SCOTUS scraps DOMA

[Flaco]

Embraces? Nah, more like indifference.

Indifference is an excellent synonym for "lack of a spine". However, do not be alarmed, you are not alone in your ailment. Presently it appears to be endemic in America.

The dark shadow of prosperity is the breeding ground for moral relativism. Much like Rome, our moral compass will continue to point astray while Vertigo and his ilk sing the chorus "live and let live - anything goes".

[LookieRookie]

Yeah man, I must have been born in the wrong nation.... these old farts got it all wrong. https://www.wallbuild...icles.asp?id=63

Don't use David Barton's work as source material, it weakens arguments made. His most recent book was pulled from publishing because of inaccuracies.

Edited June 29, 2013 by LookieRookie

[WAG]

Don't use David Barton's work as source material, it weakens arguments made. His most recent book was pulled from publishing because of inaccuracies.

Plenty of sources are provided.

Edited June 29, 2013 by WAG

[Day Man]

If three can now be the 'parents,' why can't three or more marriages, or other currently not recognized arrangements, not be valid?

Again, why not? WGAS? If 3 loving parents successfully raise a kid, what difference does it make? Is it just icky? Does Jesus say so?

[brickhistory]

Again, why not? WGAS? If 3 loving parents successfully raise a kid, what difference does it make? Is it just icky? Does Jesus say so?

I believe it's something along the lines of "honor thy father and thy mother" or maybe that's Old Testament/10 Commandments.

Either way, I'm not arguing from a religious point of view.

Perhaps because the concept of one mother, one father/one man, one woman derives from Judeo-Christianity as well as other religions, maybe you're on to something.

I'm arguing that the standards were destroyed by this ruling therefore holding the line anywhere is illogical. In both the marriage of gays, soon to be many other combinations, and for three parent IVF, simply because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

But if all bets are off, then all bets should be off. Strong survive and flourish, the weak get trampled and killed off.

I believe that's called a state of nature so it goes against the religion thing.

[GovernmentMan]

Indifference is an excellent synonym for "lack of a spine".

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 dictates that a "stubborn and rebellious" son be executed by his own friends and family.

Exodus 22:18 commands that a "sorceress" not be permitted to live.

Is everybody who ignores these laws (or considers them absurd/irrelevant) "spineless" as well? If nobody's moral compass ever strayed in the past 4000 years, that's exactly the legal/social environment we'd be in right now.

[HeloDude]

Oh, and just something to add to the discussion...not all Christian organization within this country truly believe in Liberty as can be seen here.

Check out some of the religious groups that signed onto Feinstein's AWB, ban on certain magazines, etc. Religious groups, even though many of them do a lot of good in the country, still have a number one priority which is their own respective ideology/belief and not of our Constitutional Rights. I am very glad none of these groups (even if I belong or closely affiliate with one of them) are in charge of the country.

Your Christian/religious beliefs should help and guide you how to live a better life, not how to force others how to live a better life. Keep in mind that this is coming from a Christian...but I can't in good conscience force others to belief or follow anything when it comes to my religion, as I wouldn't want someone doing that to me. Which is why I call BS when Dems and the GOP both site Christian views as a reason for promoting/being against certain laws. I would much rather have a bunch Libertarian atheists in charge who promote true Liberty.

[Flaco]

It's amazing to me that people can conjure up the idea that Christianity and its tenants are the driving force behind law or governance in this country. Where in practice (versus in quotes) do we actually see this? Exactly which of our laws are based on Christian morality? Am I forbidden from practicing idolatry? No. Blasphemy? No. Pre-marital sex? No. Divorce? No. Working on the Sabbath? No. Worshiping the devil? No. Coveting my neighbor's property? No. Making graven images? No.

My disappointment is not with law or governance, after all, laws should reflect our society's values. Gay marriage is now legal in many states because a majority of Americans now support gay marriage.

I am concerned about our nation's rapid shift away from traditional moral values and the effect that will have on our country. The percentage of citizens who look to the bible (or any religion) to inform them of what's right and wrong has been on the decline for many years. Moral relativism and postmodernism has taken its place. Notions of right and wrong have been replaced with "indifference" and "live and let live". When people stop caring about what's right and wrong, chaos and anarchy eventually ensue. We are Rome.

