|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,099
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,099 |
Originally posted by SVT Barge:
The seperation of church and state is never stated in the constitution. If you can find it in there let me know.
The seperation of church and state was meant to protect religion from the state.. not the other way around.
Abortion is a whole other can of worms... but I think that should be illegal too so 
Those exact words aren't used, but under the 1st Ammendment it actually does say:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Read the first section and tell me that doesn't basically say "separation of Church and state"? Derek?
2003 Sonic Blue SVT Cobra Coupe
2003 RedFire SVT Cobra Convertable
2005 Dark Toreador Red F150 XLT 4x4
2000 Black SVT Contour - Beater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,076
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,076 |
wow, 100 posts and this thread is only a day old 
2000 SVT Black/Tan #1633/2150 (a few mods)
Alpine: CDA-9835, MRV-F540, MRD-M550
PG: TANTRUM-X 6.5 COMP all around.
Some people wear Superman pajamas. Superman wears Chuck Norris pajamas.
CEL currently: Off
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 839
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 839 |
I wish I could jump in but its just too much to read.. please I think enough people on this board are already mad enough at me. So.. I will just leave you guys with one quote and hope that solves everything:
"Dicks are for chicks."
Thank you bye.
The Spickle
New Car: Infra Red '04 FSVT
Former Car: Black '98 CSVT, #3137/6535 "The Unluckiest car.. ever"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by hmouta:
dan, you cant make a decision because of what "could" happen. that was that tom cruise movie. i dont know what i'll do 10 years from now. should i not drive ever cuz i can potentially kill someone in an accident. should my license be revoked cuz i'll "likely" speed. what happens to straight married couples who never have kids. they arent contributing to society, supposedly. do we revoke their marriage rights after 5 years if they dont make a kid. or do we give them 10 years. if they have no intention of having kids ever, do we prevent them from getting married.
I make them all the time based on what could happen. It's called risk/benefit. To sharpen your analogy, driving at 70 MPH on the highway is working justy fine for me and for society. Shall we up the speed to 100 MPH without some saftey data (this is a loaded Q on this page!)?
I think you understand my point. The definition and institution of marriage has been around 1000s of years. It is central and critical cornerstone of our society. As stated above very nicely it is a government entity (as well as ceromonial/religious) because it has a value to society at large (not just the 2 married parties) in forming as close to "optimal" setting to raise children. That is KEY. Without children, it could be a MUCH simpler affair (why all the legal/financial benefits if it is just about 2 people who care for each other)...seriously, I have really good friends that I love that I would like get my wealth & proporty when I die, my health care benefits extended to, tax breaks, etc). But, this is not permitted for obvious reasons (the ultimate tax loophole). But wealth for the next generation, to carry on a buisiness, to keep your children healthy, to allow a spouse a chance to spend more time with children...
Believe me, this is not antihomosexual. We ARE all created equal. And BTW, it is NOT correct to compare the inter-racial analogy (as members of the same species, they can and do reproduce!). More correct as analogy to gay marriage (given the emphasis on reproduction not sex) would be the marriage of 2 SPECIES that cannot produce offspring (but still love each other and have sex. And yes, many heterosexuals get married and do not have children...now here one COULD argue that some of the priveleges be withheld (not that I am argueing this..).
You know, maybe no harm would come from gay marriage to the institution. But I think it is a more fragile institution in recent years. Not sure how much it would take to knock down. So I am concerned when so called "public servants" take matters into there own hands for there own motives and just start marrying any 2 people that walk in the door..3000 in 2 weeks or something like that.
And for those who think discussion of this is detracting from my REAL concerns...it's not. War on TERROR still tops in my book right now. Without security...money, education, freedom is all just an illusion....We are kicking butt here and I feel the need to "update" the gains we've made in a post "comming to CEG" soon. GWB is the man.
I better get out of here, as I think I just called in the napalm on my pos.. 
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,195
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,195 |
Originally posted by SpliceVW:
"Dicks are for chicks."
No thank you... 
1999 Sportage 4x4...don't go there, it was free
....______o_o
.../_l l__\____\
..|--l l__----[]\|/[]
.....................oo
=( )_)----( )_)--)_)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by SpliceVW:
I wish I could jump in but its just too much to read.. please I think enough people on this board are already mad enough at me. So.. I will just leave you guys with one quote and hope that solves everything:
"Dicks are for chicks."
Thank you bye.
I'd try to see from your POV, but, your head's too far up your own @$$ to allow anyone else to get a peek.
And, what RISKS? You're complaining about inherited wealth. Newsflash- gay couples can ADOPT CHILDREN. They are then allowed to inherit. Let's see another argument.
