[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've totally lost track of the argument here.

I'm still not sure what stupendousman has been trying to say, I often find his arguments hard to follow, but I'm hoping that somewhere in my post I'll have touched upon the stuff at the heart of his belief system

[subego]

Well, the point of his which I can anchor onto most simply is the Constitution doesn't cover marriage, so there isn't a mechanism which gives the Federal Government authority one way or the other.

I'd say this is correct, except somewhere along the line it was decided marriage was a route to citizenship, so the horse is already out of the barn. I'd also say at some point it becomes a 14th Amendment issue. The primary (practical) government interest in marriage is as a contractual obligation. State by state law on this would be a total mess.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm still not sure what stupendousman has been trying to say, I often find his arguments hard to follow, but I'm hoping that somewhere in my post I'll have touched upon the stuff at the heart of his belief system

You're not alone in having a hard time following him. He keeps bringing up the "founders were Christian" argument, which has absolutely no merit. Another take on that view;

The Ungodly Constitution: How the Founders Ensured America Would Not Be a Christian Nation | Belief | AlterNet

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're not alone in having a hard time following him. He keeps bringing up the "founders were Christian" argument, which has absolutely no merit. Another take on that view;

The Ungodly Constitution: How the Founders Ensured America Would Not Be a Christian Nation | Belief | AlterNet

As with all religious figures, you can make them out to be whatever you want. I wonder if people like stupendousman realize that they've deified The Founders?

[Chongo]

Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts
John Adams
October 11, 1798

Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts
John Adams
October 11, 1798

Your point?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You're right, God never intended for us to amend the Bible. Let's throw out the New Testament!



(Present day is relative.)

I'm pretty sure that was part of the "authorized" text for Christians. The NT was added with a lot of stuff that the Son of God apparently wanted us to know about.

People today who have decided it's no longer fashionable to actually follow God's word, but want to do whatever makes them feel good, aren't really all that qualified to speak for him, I'm guessing. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My interest in continuing this conversation is waning rapidly...

I don't think it every really started. You normally have very little interest in having "conversations" unless you can somehow veer the discussions off topic, insult those you are trying to talk down to, or just generally don't even attempt to see the other side because you never seen to "understand" all these complicated issues.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Inherent in this statement is something that I find particularly incongruent about the conservative mindset. This visceral notion that there must be strict limits on government at the FEDERAL level ... yet practically none at the STATE level. As if being screwed over by government officials is materially different if it's done by a state legislature as opposed to the US Congress?

OAW

You have a point, and I didn't mean to give that impression. I believe that there are strict limits on the federal level, so that the states and the people can have a local say and be someone autonomous, while still having to act within the limits of the Constitution. States just can't act against the Constitution and it be okay as per "states rights."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

.... there seem to be a lot of these exceptions that you choose to ignore.

I do tend to ignore people who pretend to have God's interests at heart, but then make it evident they are serving themselves. I don't believe they deserve much attention other than for derision. The vast majority of believers in God do not share the values that the exceptions you can throw out express. Who is next? Jim Jones?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The way people thought and saw the world back in those days would make them complete morons by today's standards.

About some things, yes. Just as a 100 years from now the same will be true.

The founding fathers, famous inventors, artists, scientists and other elites were probably indeed elite thinkers, but this was all relative and seen through (and restrained by) the prisms of their times. Every other aspect to their humanity was probably shaped by the relative stupidity around them. The idea that their time was somehow better, or that we'll never approach their intellects is an idiotic idea which needs to die. We have all sorts of advantages which goes along with decades of progress, this should not be a surprise.

We have over a two hundred year track record. It seems that their "idea" they had in "their time" has aged well. Evolving just for the sake of change progresses no one. If it ain't broke.... and it ain't broke.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're not alone in having a hard time following him. He keeps bringing up the "founders were Christian" argument, which has absolutely no merit. Another take on that view;

The Ungodly Constitution: How the Founders Ensured America Would Not Be a Christian Nation | Belief | AlterNet

I just pointed out two very prominent ones which do appear to be followers Christ based on all credible evidence, other than self proclaimed experts with agendas who try to divine belief systems that were never claimed by the people in question.

The majority from what I can see, believed in the God of Abraham. Those who they represented did the same. They CHOOSE to make it clear that all rights came from the Creator that they believed in. Not from the Federal Government. Not from the State. Not from some court. From THE SUPREME BEING who CREATED US.

