U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2009, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Downtown Omaha
1,362 posts, read 4,194,400 times
Reputation: 526

Advertisements

To Western Pilgrim-

you're going to be in a world of disappointment if you're looking to get away from gay marriage. Iowa has legalized it and it's going to force the issue here again for couples Nebraska employers insurance coverage of their spouses. Also there are many gay people in Nebraska (myself included) so you'll never be away from it.

Also it's completely ridiculous to think that morality comes from religion. Apparently at one time it would have been moral to stone children for disobeying their parents or killing people who believed differently than you according to your bible, but I guess your morality was "subject to passing fancies" and the conveniences of not having to kill people all the time.

So if we're going to start having religious readings of the Constitution which religion are we going to go with? Even in all the christer religions you have different little sects that could never get along and it wouldn't be any different than some country ruled by muslim clerics where they have all of the sectarian violence that comes from everyone wanting their brand of religion running things. The middle east is a perfect example of why there should be no religions in charge.

 
Old 05-04-2009, 11:56 AM
 
Location: West Omaha
1,181 posts, read 3,647,697 times
Reputation: 477
Umm...yes, the Founding Fathers did think it was silly to select one religion over all others! For god sake's its explicitly written into the constitution.

Further, the 1st amendment was NOT just for religious freedom. And your summary of its religious component completely proves my point.

I didn't say the Founders wanted to BAN religion...I said they found it silly to prescribe to ONE religion. The fact that the 1st amendment exists is evidence of that...meaning no matter what your beliefs were your right to exercise those beliefs would be protected. So, if the Constitution explicitly states we shall not pick one religion then I ask you again...what religion should we use to guide our government mandated morality? Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism??

Further, Christianity was NOT taken for granted. Many of the founders had very very agnostic bents, including Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson. Yes, they spoke religion to appease the masses, but in their private letters and memoirs they openly discussed the possibility that there was no god at all.

You are simply reinventing history to match your wish that YOUR religion be imposed on everyone else.

And to suggest that morality is only non-subjective when based on religious is absurd! Religion itself is subject. Take any religious sect and look how its evolved over the years. No...you have it backwards. Religion evolves in order to match the underlying morality of man...which also evolves.

And I ask why can't you be moral without religion? I'm absolutely agnostic and I'm also a moral person. Have you not figured out that all that is written in all of religion is likely just a manifestation of society's moral tendency? But, instead, you think an imaginary being in the sky told us how to be moral. And you believe this even though populations from all the different religions and agnostics and atheists all have a very clear understanding what is and what isn't moral (no killing, no stealing, and etc.). Sorry, but I think you have the association backwards. Our morality caused us to invent religion in order to provide structure to the masses. Religion was not handed to us in order to create morality.

Last edited by mattpoulsen; 05-04-2009 at 12:41 PM..
 
Old 05-04-2009, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Western Nebraskansas
2,707 posts, read 5,344,621 times
Reputation: 2406
I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating-- Ten years ago, we had an openly gay lay pastor in Atkinson, Neb. (Bastion of liberalism that it is. lol He also owns a well-known business in town.)
"Openly" in so far as he and his partner had been together for 15 years and wore wedding rings.

Doubtlessly though, there were blue haired old ladies who though they were just two widowers who happened to be roommates.


This was a more challenging case, but the easy cases are non-Christian gay/lesbian couples. It doesn't even make any sense to judge a non-Christian by Christian standards.
Even ignoring the fact that "Christian standards" run a really wide gamut...

In cases like that (ie, non believers as well as believers) we have to use the body that governs us all; the Constitution. And granting rights to one group, while denying them to another, smacks of discrimination.
 
Old 05-04-2009, 01:58 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,255 posts, read 4,713,584 times
Reputation: 1527
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTO Luv View Post
you're going to be in a world of disappointment if you're looking to get away from gay marriage. Iowa has legalized it and it's going to force the issue here again for couples Nebraska employers insurance coverage of their spouses. Also there are many gay people in Nebraska (myself included) so you'll never be away from it.
You could be right. It's rather shocking that homosexual "marriage" remains illegal (thus far) in California but is now legal in Iowa, of all places. If it can happen in Iowa, I suppose it can happen anywhere. Is the Nebraska judiciary as liberal as Iowa's?

I do think, however, that Iowans will take a lesson from California and fight this judicial usurpation somehow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTO Luv View Post
Even in all the christer (sic) religions you have different little sects that could never get along and it wouldn't be any different than some country ruled by muslim clerics where they have all of the sectarian violence that comes from everyone wanting their brand of religion running things. The middle east is a perfect example of why there should be no religions in charge.
Judging by your own comments in this thread, it appears there is a majority consensus in Nebraska, in part motivated by Christian beliefs, that persons of the same sex cannot marry each other and the state should not pretend otherwise. If this majority is strong enough to resist the courts, that's good enough for me. Christians of various stripes don't have to agree on every detail in order to reach a public consensus on things that matter.
 