Marriage is NOT about children anymore. Maybe once, a long time ago. Marriage is a contract between two people. It's a statement of legal, emotional, and sexual commitment between consenting adults of legal age. But, again, if you want to go on reproduction being the basis of marriage, then I also would like you to go to a fertility clinic, go up to a married couple who are physically unable to reproduce, look into their faces while they're destroyed emotionally, and tell them "hey, since you can't have kids, you have no right to be married." Buddy, I hope to get out of there alive so that you can realize how STUPID that line of thinking is.
And, YES, the argument between sexuality and race IS apples to apples. You're talking about a Constitutional Amendment allowing "separate but equal rights," which was determined to be unconstitutional! It's discrimination, plain and simple. There are NO legitimate reasons to keep gays from marrying. Times change. Realizations change. It wasn't long ago that people thought they were going to hell for eating meat on fridays. That sure changed, didn't it? If the individual person doesn't want to "acknowledge" a gay couple's decision to be married, sure go right ahead, that's your right. It's NOT, however, up to the gov't to determine that marriage is not to be allowed because of a RELIGIOUS CONCEPT, such as marriage being defined between a man and woman.
The "institution" of marriage is NOT failing because of homosexuality. It's failing because very few people take it seriously. When there's a near 50% divorce rate, you mean to tell me that you think it's because of homosexuality?! And that somehow allowing gays to marry is somehow going to alter that? Why?! What makes it so different?! Even IF 50% of gay marriages end in divorce, that does NOT change ANYTHING. Allowing gays to marry is NOT going to change ANYTHING for ANYONE who is NOT GAY. What don't you people get about that? Nobody is asking for anything SPECIAL here, aside from the same rights allowed for everyone else. Why not go strip women's voting rights while you're at it? Or allow slavery again? You're revoking peoples' rights based on their sexual orientation, plain and simple, and that is what the Constitution was created to FIGHT- the revocation of HUMAN RIGHTS.
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
1) Marriage is NOT about children anymore.
2) The "institution" of marriage is NOT failing because of homosexuality.
Your absolutely right..the institution of marriage is failing because too many people think it is NOT about children anymore.....
It's failing as people think of only themselves, there own wants and "needs". No core values. Lack of honasty. Lack of commitment. But, make no mistake..if it does fail, we are FINISHED as a society. I sincerlely hope you are right that broadly redefining marriage will not further accelerate its decay..
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
I also would like you to go to a fertility clinic, go up to a married couple who are physically unable to reproduce, look into their faces while they're destroyed emotionally, and tell them "hey, since you can't have kids, you have no right to be married." Buddy, I hope to get out of there alive so that you can realize how STUPID that line of thinking is.
Originally posted by bishop375:
I emplore you to go to a fertility clinic and tell EVERYONE in the waiting room that exact paragraph. Word of advice- get out before you're at least beaten to death.
Originally posted by bishop375:
If you want to say that marriage is for the sole purpose of having kids? What if either person is sterile? How many thousands of couples simply cannot reproduce? That means they shouldn't be married, right?
Sorry but I had to do it.....
REPOST!!!!!!!!!!
Formerly known as Sneaku
I MISS MY BABY!!!
'00 Blk CSVT #1087/2150 built 12/23/99
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695 |
Originally posted by mmars:
Originally posted by SVT Barge:
The seperation of church and state is never stated in the constitution. If you can find it in there let me know.
The seperation of church and state was meant to protect religion from the state.. not the other way around.
Abortion is a whole other can of worms... but I think that should be illegal too so
Those exact words aren't used, but under the 1st Ammendment it actually does say:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Read the first section and tell me that doesn't basically say "separation of Church and state"? Derek?
Depends on how you interpret "an establishment of religion". The government makes no laws saying you must be catholic, you must be methodist... like old England did when it had the country's own church. It was their way or the highway. However Chrisianity is the basis of the US. People came here to practice religious freedom (freedom from the English Church, not christianity).
Of course no one can ever really know exactly what our founding fathers thought, but I can't believe they'd approve of some of the crap that's going on now-a-days.
04 Subaru WRX "Eurosport bling bling fast and furious tokyo drift"
"They have diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of thought"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
You know, that's just silly. You are talking about couples that probably were thinking about kids when they got married. For them, it WAS about the children and in that is why marriage was created...of course they will not be unmarried.
I'll even go a step farther, so as to be consistant. Gay couples that adopt children IMO should be allowed to be married. All rights and benifits. However, if subsequent evidence shows that couples are adopting SOLELY for this reason AND a higher than normal "Bad outcome" rate for the children is observed, it would have negative implications for the ability of gays to adopt (which BTW I do support assuming rigourous screening).
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