[WAG]

It's amazing to me that people can conjure up the idea that Christianity and its tenants are the driving force behind law or governance in this country. Where in practice (versus in quotes) do we actually see this? Exactly which of our laws are based on Christian morality? Am I forbidden from practicing idolatry? No. Blasphemy? No. Pre-marital sex? No. Divorce? No. Working on the Sabbath? No. Worshiping the devil? No. Coveting my neighbor's property? No. Making graven images? No.

Devirginized blasphemers, sabbath-breakers and abortion doctors get married every single day and not a single ###### is given by the Christian right. But when homosexuals want to get married, ...woah,... now deep concern arises that we're breaking God's law and the founding father's are rolling in their Christian graves. Devil-worshiping murderers on death row can get married but moral relativism has run amok if gays try to get married.

If this were truly a Christian nation and the separation of church and state didn’t exist, there would be precedent to invoke things like the 10 commandments legally. ...and we could stone people to death for these imaginary crimes. Fortunately, that’s not how it works here. We don’t send people to prison for breaking Biblical laws. This is not the theocracy that so many Christians are praying for it to be. (If anything, there's legal precedent against religious freedom, such as parents who have been convicted of manslaughter for letting their child die of pneumonia because they chose "faith healing" over taking him to a doctor.)

The link with quotes from America's founders is interesting. Also interesting is that they authored the Establishment Clause and the No Religious Test Clause into the Constitution. Which is a better measure of original intent? Seems suspicious that they would codify that "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" if they believed religion was vital to the success of our government.

The point is that the creators of this country recognized the inherent virtue of Judeo-Christian teaching/principles and that piety, religion, and objective morality are intimately connected to the well being of the state and enforcement of civil justice. To think that is not what happened absolutely amazes me.

Remember this?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Admittedly, the author of this article basically nails my entire philosophy better than I can spew it:

https://publiushuldah...-or-congress-2/

Ultimately you have to ask yourself a simple question as a citizen of this country:

Do our rights descend from God or are they derived from man?

If it is the latter then you have chosen to be subjected to the will of someone else's moral compass (at least five federal judges, or whatever "rights" Vertigo or joe1234 decided should be enforced when they woke up in the morning).

You will always be answerable to the State and the popular opinion of the day.

Edited July 1, 2013 by WAG

[WAG]

Does that surprise you? Look at some of what the Bible tells us is "right" and "wrong." .....scattered around verses that say homosexuality is an abomination, the Bible tells us eating shellfish, shaving, blasphemy, and wearing clothes made of multiple fabrics is punishable by death. ....Ridiculous, and none of which we expect any adherence to. Meanwhile, the Bible clearly expects us to keep slaves, reminding us how to handle them, how to beat them, and when you can have sex with female slaves. ....But as a society, we decry slavery as one of the most immoral things a person/society can do.

You have to expect people to question this type of shit eventually, especially as information and the means of communication become more and more accessible. Almost any person could improve upon this supposedly inerrant text scientifically, historically, and yes, ethically, in moments. The Bible repeatedly contradicts basic universal laws about morality and people are finding it untenable.

Yawn... yet another atheist trying to be a religious scholar. How long did you seriously practice religion, again?

Ugh. Jettison the melodrama man, no one's buying it.

Already happened (Rome)...and is happening (Europe)... funny how a religious leader and a secular leader can arrive at the same conclusion.

https://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0465006272

[Flaco]

"Traditional moral values"....you mean like "don't steal from others," "don't harm or murder others," "don't lie to people or betray them," "treat others like you'd like to be treated," "be trustworthy and kind," etc.?

Where is our nation's rapid shift away from these values? I don't see that at all.

- Gratuitous, graphic violence in movies and video games

- Diminishing respect for authority and elders

- Over-sexualization in all forms of media

- Increasing dependence on government (evidenced by increases in welfare/entitlement spending)

- Entitlement mentality of younger generations

- Acceptance of homosexuality as moral behavior

- Redefinition of gender and family roles

C'mon dude, do you live under a rock? Times, they are a changin'. The trend is not a positive one.

Ugh. Jettison the melodrama man, no one's buying it.

Ah, but you failed to highlight the most important word in my post: eventually. I still have faith in our way of life, but we have problems that, if left uncorrected, will cause an eventual breakdown.

[General Chang]

Hang tough, Flaco. You may not see the benefits of your work here, but you are making an impact on people.

