant consent nor been given the ability to sign contracts. How is it that the courts would permit such a thing?

Got any other pea-brained predictions?

Diego wrote:Children have never been viewed as being able to grant consent nor been given the ability to sign contracts. How is it that the courts would permit such a thing?

Diego, a few decades ago, homos were clinically declared to have significant psychiatric problems, sodomy was a crime universally and was a felony in many states.
At that time, nobody in their right mind would have considered it realistic at all that two buttfucking, mentally ill men should be elevated to that status of a married couple.

"The courts" have allowed 50+ million helpless children in a mother's womb to be snuffed out.


The courts have already permitted wretched things.
We should we imagine they won't up their sick game once again?

poptart wrote:

mvscal wrote:The establishment clause enjoined the Federal errr national government from interfering with the various officially established religions in the new states. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nine of the thirteen colonies had established religions of one denomination or another and none of them were going to agree on an established national religion of a competing denomination.

Exactly so.

It has been applied in the exact opposite way it was intended to be applied.

If a person simple reads the 1st Amendment and takes it as written, there is NO WAY they could ever see fit to use it as a hammer against people of faith the way it has been used.

There's that victimhood attitude again.

People of faith aren't being forced into homosexual marriages. Quit your whining.

And if the FF's were intending to keep the government out of the state religions, why wasn't it written as such by mentioning states specifically? Why didn't TJ ever mention that it was his intention to protect state religions. In fact, in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists he mentions "a wall of separation between church and state." It's very clear that after what they went through with King George III the FF's didn't want ANY government dictating religion to citizens. To say that it wasn't intended to bar state establishment of religion is patently false.

poptart wrote:

Diego wrote:Children have never been viewed as being able to grant consent nor been given the ability to sign contracts. How is it that the courts would permit such a thing?

Diego, a few decades ago, homos were clinically declared to have significant psychiatric problems, sodomy was a crime universally and was a felony in many states.
At that time, nobody in their right mind would have considered it realistic at all that two buttfucking, mentally ill men should be elevated to that status of a married couple.

Do you really want to get into all the medical "truths" that were around several decades ago?

"The courts" have allowed 50+ million helpless children in a mother's womb to be snuffed out.

No there hasn't. Quit your bleating based on fairy tales & join the modern world.

Diego in Seattle wrote: It's very clear that after what they went through with King George III the FF's didn't want ANY government dictating religion to citizens. To say that it wasn't intended to bar state establishment of religion is patently false.

If your claim is true then explain why states has official religions for 100 plus years. You should also easily be able to link us up to court cases or the docs the new national government used to try to stop these state religions within the first few years after the signing when the FF were still alive.

LS wrote:If your claim is true then explain why states has official religions for 100 plus years.

Diego is extremely confused.

There were state religions established at the time of the writing of the 1st Amendment.

So if we just read the text...


- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof -


We see that it prohibits CONGRESS from making laws which establish a religion.
They wanted no federal religion to be established, but they were NOT prohibiting the states from continuing what they were already doing, which was enjoying the free exercise of the religion of their choice.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Children have never been viewed as being able to grant consent nor been given the ability to sign contracts. How is it that the courts would permit such a thing?

By lowering the age of consent, you spurt-belching assfuck.

Jsc810 wrote:Further, that there is a difference between a "Creator" and the God of the Bible,"

So let's hear it. You begin at any time.

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Children have never been viewed as being able to grant consent nor been given the ability to sign contracts. How is it that the courts would permit such a thing?

By lowering the age of consent, you spurt-belching assfuck.

Let us know when such a concept polls at more than single digits, twatwaffle.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Children have never been viewed as being able to grant consent nor been given the ability to sign contracts. How is it that the courts would permit such a thing?

By lowering the age of consent, you spurt-belching assfuck.

Let us know when such a concept polls at more than single digits, twatwaffle.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Children have never been viewed as being able to grant consent nor been given the ability to sign contracts. How is it that the courts would permit such a thing?

By lowering the age of consent, you spurt-belching assfuck.