Now, that doesn't mean that the minority of people who do not believe in God, or do not profess a Christian following have to legally do so. People are free to believe in the standards set by our founders or not. They can't however rewrite history and make the standards into something they were never intended to be just because it might be fashionable NOW. They did install a mechanism to do so though, if enough Americans where in agreement. They understood times changed, but they also understood that with the change of time comes fads and circumstances that will pass. They didn't make it easy to change their plans and standards, but they did make it possible.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

As with all religious figures, you can make them out to be whatever you want. I wonder if people like stupendousman realize that they've deified The Founders?

I don't worship the founders. I value the plan they came together and created which has stood the test of time. They never intended for the values they based their plan on to be corrupted or for a minority of those who didn't share those values to distort them in the future, and as such they shouldn't. If people want to live in some other country that shares their values, they can, or they can push for legislation here that reflects their values and see where it gets them. As far as this topic goes, it's clear that most of the United States doesn't share the notion that corrupting the definition of "marriage" to be just something that reflects pure emotion, is something that needs to change.

That's hardly deification.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your point?

I think his point is that he's provided another person who was very important in the founding of our country who went on record to state that the Constitution was intended to reflect the will of a religious people, not a faith blind, morally vacillating, value free-for-all many on the left wish it was.

Not because that's what I want to believe, because that's factually the case. I know that sort of information makes it hard for the people who want to separate our laws from our religious history, but it's just not a really intellectually honest position to take given the majority of the evidence.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

States just can't act against the Constitution and it be okay as per "states rights."

Sure they can. This is how the Constitution is written. It's exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted.

It's taken centuries of Supreme Court decisions and a civil war to arrive at the situation you describe.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I do tend to ignore people who pretend to have God's interests at heart, but then make it evident they are serving themselves. I don't believe they deserve much attention other than for derision. The vast majority of believers in God do not share the values that the exceptions you can throw out express. Who is next? Jim Jones?

I fully realise I'm probably wasting my breath here but do you really not see the problems with these kinds of convenient catch alls?

You reserve the right to denounce any religious person who ever does anything you don't approve of as 'not being properly religious'. The ultimate result of this policy is that you are the only true believer on Earth. Congratulations.

[Chongo]

The book the ACLU doesn't want you to know about (1864) It's now back in print
Here's the free Google digitized edition form the Harvard Library.
Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States ... - Benjamin Franklin Morris - Google Books
Chapter one is titled "Sources of Proof to Establish the Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United Staes of America"

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The book the ACLU doesn't want you to know about...

This is like saying "the civil liberty the ACLU doesn't want you to have".

Actually, it's not like saying that, it is saying that.

Was this meant as a throw-away statement? Because if it isn't, my brain is just full of ****.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I fully realise I'm probably wasting my breath here but do you really not see the problems with these kinds of convenient catch alls?

You reserve the right to denounce any religious person who ever does anything you don't approve of as 'not being properly religious'. The ultimate result of this policy is that you are the only true believer on Earth. Congratulations.

I've never said that I don't approve of anyone as "not being properly religious." People can do or believe anything they want.

However, you seem to be trying to make claims that if a fringe element of Christianity does something that would seem to violate the laws and plan outlined in the Bible, then that means that Christians (or God himself) are okay with that. That somehow the view of his plan or laws can change or evolve to allow what at the time of Christ, and even now, would seem to totally go against what most people of faith have always known sexual morality to be - monogamous sex with your husband or wife, as outlined in the Bible.

It just doesn't work that way. Sorry.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not basing my "world view" one what these two men believed. I'm basing my view of what the founders intended by looking at their words, actions and clear intent. Again, I'm pretty sure these smart guys didn't just accidentally attribute all of our rights to be coming from God by some miscommunicated accident.

besides just 2 men with debatable religious views...can you back up your claims of a christian state?

you do know America was founded on religious freedom right?

[Athens]

E pluribus unum (/ˈiː ˈplʊərɨbəs ˈuːnəm/; Latin [ˈeː ˈpluːrɪbʊs ˈuːnũː]) — Latin for "Out of many, one"[1][2] (alternatively translated as "One from many")[3] — is a phrase on the Seal of the United States, along with Annuit cœptis and Novus ordo seclorum, and adopted by an Act of Congress in 1782.[2] Never codified by law, E pluribus unum was considered a de facto motto of the United States until 1956 when the United States Congress passed an act (H.J. Resolution 396), adopting "In God We Trust" as the official motto.

