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.
quoting 1600's English law against bigamy, stating sacred obligation.
anyone who understand anything about the late 1800s would clearly understand that this statement also mean that banning same sex "marriage" is well within the role of government, negating the liberal view of the establishment clause in regards to same sex "marriage"
today society thinks of polygamy as worse than same sex "marriage"
but that is a very recent notion in 1800s someone supporting same sex "marriage" would end up in a loony bin
if would have happened that 2 members of the same sex were ever "married" (dressing up as a member of the opposite sex) it would have been dissolved and considered like it never happened and both parties would be promptly shipped of to a mental institution.
the sacredness of marriage in a 1800's context is completely religious
polygamy was upheld in this decision even over the first amendment arguments only because of the long tradition of defining marriage in the western world, and it's sacredness.
If these same justices would have gotten any of the current cases for the same reasoning given in this case they would rule the opposite way.
please give me 10 laws that are prohibited under the free exercise of religion
What you're asking me to do is logically impossible. Laws can't be 'prohibited.' As I asked, which you ignored because it's too hard for you, is disallowing the slaughter of infidels violation of the free exercise of religion. Don't ask a new question that has no answer: answer this one. It's a yes or no question so it's not exactly hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
since atheists hold the same view it's not just a "institutionalized religious view" but a institutionalized point of view, it's no different than states being allowed to banning murder, murder is forbidden according to a religious view, and also atheists banned it, so to homosexual sex is forbidden according to a religious view and also atheists banned it, showing that it is not solely religious in nature allowing a ban of homosexual relations even according to a liberal interpretation of the establishment clause.
but the real liberal interpretation of law is laws don't count unless we agree with them, as you yourself admitted (without realizing it) regarding the amendments discussion
Atheism has no doctrine though. That's kind of what sets them apart actually. An atheist who is homophobic is homophobic for a lot of different reasons; it depends on the individual. However, since atheism has no sexuality/marriage laws, yet many religions do, it makes more sense to compare a law that prohibits gay marriage as being a religious one. Especially since that's the main topic of the discussion and your only reason for being against gay marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
there is no justifiable way to conclude that the "Destruction of indigenous American culture' is worse than Pol Pot, much less Hitler.
how many Indians were murdered in both North and South America (this means not including wars) from 1492-1900.
Most of indigenous Americans were killed through exposure to diseases like Small Pox which can not be blamed on the Settlers from any rational moral point of view.
I'm not justifying the Indian Removal Act but it was not designed to kill, to compare it the atrocities of the 20th century is ludicrous.
Doesn't matter which is 'worse;' They're similar enough to disprove your notion that genocide only/primarily existed in the 20th century, which is untrue.
Also, the ethics of stealing land are part of why disease was spread. Had European elitists not assumed everything was theirs, it wouldn't have happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
your point makes no sense
the first amendment means your free to exercise what ever religion you want (thus also excluding other religions), but if you don't have another religion that exclusion is also not there.
No, but not practicing a religion, all that exists is exclusion. You and I view Islam in the same way. We view all religion in the same way, except Judaism. You and I are only ONE religion apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
a "right" to have an abortion, in roe v wade for example
a "right" to engage in sodomy in Lawrence vs texas for another example
these new rights are antithetical to the rule of law, because they were never voted on in the only manner allowed by the Constitution
no person involved in the passage of the 14th amendment would agree with those courts decision, so it can't be interpreted in those ways.
If something is not clearly prohibited in the constitution, it can be argued that it is protected in the 9th amendment and does not need a separate amendment to protect that right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
PS I hate many Republicans and I even like a few Democrats
How very noble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
you seriously want to ban people from holding office who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old or people who think it's reasonable that other people believe this?
I didn't say anything about banning anyone. My point is that only qualified people should be running and get votes, but our political system is so broken, that people actually think businessmen should be holding office (usually under the ludicrous idea that they can 'fix the economy').
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
If I would have gave a multiple choice quiz to every single person who voted on the 14th amendment in both congress and the states they would have voted for that (read question below)
the 14th amendment will eventually lead to?
