??

I was just wondering with the unalienable rights and whatnot why the supreme court hasn't said that making an honest man out of a butt pirate is ok??
If 2 chicks wanna scissor each other and be as miserable as everyone else fighting over assets in the divorce then what legal right does the government have to say they can't?

and since government and church is supposed to be separate I can't think of any good reason why homos can't get married.. any thoughts?

GingerSlut wrote:

If marriage is a religious ceremony then government shouldn't be involved in the first place. If marriage is effectively another name for a civil union, religious definitions don't apply. Either way, let the mincing candy asses and clam bumpers have their piece of government-backed paper if it makes them feel like real people.

Yes because if you READ the Constitution EVERYONE is protected. A segment of society cannot be held to a different standard.

It's "inalienable" rights, you slut. And that's part of the Declaration of Independance, not in the constitution. "Marriage" is a religious cerimony uniting, civily, two people.

fuzzbomb wrote:


der you have to google that??
thanks for the forum grammar smack and the definition of "marriage" fozzbumb...

but if you re-reference the first post of this thread I was clearly asking for opinions on why can't, if chuch and state is separate, Butt Pirates and Scissor Queens get legally married, which you failed to respond too take a lesson already.

Because politicians and all of these other government official are old, cranky, and have completely forgotten about the separation of church and state. In this generation, apparently we seem to have "forgotten" that this country was founded under religious beliefs, therefore making it an abomination.

Except that all these old fogies forgot their history lessons. America wasn't founded under Christian beliefs. Most of the founders of America were atheists, agnostics, and freemasons. "Under God" wasn't included in the Pledge of Allegiance until well over a few years after the original.

Basically all these old farts just find it "icky" but are using the religious debate to try and justify their argument.

I hate selective Christians.

They don't find it icky. They are pandering to their constituents.

And...please...the old "Our Founding Father's weren't Christian" schtick is tired. I would argue they were ALL Diests and 90% were Episcopalian/Anglican, Catholic, or Presbyterian. I can go quote for quote with you on their religious beliefs. For every one youi post, I can post one contradicting it.

It's as simple as politicians pandering to their constituents. Hell, Obama and McCain AGREED on the stance of gay marriage. Only this year did Obama decide to try and pander to one side instead of playing middle of the road, "Oh I'm for civil unions".

I wonder if it becomes legal in all the states ,if you can then marry someone from another country and make them a legal citizen.....I mean right now if a man marries a woman from Russia she becomes a citizen, I wonder if a man marries a man, or woman/woman marries, if they will also be considered a legal citizen. Yeah the separation of state and church doesnt apply since you can get married at any courthouse. I think basically gays want he same rights as far as insurance goes and tax right offs.I'm not sure how big of a debate they will make it with upcoming election year. I don't know if Obama really feels that gays should be allowed to marry , or if he just said it to gain votes from the gay community. Can't really believe anything politicians have to say.

so Truckee if im hearing you correctly which i think i am you're saying that the constituents for politicians like Obama are open-minded, intelligent, modern and cultured individuals, whereas the constituants for let's say any Republican ever would be closed/simple-minded, backwords moving assholes???? ?

it's like WWJD people

Wendy wrote:
I don't see why not, though the process of obtaining citizenship through marriage isn't easy.

Truck, what the hell are you talking about? It is known fact that our founding fathers weren't Christian. If you look it up, you'll find that information. If anything, I've found this information to be rather new. I always thought that this country was founded under religious beliefs but they were not.

But if you're going to try and make yourself out to be some condescending schmuck, that's cool too.

I would think religion would have been a big part of the community, I mean just going by the first towns they made, the first things they put up were schoold and churches I thought. Haven't personally studied it, but you always see one room churches in the old towns they have tried to preserve. Although it is true the Pledge didn't include Under God originally, that was added in at a later date.

nopeaceinside wrote:


You have got to be dumbest person on this site if you REALLY think that. I mean it's one of the biggest debates in like frickin EVER! WTF ar you talking about!?! How about YOU take a few minutes and look it up instead of reading some mass forwarded email chain about it. I mean to say that it's FACT!?!?!?!?!?! Goddamn you are dumb.

Here's an wiki article that I just googled. It took just a few seconds to Google. It talks about Washington and the FACT that it's very uncertain. Most scholars believe they were either Christian or simply diests, not atheists. In the link below, it links to a few other FF. It has sections specific to religion and how it's all debatable. This is why I didn't want to get into a quote for quote debate because for every quote that is anti-Christain, I can produce one that is Pro-Christian. Let me help you out here, do some research and edify yourself. You are outmatched here. Please repsond with something intelligent if you'd like me to again reply and make you look silly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_religion

Yeah I could see that. That might have been true. But we were actually escaping the British regime, and one of the reasons for that is because religion was dominating over everything. They founded this country with the separation of church and state. Some of them were actually Christians, but most of them were not.

Here are a couple of web sites that talk about this further if you are interested in reading about them!

freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_o...ited_States#Religion

www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-...r-religious-beliefs/

I am far from dumb, thank you very much. I may not agree with what you are saying, but I am not dumb in the slightest.

Yes, they were also simply deists. But a couple of them, from what I had read, WERE ATHEISTS. Maybe not ALL of them. But a minute selection.

This country was not founded under religious beliefs. PERIOD. If they were, "separation between church and state" wouldn't be an option.


So keep your name calling to yourself, please.