[Chongo]

Just a Reminder, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid(D) of Nevada, is a . (He [agnostic] converted in college, along with his wife[Jewish])

[The Final Dakar]

apologies ebuddy, my plate is unusually full at work. I hope to respond later in the week.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think his point is that he's provided another person who was very important in the founding of our country who went on record to state that the Constitution was intended to reflect the will of a religious people, not a faith blind, morally vacillating, value free-for-all many on the left wish it was.

So people who are not religious are morally vacillating and have free-for-all values?

I hope that's not your point, because it's a pretty dumb one.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've never said that I don't approve of anyone as "not being properly religious." People can do or believe anything they want.

However, you seem to be trying to make claims that if a fringe element of Christianity does something that would seem to violate the laws and plan outlined in the Bible, then that means that Christians (or God himself) are okay with that. That somehow the view of his plan or laws can change or evolve to allow what at the time of Christ, and even now, would seem to totally go against what most people of faith have always known sexual morality to be - monogamous sex with your husband or wife, as outlined in the Bible.

It just doesn't work that way. Sorry.

You seem to think that its ok to write off anyone who doesn't share your interpretation of the bible as a fringe element. No-one can deny there are parts of the bible that can be interpreted differently, or that people have reconsidered the importance of various parts of it over the years. This is entirely as you would expect with a book with so many ambiguities and inconsistencies in it over such a long period of time. The truth is that there are elements that you wouldn't agree with that have been mainstream at one time or another in history. Pre-marital sex is widely accepted by a great many christians today, do you really consider those many millions of people to be a fringe element?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Just a Reminder, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid(D) of Nevada, is a . (He [agnostic] converted in college, along with his wife[Jewish])

you're right Reid is a Mormon too.

i guess the right accept Mormons as true christians all of the sudden

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

you're right Reid is a Mormon too.

i guess the right accept Mormons as true christians all of the sudden

Cardinal Dolan, President of the USCCB has stated "There may be many reasons to not vote for Mitt Romney, being Mormon is not one of them"

The left has suddenly became concerned about the LDS? There have (D) Mormons been serving in Congress for decades, most prominently the Udall family. Stuart Udall was the Rep From AZ 2 until JFK appointed him Sec of the Interior. His brother Mo won his seat in a special election and was in Congress for another 30 years.

As I have posted before, I'm just waiting for the "and Romney wants to bring back polygamy" to uttered. My guess it will be on MSNBC and either Mr Ed, Madcow or Mr Tingle will be the one to say it.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Cardinal Dolan, President of the USCCB has stated "There may be many reasons to not vote for Mitt Romney, being Mormon is not one of them"

The left has suddenly became concerned about the LDS? There have (D) Mormons been serving in Congress for decades, most prominently the Udall family. Stuart Udall was the Rep From AZ 2 until JFK appointed him Sec of the Interior. His brother Mo won his seat in a special election and was in Congress for another 30 years.

As I have posted before, I'm just waiting for the "and Romney wants to bring back polygamy" to uttered. My guess it will be on MSNBC and either Mr Ed, Madcow or Mr Tingle will be the one to say it.

prop 8 anyone?

edit: "and Romney wants to bring back polygamy" is as ridiculous as fast and furious is a scheme to take away your guns!

edit 2: oh, Cardinal Dolan said that? and i care why?

[Chongo]

Cuz Oblamea carried the Catholic vote in "08. Prop 8: The FLDS wants to know if two men or woman can get married, Why not not one man and two or more women. (or one woman and two or more men)

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Cuz Oblamea carried the Catholic vote in "08. Prop 8: The FLDS wants to know if two men or woman can get married, Why not not one man and two or more women. (or one woman and two or more men)

i should just delete the second M in my signature

so chongo, you believe in the invisible man in the sky?

edit: oh you're in arizona... nuff said

Edit 2: Why not not one man and two or more women.

Like the lds?