Old 05-04-2009, 02:54 PM
 
Location: West Omaha
1,181 posts, read 3,647,697 times
Reputation: 477
A judicial usurpation of what? The ability of the majority to strip rights from a minority

Was Brown v. Board of education a judicial usurpation?

The judiciary is supposed to step in cases such as these. First, Iowa had no Amendment on the issue. The judiciary is an absolute check to ensure the minority will not suffer from the tyranny of the majority.

People suggesting that judiciary should not have done this are completely ignorant on the workings of our government. This is absolutely the way the checks and balances are to work.

You just get upset when its YOUR view that gets usurped and then claim its unjust.

Well, if the majority all of a sudden decided to outlaw christians from marrying each other would you expect the judiciary to step in and deem this unconstitutional? Or would you be okay with the "majority" view...would that be "good enough for you" then??
 
Old 05-04-2009, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Western Nebraskansas
2,707 posts, read 5,344,621 times
Reputation: 2406
The court is doing it's job of interpreting laws when they agree with me.
On the other hand, when they don't, then they're "legislating from the bench!"


 
Old 05-04-2009, 03:25 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,255 posts, read 4,713,584 times
Reputation: 1527
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen View Post
Umm...yes, the Founding Fathers did think it was silly to select one religion over all others! For (blasphemy deleted) sake's its explicitly written into the constitution.
You are living in a fantasy world, sir. Please quote me the lines in the Constitution where it says anything like what you claim.

You will note that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not support your case.

1. Passing laws that happen to agree with the tenets of a specific religion does not amount to "establishment of religion". If that were the case we'd have to throw out laws against murder, rape, robbery, fraud, etc., etc. We'd have to throw out all laws regulating marriage and sexuality. We'd have to disestablish Christmas as a national holiday. No - all laws are based upon someone's morality, without exception, and morality for most men at most times in most places has always been rooted in religious belief. Sure, you can forget religion and make up your own morality if you want, but if everyone did that there would be no moral consensus capable of governing society.

2. The language of the Establishment Clause applies to the U.S. Congress only. State and local governments were at liberty, if they so desired, to make laws "respecting an establishment of religion" according to the beliefs of their citizens. Many did exactly that. All Virginians still tithed to the Episcopal Church. The states which ratified the First Amendment did so, in part, to PROTECT their established churches from the imposition of a national religion. The Establishment Clause was not held to apply to state and local governments until 1947! Whatever the merits of that decision (very wrong in my opinion), the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen View Post
I didn't say the Founders wanted to BAN religion...I said they found it silly to prescribe to ONE religion.
Whatever that means. No one here is arguing for a national religion, forced church attendance, the burning of heretics, persecution of non-believers, or anything like that. That's the backdrop of the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers would be aghast to learn that the Constitution was being used to justify the imposition of same-sex "marriage". General Washington had the crime of sodomy severely punished in Continental Army. And who can doubt that most of the 55 Founding Fathers supported anti-sodomy legislation in their own states?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen View Post
The fact that the 1st amendment exists is evidence of that...meaning no matter what your beliefs were your right to exercise those beliefs would be protected.
So the 1st Amendment protects my belief (and the beliefs of Nebraskans) that the state should forbid sodomy and uphold traditional marriage, and it protects my right to exercise that belief in the voting booth, the legislative chamber, and the executive office. Furthermore it protects my right to exercise that same belief in the workplace and in public life in general. Agreed?

Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 05-04-2009 at 03:34 PM..
 
Old 05-04-2009, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Western Nebraskansas
2,707 posts, read 5,344,621 times
Reputation: 2406
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim View Post
General Washington had the crime of sodomy severely punished in Continental Army. And who can doubt that most of the 55 Founding Fathers supported anti-sodomy legislation in their own states?

General Washington also owned people.
For that matter, the Constitution clearly states that Black people are only worth 3/5 of a white person.



PS: Your rights are only protected insofar as they don't trample on the rights of others.
 
Old 05-04-2009, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Downtown Omaha
1,362 posts, read 4,194,400 times
Reputation: 526
Wouldn't it have been much easier for the Founding Fathers to just say "We're all going to be christian and govern accordingly". That would clear it all up and we wouldn't have to wonder about what they were implying. But they didn't because they knew the **** storm it would cause.

People everywhere have come up with their own codes of morality. The bible is not the end all be all. To say that it is is to say that that people outside of the middle east for thousands of years before the spread of christianity, were all moraless and incapable of figuring out how they wanted to live and were doing it all wrong until some missionary came along to tell them. Sounds like your god makes some pretty bass ackwards plans.
 
Old 05-04-2009, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Downtown Omaha
1,362 posts, read 4,194,400 times
Reputation: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim View Post
And who can doubt that most of the 55 Founding Fathers supported anti-sodomy legislation in their own states?
They owned slaves to so I'm sure that they'd be shocked that in over 200 years we've strived towards a more perfect union.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:57 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top