A. a right for anyone to kill someone who engages in homosexual sex without a trial
B. a right for to members of the same sex being allowed to "marry"
I'm pretty sure that A would win
These same people thought black people should be slave... so your side has the moral high ground?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
new point
If conservative justices would follow the same methodologies as liberal judges than you would understand exactly what I'm talking about the problem is they are usually trying to follow the rule of law while liberals are usually trying to follow their ideologies.
They do. Being against gay marriage is an ideology. It has no other factual basis.
anyone who doesn't have this assumption is a idiot.
If discussing same sex "marriage" vs polygamy with anybody during the 1800's
around 99.9999999% of people would have thought same sex "marriage" was worse than polygamy.
I'll grant you that there may have been 1 or even 2 people who would have disagreed somewhere in the world.
anyone who doesn't have this assumption is a idiot.
If discussing same sex "marriage" vs polygamy with anybody during the 1800's
around 99.9999999% of people would have thought same sex "marriage" was worse than polygamy.
I'll grant you that there may have been 1 or even 2 people who would have disagreed somewhere in the world.
The majority was also okay with slavery at the time, but we fixed that right up now didn't we?
What you're asking me to do is logically impossible. Laws can't be 'prohibited.' As I asked, which you ignored because it's too hard for you, is disallowing the slaughter of infidels violation of the free exercise of religion. Don't ask a new question that has no answer: answer this one. It's a yes or no question so it's not exactly hard.
your missing my question
first amendment
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I want a list a 10 theoretical laws that congress is prohibited from passing because of the free exercise clause.
Quote:
Atheism has no doctrine though. That's kind of what sets them apart actually. An atheist who is homophobic is homophobic for a lot of different reasons; it depends on the individual. However, since atheism has no sexuality/marriage laws, yet many religions do, it makes more sense to compare a law that prohibits gay marriage as being a religious one. Especially since that's the main topic of the discussion and your only reason for being against gay marriage.
same sex "marriage" is wrong because it promotes a unhealthy lifestyle and has no positive results of society.
If you think my opposition to same sex "marriage" is "only" because of religion than know my opposition to murder is also.
in fact the based on logic I think killing liberals is moral, but in most cases religiously, I am against it.
Quote:
Doesn't matter which is 'worse;' They're similar enough to disprove your notion that genocide only/primarily existed in the 20th century, which is untrue.
I never said that "genocide only/primarily existed in the 20th century" I said there infinitely more cases of it the 20th century than any other 100 year period.
Quote:
Also, the ethics of stealing land are part of why disease was spread. Had European elitists not assumed everything was theirs, it wouldn't have happened.
colonization is not even close to as evil as what has happened in the recent past.
Quote:
No, but not practicing a religion, all that exists is exclusion. You and I view Islam in the same way. We view all religion in the same way, except Judaism. You and I are only ONE religion apart.
actually we don't view Islam the same way, I look at Islam as holding many truths, and if you would convert to Islam I would be
Quote:
If something is not clearly prohibited in the constitution, it can be argued that it is protected in the 9th amendment and does not need a separate amendment to protect that right.
if that's the true interpretation of 9th amendment, and the 9th amendment is applied to the states, the 10th amendment has just been 100% nullified.
there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting me from murdering you, so according to your interpretation of the 9th amendment I'm now allowed to kill you
Quote:
I didn't say anything about banning anyone. My point is that only qualified people should be running and get votes, but our political system is so broken, that people actually think businessmen should be holding office (usually under the ludicrous idea that they can 'fix the economy').
so then your response was irrelevant to are previous conversation.
1868 14th amendment was passed, homosexual sex is still banned throughout the country, and not a single person would have claimed that this has anything to do with homosexual sex/"marriage", in fact if people would have known how justices would have interpreted this law there is zero chance the amendment ever would have passed.
2003 Supreme court claims there's a constitutional "right" to homosexual sex
2014 courts claims there's a constitutional "right" to same sex "marriage"
what year did these "rights" become official in American law.
Quote:
These same people thought black people should be slave... so your side has the moral high ground?