[Chongo]

Do you believe in the Pink Unicorn? Wait, you're in New York. Are you hiding the golden plates?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Do you believe in the Pink Unicorn? Wait, you're in New York. Are you hiding the golden plates?

no.

that's upstate NY... where the hicks are

[Chongo]

I'm sad to report the FSM has met it's end

[subego]

As I've said before, polygamous marriage should be legal.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I'm sad to report the FSM has met it's end

How cute!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You seem to think that its ok to write off anyone who doesn't share your interpretation of the bible as a fringe element.

It's the same as with science. If you have people veering so far off the accepted understanding of how things work, to the point where they are promoting the opposite of what all of their other peers (without any real evidence that what they are promoting is supported by evidence) believe science shows, you're going to pretty much write them off as "fringe". People who believe the moon landing is fake and that the Earth is flat are going to be pretty much written off as exceptions to the scientific norm. They aren't going to be considered as having a reasonable interpretation of the facts just because some people believe them.

The same is true for people who would promote behavior that has almost always been viewed as sexual immorality by almost every institution of faith and theologian in the past several thousand years.

No-one can deny there are parts of the bible that can be interpreted differently, or that people have reconsidered the importance of various parts of it over the years.

Same with science. There's a point though where when you believe the exact opposite of what can be shown that it's no longer a rational interpretation. You can't claim that the Earth is flat just because you interpret the evidence differently anymore than you can claim that it's okay to pay for sex with someone who is not your spouse when the Bible makes it clear that God's plan is for men and women to come together in marriage and not engage in sexual sin.

This is entirely as you would expect with a book with so many ambiguities and inconsistencies in it over such a long period of time. The truth is that there are elements that you wouldn't agree with that have been mainstream at one time or another in history. Pre-marital sex is widely accepted by a great many christians today, do you really consider those many millions of people to be a fringe element?

You are confusing what people who claim to believe in God and Christ may have no problem doing, and what they believe is sinful and they should avoid. I'm betting that you aren't going to find very many practicing Christians who will claim that they believe that God does not consider engaging in extra-marital sex a sin (even though they may do it), anymore than the fact that many of them will lie, cheat, steal, even though they know that's wrong as well. You also probably aren't going to find Christian churches teaching that God approves of pre-marital sex.

For example, preachers in recent years have been caught engaging in extra-marital sex and even prostitutes (Jimmy Swaggart). They personally accepted these actions as something that they should do at the time, but absolutely none tried to go on and explain that they did so believe they interpreted the Bible to mean that this was acceptable to God. It's pretty hard to make the case on that, given the source material you'd have to use as evidence.

[Chongo]

Pearls... any way, here ya go.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

No ambiguity or inconsistencies here. There is aslo the Code of Canon Law.
Code of Canon Law

[Chongo]

Scientists Say The Silliest Things |Blogs | NCRegister.com
article referenced
The Big Bang Didn't Need God | Creation of the Universe | Space.com

Science be Praised!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

edit 2: oh, Cardinal Dolan said that? and i care why?

Then there is this as well
Marc Thiessen: Obama's betrayal of progressive Catholics carries a price - The Washington Post

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then there is this as well
Marc Thiessen: Obama's betrayal of progressive Catholics carries a price - The Washington Post

and this too
Cardinal Dolan Quiet on $20K Payments to Pedophile Priests - ABC News

[Chongo]

And as terrible as that is, The clergy scandals pale in comparison to teacher/coach abuse.
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research...iew/report.pdf
Educator Sexual Misconduct:
A Synthesis of Existing Literature

Several investigative reports have publicized individual cases and the response by
districts to allegations of educator sexual misconduct. For instance, O’Hagen and
Willmsen report that of 159 Washington state coaches “who were reprimanded, warned,
or let go in the past decade because of sexual misconduct . . . at least 98 of them
continued coaching or teaching afterward.” (Dec. 15, 2003) Many school districts make
confidential agreements with abusers, trading a positive recommendation for a
resignation. O’Hagan (2004) details two examples of coaches in Washington that
illustrate this practice.

In 1995, a Sharples Alternative School student accused tutor Sione
Hefa of going to her home at 3 a.m. and forcing her to have sex with
him. “At one point, he held her neck with his arm so she couldn’t get up,”
according to investigative notes. “She kept telling him she did not want
to have sex with him.”
When the district investigated, Hefa refused to answer questions,
citing his Fifth Amendment rights. His Seattle Education Association
representative denied the accusations.
The district’s human-resources director later told Hefa in a letter:
“The District investigation revealed that you went to the home of one of
your female students at 3:00 a.m. on Sunday, January 22, 1995, you
were let inside, and that you forced her to have sex with you.”45
Records indicate the district suspected that Hefa may have
victimized other girls. After negotiations, the district allowed Hefa to
resign, promising in writing not to tell future employers about the
allegations.

