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.
No, dear, what's ironic is that you're arguing from what you think is a position of correctness, when in fact it's in direct contradiction to the Founding Fathers' idea of how a representative democracy should be run. But then, I suspect you've never heard of the Federalist Papers, let alone specifically Federalist No. 10.
Quote:
[James Madison] saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy (also called a republic) in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Try looking up the term "Tyranny of the majority" and see if you can't learn something.
If a pastor says to "execute all the gays" because the bible says so, then yes there will be some problems especially if somebody records it puts it up on a website and then contacts the police. Scripture based hate speech sounds like death threats, terrorism, and premeditated murder to me. Religion is no excuse to break the law in the united states.
Also why don't Christian people make a big issue out of gluttony and divorce those problems are far more problematic than gay issues. Gay people make up less 4% of the population lol and they usually mind their own business. Gluttons and divorcees are far more common and it explicitly states in the bible that it is wrong and that there are punishments.
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. —Luke 16:18
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
“Proverbs 28:7 declares He who keeps the law is a discerning son, but a companion of gluttons disgraces his father.” Proverbs 23:2 proclaims, “Put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Neither Gays nor anyone else have any say in the matter of what is preached at the pulpit. Its a fact, churches exist in part to warn their adherents to stay away from what they believe to be evil and to prescribe to tenets that embody what they believe to be righteous--even if its uncomfortable for some to hear.
However if you feel that strongly about it, I suggest you put together a coalition of like minded people and organizations and start a campaign to repeal freedom of speech.
Will this judge manage to force gay marriage on all the states that have passed their constitutional amendments to disallow it? I think that maybe we need to wait until the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal, and there will be an appeal no matter how that trial comes out.
I guess what is being said here is that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States will be abolished by judicial decision. I don't think that is Constitutional, but then who knows what gays can swing these days.
No, actually what's being said is that the states will be required to follow Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution:
Quote:
Article. IV.
Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
I think its time people with our common mindset put an end to this insanity. Just because we disagree vehemently with each other doesnt mean there isnt a solution that suits us both.
I wonder if there are other people out there who think this is a good idea?
Now the only way this will work if we do away with the term marriage. You can not call one bond marriage and another a civil union. Unless they are different in some way and then we are back to square one. To settle this you have to do away with one of those terms and allow all people to may any person they want. The definition can no longer be between one man and one woman. It would have to read, between one person and one other person or a contracted bond between two people.
Also, We would finally have to agree that marriage isnt just for those in a church. If you want to have a different title for marriage that is fine, you can use holy matrimony. But please leave god out of marriage unless the two people getting married want god there.
Originally Posted by fracturedmanThat is another thing, no one has ever given a valid reason how the homosexual lifestyle hurts anyone outside the relationship? Will someone please finally answer this for me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by karfar
Good luck w/that one. I've been asking that for months on here & surprise surprise, not one person can answer it. They just like to say "because".
Sheet! I've been asking that on various forums for ten years and STILL haven't gotten a rational answer!
Now the only way this will work if we do away with the term marriage.
I agree.
Quote:
You can not call one bond marriage and another a civil union.
I agree. Everyone should enter into civil unions at the courthouse.
Quote:
Unless they are different in some way and then we are back to square one.
Yes if they are different in ANY way, its not fair.
Quote:
Also, We would finally have to agree that marriage isnt just for those in a church. If you want to have a different title for marriage that is fine, you can use holy matrimony. But please leave god out of marriage unless the two people getting married want god there.
In other words, I give you everything you want but I can't get the one thing I ask for? What exactly do you compromise in this deal?
Last edited by 18Montclair; 08-21-2009 at 05:17 PM..
The compromise is everyone sacrifices the same thing...the term marriage. They also sacrifice that a civil union is now equal and between two people.
If you agree with me in any way then what exactly where you asking for that I did not cover?
Well, I totally agree with this post.
But I do believe that marriage belongs exclusively to churches and religion and just because a couple has entered into a civil union-that's not the same as marriage.
But Im not unrealistic. I mean, how do you enforce something like what people call themselves???
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.
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.