Let us know when such a concept polls at more than single digits, twatwaffle.

It matters not where it polls. When our masters in the long black robes decide it, you will STFU and take it.

88 wrote:You do realize that until the 19th Amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920, "any person" who happened to be female did not necessarily have a right to vote in this country. Now if the 14th Amendment, as ratified by the people and states in 1868, was intended to be interpreted in the manner you profess, why the fuck did we need the 19th Amendment?

But since we have a 19th Amendment the concept of suffrage, and therefore equality of personhood, extends to members of both sexes. Which makes your point moot.

Jsc wrote:Does someone want to explain the incorporation doctrine to poptart?

Explain yourself if you want to.
It's always good entertainment.

And while you're at it, perhaps remind him that T. Jefferson actually took a razor blade to the Bible to remove all the supernatural and miracle stuff.

Yes, we're very aware of it.
I've not seen anyone claiming Jefferson was a good Christian, great Christian, any kind of Christian, or that it even matters at all what he personally was.

Further, that there is a difference between a "Creator" and the God of the Bible, and that perhaps understanding what Deism could shed some insight to that difference.

Once again, one must enter warp drive stupidity to think that founding citizens of America were recognizing a nebulous "creator" and not the God of the Holy Bible.

Finally, to Scalia and those who profess to interpret the Constitution in a strict manner, do you realize that the 14th Amendment says "any person" and not "any person except homosexuals?"

To engage in homosexual acts is a choice a person makes.
It is not a class of people which arises from their birth.

poptart wrote:

Jsc wrote:Finally, to Scalia and those who profess to interpret the Constitution in a strict manner, do you realize that the 14th Amendment says "any person" and not "any person except homosexuals?"

To engage in homosexual acts is a choice a person makes.
It is not a class of people which arises from their birth.

So you want to argue that sexuality is a choice....

Please point out where in the Constitution that those that make the choice of heterosexuality are allowed more rights that those that choose homosexuality.

TIA

States have been granting the same right to all people.
Any man or woman can marry.

Now if you choose to stick your dick in another man's asshole, that's your business.

poptart wrote:Now if you choose to stick your dick in another boy's asshole, that's your business.

FTFY

Now, I know you don't like the pedo references, but it is only applicable in his case. He's anti-Christian, and sides with the SCrOTUS when it furthers his sick personal agenda. He has made a deviant comment or two about kids in the past. That much is true. Normally, one would chalk it up to saying something stupid on this board.

However, he is still full-on about legitimizing deviant behaviors. He hasn't fessed up if he is a NAMBLA member yet. So one must ask why is he so interested in this issue. To be honest, I think there is something behind his defensiveness.

poptart wrote:States have been granting the same right to all people.
Any man or woman can marry.

Now if you choose to stick your dick in another man's asshole, that's your business.

The right is to marry the consenting adult of their mutual choosing. Why do you ignore this?

Diego in Seattle wrote:

poptart wrote:States have been granting the same right to all people.
Any man or woman can marry.

Now if you choose to stick your dick in another man's asshole, that's your business.

The right is to marry the consenting adult of their mutual choosing. Why do you ignore this?

I'll let Barry answer for me...



Homosexuals don't have a civil right to radically re-define marriage.
Marriage is of community concern.

- Barry




People can't make up all of their own rules and standards for a community.
They can't just dictate to a community what standards the community of other people must be forced to sanction.

poptart wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

poptart wrote:States have been granting the same right to all people.
Any man or woman can marry.

Now if you choose to stick your dick in another man's asshole, that's your business.

The right is to marry the consenting adult of their mutual choosing. Why do you ignore this?

I'll let Barry answer for me...



Homosexuals don't have a civil right to radically re-define marriage.
Marriage is of community concern.

- Barry




People can't make up all of their own rules and standards for a community.
They can't just dictate to a community what standards the community of other people must be forced to sanction.

Obama was wrong then, and is equally wrong to celebrate now like he had much to do with it.