In another example, O’Hagen (2004) reports that a Seattle educator, Luke
Markishtum, had two decades of complaints of sex with students and providing alcohol
and marijuana to students prior to his arrest for smuggling six tons of marijuana into the
state. The district paid Markishtum the remainder of his salary that year, agreed to keep
the record secret, and gave him an additional $69,000.

[Chongo]

11.0 UNION AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION ROLES
11.1 Actions of teacher unions. Until recently, teacher unions in many states
have actively opposed legislation that would require positive identification (e.g., fingerprinting) of teachers convicted of sexual abuse of students. In most states, teachers who
are already employed are exempt from regulations such as fingerprint identification.
There is no research that documents teacher union attempts to identify predators
among their members
11.2 Actions of professional organizations. Administrative professional
organizations have hosted workshops and talks at annual meetings on the topic of
educator sexual abuse and the School Administrator, the official publication of the
American Association of School Administrators, published an issue devoted to the topic.
However, specific guidance and direction to members has not been formal nor did I find
evidence that professional organizations for teachers have addressed the topic for their
members.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd say out the gate sexual orientation is more ambiguous than gender and couldn't disagree more.

One word: Transexuals.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It depends on what you consider a right as gays have enjoyed rights not enjoyed by blacks or women throughout history.

...and black and women now enjoy rights gays don't have. What is the argument here? That since they had it better in the past they shouldn't complain?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm saying they have more influence and accountability at the local level than they'd have fighting federal DOMA legislation from their perspectives today for example. It also matters what you consider a right and by that token they now live under Federal DOMA legislation. Their ability to escape the oppressive legislation of a State is certainly greater than escaping the oppressive legislation of their country. States rights enabled the Northern States to harbor runaway slaves and grant them sanctuary which I'd say worked out better for them than having to be returned to their Southern slave-owners as "property" under federal legislation.

...and then we had this tiny war where all that got sorted out. So, you're arguing pragmatism? Still, I feel it's a red herring to throw people from giving the recalcitrant states grief for their "oppression."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A short list of the rights, more than half would pay good money into a court system to relinquish?

This response seems to side-step my point then argue gays shouldn't want marriage because of the high divorce rate? Where are you going with this?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How do you discriminate a gay at the polling place?

Irrelevant question. The point of the comparison is all three can and have been discriminated against by government, not where.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Laws are often a reflection of the people behind them.

That's true, and that's also why we have the courts, because legislatures like to pass a lot of laws against completely constitutional stuff that they don't like. (OMG, sodomy!)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If people don't view marriage as a right, but a privilege and if sexual orientation is not as clearly defined as race and gender

Is there somewhere that clearly defines marriage as a privilege and not a right? If not, is the government allowed to confer special status and rights to heterosexuals via marriage?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

gay marriage is simply not a squeeky enough wheel for most and I think this has a lot to do with the discussion today. You may call it "circular", but it is indeed the case none the less.

Again, you're back away from the question of its fairness and saying they don't need to be afforded equal treatment because their cause isn't "loud" enough. Frankly, I think that's embarrassing. Doing what's right is right regardless of volume of protest.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do you have any examples of mulattos successfully passing themselves off as white?

I do, but do you even accept the comparison?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Which reminds me, should bisexuals be able to realize their rights by marrying one of each gender? After all, it wouldn't be fair to require them to pick one would it?

Jesus, that is a terrible strawman.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While the general rights exist, there remains all manner of discriminations these days and yes they are all unfortunate, but cannot all be legislated and will generally have to work their way through the court systems on a case-by-case basis.

I agree (and have no problem with it), but I've heard you argue several times that you'd rather see this matter legislated than settled in courts. It feels like every time the court affirms equal marriage for homosexuals, the knee-jerk reply from the opposed is judicial activism.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Even if all religion is false?

... or atheism? By this query, there is almost no thing a parent teaches a child that wouldn't have some potential falsehood. We generally don't make judgements of abuse based on that which we do not know, but on what we do know.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

And as terrible as that is, The clergy scandals pale in comparison to teacher/coach abuse.