We're not talking about morality were talking about the rule of law, I consider a slave owner much more moral Roosevelt who was against slavery, but was responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews.
the point is that their interpretation of the law is all that counts if they voted on a amendment that meant one thing to every single person who voted on it a later court can't constitutionally come along and change the meaning of that amendment. THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION ACCORDING TO AMERICAN LAW IS THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, NOT A COURT DECISION
if you change it through the judicial process you are against the rule of law and for the rule of judges.
laws can only originate from the legislative branch not the judicial
Quote:
They do. Being against gay marriage is an ideology. It has no other factual basis.
yeah the CDC aids statistics be darned
if homosexual sex still was a capital punishment in 1980s we would not have aids in America today, we would not have children being born with aids today.
I'm in favor of banning male homosexual sex in America, for the same reason I'm also in favor of banning smoking in America.
I want a list a 10 theoretical laws that congress is prohibited from passing because of the free exercise clause.
Thanks for answer the question...
I still don't understand what you're asking? Is it what laws can't be passed because of the first amendment? Because that's not a simple thing to answer and really would serve no constructive purpose to think of laws that couldn't be used. The point of the bill of rights isn't to have a predetermined list of things that can and can't happen. It's so when new legislature is present you can cross reference it to the Constitution to ensure that it is reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
same sex "marriage" is wrong because it promotes a unhealthy lifestyle and has no positive results of society.
If you think my opposition to same sex "marriage" is "only" because of religion than know my opposition to murder is also.
in fact the based on logic I think killing liberals is moral, but in most cases religiously, I am against it.
Wow. Just wow. You think killing liberals is moral? Really? I disagree with your religious stance but I don't think disagreement is worth killing people. Just wow...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
I never said that "genocide only/primarily existed in the 20th century" I said there infinitely more cases of it the 20th century than any other 100 year period.
Well, not really. As I said, the technology available made the holocaust possible. Had a rapidly industrial and systematic form of mass murder existed 500 years ago, someone would have used it. So while you aren't technically wrong, your contrast to morality does not work as the morals of society, at large, have still made massive improvements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
colonization is not even close to as evil as what has happened in the recent past.
How so? If colonization were to happen today, it would be viewed as an act of war. The only reason we have our view of it is because we decided the people who lived here first were too primitive and didn't deserve the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting me from murdering you, so according to your interpretation of the 9th amendment I'm now allowed to kill you
Your views of murder are far too ancient for me to take seriously anyway, so I guess I don't care about this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
what year did these "rights" become official in American law.
Depends on how one defines official. I'd argue they've always existed, thus making them official. To compare that to say, slavery: slavery has always been wrong even if it was at one point not considered wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
We're not talking about morality were talking about the rule of law, I consider a slave owner much more moral Roosevelt who was against slavery, but was responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews.
the point is that their interpretation of the law is all that counts if they voted on a amendment that meant one thing to every single person who voted on it a later court can't constitutionally come along and change the meaning of that amendment. THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION ACCORDING TO AMERICAN LAW IS THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, NOT A COURT DECISION
if you change it through the judicial process you are against the rule of law and for the rule of judges.
Did you seriously just say Roosevelt was responsible for the murder of 6 million people?
The Judicial system takes on the responsibility of determining what is constitutional. This can and does mean 'interpreting' the constitution. This was done on purpose. Notice how the constitution is really quite vague. It's to allow for fluidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
laws can only originate from the legislative branch not the judicial
They do. I asked you earlier to show me a law that the courts created and passed. You didn't do that. We both know why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
yeah the CDC aids statistics be darned
if homosexual sex still was a capital punishment in 1980s we would not have aids in America today, we would not have children being born with aids today.
How old are you? Gay people don't have kids. They can't pass AIDs onto a child. Only heterosexual people can. For you to say that killing gay people would have completely eliminated AIDs shows you have no ability to... think at all. I don't like to resort to name calling, but what else am I to call you but an idiot in this situation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
I'm in favor of banning male homosexual sex in America, for the same reason I'm also in favor of banning smoking in America.
The issue involves using benign items such as a cake, dress, reception hall and the like to shut down the businesses of decent, hard working people of religious faith. There aren’t that many businesses like this out there especially considering the grand scheme of things. The homosexual compulsion to deliberately seek out, target and attack these places is wrong especially when there is no obligation, rhyme or reason to do this yet the homosexual smites them anyway just to be vengeful when they do not have to do this.
I have never even seen a homosexual only club, bar, or anything else for that matter. In many "gay bars" straight women outnumber lesbians.
Do they turn you on?
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.