And communities can't just arbitrarily withhold rights & privileges provided by the US Constitution. Don't like the 14th Amendment? Don't come back to America. We like freedom here.

Papa Willie wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:We like freedom here.

Then people should be able to fly whatever flag they want to fly, and everybody should be able to tote guns if they want to. Right?

And before you say anything about the flag, it should be voted on by the people of the STATE if they want to fly it on state gov't properties.

I have no problem with either one. I think it would be felony stupid to keep flying that flag at the state capitol, but that's their choice.

poptart wrote: What you said is false.
The country absolutely was founded on Christian beliefs.

I'll admit that it appears states may have enacted state laws based on their religion, but the law of this land is Federal Law.....
I stand by my assertion that our founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin) were very deliberate in ensuring that our Constitution specifically was founded on the the separation of church and state, hence our Constitutional Laws were not based on religious bigotry

Jefferson was a deist and really didn't care much for christianity....to his way of thinking religion was never a system or a salvation....

Jefferson's relations to the religious opinions of his country were somewhat peculiar. He believed, like Paine, in a personal God and a future life, but, like him, regarded Christianity, in the supernatural view of it, as a popular fable, an instrument for deluding, misgoverning and plundering mankind; and these opinions he entertained, as he did most others, with little regard to any qualifying considerations, and with an energy approaching to fanaticism.

Felix, the nonsense you have been posting in here is almost unbelievable.
Your latest gem...

Felix wrote:our founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin) were very deliberate in ensuring that our Constitution specifically was founded on the the separation of church and state

The 1st Amendment (separation clause, etc.) was ratified in 1791, at which time many states had a state religion which they had been enjoying.
And after the 1st Amendment, the states -- CONTINUED ON -- with their state religions.

Read these two sentences a dozen-or-so times until the light bulb comes on.

For being as deliberate about ensuring separation of state/church as you claim the founders were, they sure didn't do a very good job of ensuring that state/church separation, did they?
lol


CLEARLY, the 1st Amendment (separation clause) was not intended to (nor did it) cause a separation of state/religion within any given state.

The 1st Amendment's purpose was to ensure that the people of a given state were FREE to exercise the religion of choice within their state.
The feds (Congress) were just not allowed to establish any law toward establishing a federal religion.

poptart wrote: I've not seen anyone claiming Jefferson was a good Christian, great Christian, any kind of Christian, or that it even matters at all what he personally was.


Once again, one must enter warp drive stupidity to think that founding citizens of America were recognizing a nebulous "creator" and not the God of the Holy Bible.

So, see if I got this right... you contend that a bunch of Deists, who clearly didn't believe in the God of the Holy Bible, were referring to the God of the Holy Bible?


You're clowning... rather hard.

Dinsdale wrote:you contend that a bunch of Deists...

I've never contended that.

OK... when I accuse you of being dumb, you're actual supposed to refute it, rather than reinforce it.

The "bunch of Deists" was a statement of fact.

So, we have a "missionary" who appears to know extremely little about theology, who moonlights as an "English teacher," who knows very little about basic sentence structure.

This keeps getting better. Please continue -- any time you start discussing your silly religion, your brain just shuts right the fuck off. Kind of like LTS when 9/11 comes up.

Link me up to where I said a bunch of deists...


Were some deists among the founders?
Surely.
Many were Christian in the traditional sense.

They set up a system of government which acknowledged God in it's founding documents, and which gave people freedom to pursue the religious activities of their choosing, and the people took that and OVERWHELMINGLY set up Christian communities and even state Christianity.



bible thumpers who falsely believe this country was founded on christian beliefs.....it wasn't.

- Felix



This is false.

Because some deists were among the founders, you and Felix somehow want to take that and deny the basic reality that OVERWHELMINGLY, the country was indeed founded on Christian beliefs.

And again, every state constitution makes reference to God, or God Almighty as their source of power, freedom, liberty, etc.

These references were made about some nebulous... god?

No sale.

poptart wrote:Once again, one must enter warp drive stupidity to think that founding citizens of America were recognizing a nebulous "creator" and not the God of the Holy Bible.