Really? The school boards were involved in an aggressive cover-up and threatened to expel students who talked to the police and press? Because that's what the Vatican has been doing.

The issue isn't the number who were raped or molested, the issue is how did the leadership handle the crisis? The Vatican mishandled the issue way, way worse than school boards did.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

One word: Transexuals.

How does this example of even greater ambiguity rebut my point that sexual orientation is more ambiguous than race or gender? A transexual will generally be faced with the challenge of having to commit to a gender no?

...and black and women now enjoy rights gays don't have. What is the argument here? That since they had it better in the past they shouldn't complain?

...and then we had this tiny war where all that got sorted out. So, you're arguing pragmatism? Still, I feel it's a red herring to throw people from giving the recalcitrant states grief for their "oppression."

This response seems to side-step my point then argue gays shouldn't want marriage because of the high divorce rate? Where are you going with this?

Interesting you'd hack my post into little compartments in order to feign confusion. The argument of course is that marriage isn't a right and there is greater accountability for bad law at the State level than there is at the Federal level. You pressed me for the responses and I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not you appreciate them, but am interested in whether or not you're able to address them. Whenever you're ready, have at it.

Irrelevant question. The point of the comparison is all three can and have been discriminated against by government, not where.

I'm not sure "can and have been discriminated against by government" is a very good litmus for government-sanctioned civil rights abuses. Is a benefit conferred upon a Senior citizen, discrimination against all others? Is a benefit conferred upon a poor person, discrimination against everyone else? What of the benefits conferred upon those who serve in the military? Is this discrimination against conscientious objectors or those incapable of meeting the requirements of service?

That's true, and that's also why we have the courts, because legislatures like to pass a lot of laws against completely constitutional stuff that they don't like. (OMG, sodomy!)

If given the choice of where this bad law originates, I'd choose the State where either one could more effectively challenge the legislation or escape its oppressive characteristics.

Is there somewhere that clearly defines marriage as a privilege and not a right? If not, is the government allowed to confer special status and rights to heterosexuals via marriage?

You're essentially claiming these bad laws equate to civil rights violations against gays; the burden of establishing whether or not marriage is a right is on you, not me. Is there somewhere that clearly defines marriage as a right and not just another conferred benefit upon an isolated bloc?

Again, you're back away from the question of its fairness and saying they don't need to be afforded equal treatment because their cause isn't "loud" enough. Frankly, I think that's embarrassing. Doing what's right is right regardless of volume of protest.

I'm not defending the status quo, I'm explaining why it is the status quo. You can say human nature is often embarrassing and of course I couldn't disagree.

I do, but do you even accept the comparison?

If you're not going to even try to establish why the comparison is valid, then no I don't.

Jesus, that is a terrible strawman.

I'll give you this. The point was to press you for any limit to this ideal of fairness. Why is it fair that someone who appreciates both genders must select one or the other for the bonds of matrimony. For that matter, why is it fair that anyone should be limited to just one life-partner at a time? After all, unmarried people don't have to.

I agree (and have no problem with it), but I've heard you argue several times that you'd rather see this matter legislated than settled in courts. It feels like every time the court affirms equal marriage for homosexuals, the knee-jerk reply from the opposed is judicial activism.

Please cite where I've said any of the above, starting with the first point.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Really? The school boards were involved in an aggressive cover-up and threatened to expel students who talked to the police and press? Because that's what the Vatican has been doing.

The issue isn't the number who were raped or molested, the issue is how did the leadership handle the crisis? The Vatican mishandled the issue way, way worse than school boards did.

Did you read the report? Schools are just as guilty.

10.0 CONSEQUENCES OF ALLEGATIONS OF EDUCATOR SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT
The studies which include documentation of the consequences of educator sexual
misconduct primarily focus on what happens after allegations are made. Most document
the ways in which schools and districts fail to remove abusers from the classroom.
10.1 Consequences for abusers. In an early study of 225 cases of educator
sexual abuse in New York, all of the accused had admitted to sexual abuse of a student
but none of the abusers was reported to authorities and only 1 percent lost their license
to teach (Shakeshaft and Cohan, 1994). All of the accused had admitted to physical
sexual abuse of a student but only 35 percent received a negative consequence for their
actions: 15 percent were terminated or, if not tenured, they were not rehired; and 20
percent received a formal reprimand or suspension. Another 25 percent received no
consequence or were reprimanded informally and off-the-record. Nearly 39 percent
chose to leave the district, most with positive recommendations or even retirement
packages intact.
Of those who left, superintendents reported that 16 percent were teaching in other
schools and that they had no idea what the other 84 percent were doing. A recent report
on sexual abuse in New York City indicates that 60 percent of employees who were
accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs at offices inside schools and 40
percent of these teachers were repeat offenders (Campanile and Montero, 2001). In
many instances, agreements are made to avoid legal battles with the alleged abuser
(Shakeshaft and Cohan, 1994). .
Several investigative reports have publicized individual cases and the response by
districts to allegations of educator sexual misconduct. For instance, O’Hagen and
Willmsen report that of 159 Washington state coaches “who were reprimanded, warned,
or let go in the past decade because of sexual misconduct . . . at least 98 of them
continued coaching or teaching afterward.” (Dec. 15, 2003) Many school districts make
confidential agreements with abusers, trading a positive recommendation for a
resignation.

Unions aren't helping either.

11.0 UNION AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION ROLES
11.1 Actions of teacher unions. Until recently, teacher unions in many states
have actively opposed legislation that would require positive identification (e.g., fingerprinting)
of teachers convicted of sexual abuse of students. In most states, teachers who
are already employed are exempt from regulations such as fingerprint identification.
There is no research that documents teacher union attempts to identify predators
among their members
11.2 Actions of professional organizations. Administrative professional
organizations have hosted workshops and talks at annual meetings on the topic of
educator sexual abuse and the School Administrator, the official publication of the
American Association of School Administrators, published an issue devoted to the topic.
However, specific guidance and direction to members has not been formal nor did I find
evidence that professional organizations for teachers have addressed the topic for their
members.

[aristotles]

stupendousman, I have to admire your efforts man but it is all for not. You cannot reason with those people. They cannot see the forest for the trees. They are constantly getting caught up in minutia which they think supports their own world view but are unable to take a step back and see how everything fits together.

They don't understand that the vast majority of the founders of the US were christians and only wanted to ensure religious freedom in the US by avoiding a state church. That is the only point of the separation of church and state concept. It exists to project the "CHURCH" from state interference. It was never intended to be wielded as a weapon by atheist to quash or limit the religious freedom of anyone be they in the employ of the government or the private sector.

I think some of us understand the difference between their (founders) intent to protect religious liberty and the fact that they had a personal faith in god.

The best any of us can do is simply do our best to explain how we see things and then just leave it in god's hands. Pray for those who persecute you or revile you for what you believe. Bless them when they curse you.

Here is my prayer:
Lord, forgive Obama for he know not what he does. Forgive the fellow forum members for they know not what they say and do. I pray blessing upon those who currently laugh at us.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

stupendousman, I have to admire your efforts man but it is all for not. You cannot reason with those people. They cannot see the forest for the trees. They are constantly getting caught up in minutia which they think supports their own world view but are unable to take a step back and see how everything fits together.

They don't understand that the vast majority of the founders of the US were christians and only wanted to ensure religious freedom in the US by avoiding a state church. That is the only point of the separation of church and state concept. It exists to project the "CHURCH" from state interference. It was never intended to be wielded as a weapon by atheist to quash or limit the religious freedom of anyone be they in the employ of the government or the private sector.

I think some of us understand the difference between their (founders) intent to protect religious liberty and the fact that they had a personal faith in god.

The best any of us can do is simply do our best to explain how we see things and then just leave it in god's hands. Pray for those who persecute you or revile you for what you believe. Bless them when they curse you.

Here is my prayer:
Lord, forgive Obama for he know not what he does. Forgive the fellow forum members for they know not what they say and do. I pray blessing upon those who currently laugh at us.

This is what you call reason?

The idea that the separation can exist only in one direction does not make any sense.

So, you separate the church from the state. This means that all different kinds of churches are allowed to influence the state, which could hypothetically mean that the state could adopt Sharia law, and this wouldn't threaten non-Islamic churches?

This separation can only be multi-directional, it cannot work in one direction.

[subego]

I'll repeat this again. The First Amendment outlaws a federal church. State churches were not only allowed in the Constitution as it was originally written, the Founders fully expected them.