Yep.

Dinsdale wrote:you contend that a bunch of Deists, who clearly didn't believe in the God of the Holy Bible, were referring to the God of the Holy Bible?

Is that all it was?
Just a bunch of deists who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?


lol

poptart wrote:bible thumpers who falsely believe this country was founded on christian beliefs.....it wasn't.

- Felix

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion

-John Adams (signer of both the Declaration of Independence & Constitution



I guess Pastortart knows more about the DOI & Constitution than John Adams (who was there).

As to the state religions, do you really think that there were people lining up left & right to litigate the issue? Probably as many people that were lining up to sue over the freedom of black people. Just because it took a while to get things corrected doesn't mean that what happened in the beginning was constitutional.

Papa Willie wrote:Why is a "license" required to get anybody married? It's absurd.

Would make more sense to require a license to breed. Along with some serious testing.

Goober McTuber wrote: Would make more sense to require a license to breed. Along with some serious testing.

Werd.

You need a license to drive a car. You need a license to fix someone's sink. You need a license to catch a fish.

Breeding? Free-for-all.

poptart wrote:
The 1st Amendment's purpose was to ensure that the people of a given state were FREE to exercise the religion of choice within their state.

that's right, any religion they want....so why do you think that christianity is the default religion

The feds (Congress) were just not allowed to establish any law toward establishing a federal religion.

exactly, they were keeping religious bigotry out of federal law....again, why do you think christianity is the default religion

Felix wrote:they were keeping religious bigotry out of federal law

Why do you keep chirping about bigotry?

They were keeping Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of a national religion.
But they were obviously just fine with allowing states to continue on with their -----> BIGOTRY, right?
Yes, they were.
lol

why do you think that christianity is the default religion

Felix, it's basic fact that the colonies were settled by people with a foundation of Christian faith.
Christianity is what they established there, and then when the Constitution was drawn up, it guaranteed people freedom to pursue this to their heart's content.
And so the people continued on, within the states, to make Christian belief a central point of their societies.
OVERWHELMINGLY, this was the case.

A person has to be brain dead to deny the basic reality that the U.S. foundation of faith was Christianity.

m2 ran poptart from the United States.


It started with a little tennis match in Uston back in the early 2002 at Champions off of 1960... and the loser had to leave the city.


Poptart wanted a double or nothing and I agreed. I said, if you lose... you have to leave the state of Texas.

Well, Cinderella ended up somewhere in Nebraska and called me and asked for one more match.

I couldn't stop laughing... and said, of course.


This time... it was my rules. "If you lose... you have to leave the country and go to a place where they will laugh at you for the rest of your life".


Hence, the 5 foot 6... 116 lb skeleton is now residing somewhere near the north Korean boarder talking to himself all day and fantasizing about a better life with some guy that lives in a 'silver and black' cloud... while dining on Siberian husky for breakfast, lunch, and diner (doggy-style).


It didn't really have to end this way.



Oh yeah, your passport has been permanently revoked... and you will NEVER be allowed to enter the United States again.


I tried.

This whole topic is pointless. Get married, or don't. Two men, two women, two opposite sex, Moving Sale and a blow up doll, Spray and a 1952 never before been played Gibson Les Paul, Left Seater and a Hawker 4000, me and a new spine.... whatever.

A human with a brain knows what marriage is, and it CAN be just a civil union, OR (normally)a joining of two souls, along with God(whatever you care to interpret) in a religious setting. And as long as any 'interpretation' doesn't screw with me, or..FORCE me to accept it, it's all good.

Kinda like the Wizard of Oz Theory of Education. One just needs a diploma, and BAM!!!, you are smart. A legal certificate is what all the controversy is about. Marriage is what it is, and if two same gender want to go through bad as well as good, such as divorce and child custody hearings, etc.( How's it going Rosie O'Fat),....I say knock themselves out. Welcome to Law, not just semantics, emotion or social change when it comes to legal marriage.

Now, can we move on to more important things like....how great it will be when the Dodgers win the World Series this year?