[so.it.goes]

Yawn... yet another atheist trying to be a religious scholar. How long did you seriously practice religion, again?

I usually don't get involved in these discussions, because little good ever come of them, but tone down the condescension.

From someone who seriously practiced religion, used it as my guiding compass in life, had one of my majors in Religious Studies, and was committed to working for churches and going into the seminary to begin my life of religious service, I agree with none of that anymore... Along with everything you have said.

You know what changed my mind? Actually reading and studying (seriously) the Bible itself, in complete context, in the original languages... That's all it took.

My point: Don't act like the depth in which someone has studied "religion" gives them the same opinions as you, because you may be sorely disappointed.

[Vertigo]

Yeah man, I must have been born in the wrong nation.... these old farts got it all wrong.

https://www.wallbuild...icles.asp?id=63

No you're right. They were perfect in dealing with freedom and liberties. Just ask their employees, they loved being in chains.

[Vertigo]

I am concerned about our nation's rapid shift away from traditional moral values and the effect that will have on our country.

Traditional values: like slavery, paying the father of a rape victim to make her your bride, segregation, etc etc. The Ku Klux Klan held traditional moral values. These are the people you are admiring.

The percentage of citizens who look to the bible (or any religion) to inform them of what's right and wrong has been on the decline for many years.

I don't need a book to tell me what's right or wrong. That's true morality. You rely on the threat of divine retribution and/or the possibility of reward in order to guide you to think what is right or wrong.

[Flaco]

Traditional values: like slavery, paying the father of a rape victim to make her your bride, segregation, etc etc. The Ku Klux Klan held traditional moral values. These are the people you are admiring.

A little presumptuous, don't you think? Never once did I say I supported slavery, rape, segregation, or the KKK. Try again.

[GovernmentMan]

It's interesting how when most people say "traditional values" what they mean is "the values that were prevalent when/where I was growing up." 1650s New England traditional values included keeping "witches" in their place. 1850s Southern traditional values included keeping the blacks in their place. 1950s traditional values included keeping women in their place. 2000s traditional values included keeping gays in their place. "Traditional values" are constantly changing, just like everything else.

Edited June 30, 2013 by GovernmentMan

[WAG]

I usually don't get involved in these discussions, because little good ever come of them, but tone down the condescension.

From someone who seriously practiced religion, used it as my guiding compass in life, had one of my majors in Religious Studies, and was committed to working for churches and going into the seminary to begin my life of religious service, I agree with none of that anymore... Along with everything you have said.

You know what changed my mind? Actually reading and studying (seriously) the Bible itself, in complete context, in the original languages... That's all it took.

My point: Don't act like the depth in which someone has studied "religion" gives them the same opinions as you, because you may be sorely disappointed.

So as a "religious" scholar turned atheist...are you telling me your mind was changed based on the same interpretation of Christian practice that HOSS broke down for us ("The Bible clearly expects us to keep slaves"...seriously??)

If so, please PM as I would love to be "disappointed" by your revelation.

I can respect that you actively followed and studied your religion for years and then chose to separate from it. On that note, I would hope (based on your experience) you would understand the offensiveness of HOSS's obtuse generalizations.... and I'm the one accused of being condescending..got it.

[Butters]

Does anyone know where I can get a blowjob from a chick in Vegas?

[Flaco]

Does anyone know where I can get a blowjob from a chick in Vegas?

[so.it.goes]

The point is that the creators of this country recognized the inherent virtue of Judeo-Christian teaching/principles and that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected to the well being of the state and enforcement of civil justice. To think that is not what happened absolutely amazes me.

Remember this?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Ultimately you have to ask yourself a simple question as a citizen of this country:

Do our rights descend from God or are they derived from man?

If it is the latter then you have chosen to be subjected to the will of someone else's moral compass (at least five federal judges, or whatever "rights" Vertigo or joe1234 decided should be enforced when they woke up in the morning).

You will always be answerable to the State and the popular opinion of the day.

Yawn... yet another atheist trying to be a religious scholar. How long did you seriously practice religion, again?

So as a "religious" scholar turned atheist...are you telling me your mind was changed based on the same interpretation of Christian practice that HOSS broke down for us ("The Bible clearly expects us to keep slaves"...seriously??)

If so, please PM as I would love to be "disappointed" by your revelation.

I can respect that you actively followed and studied your religion for years and then chose to separate from it. On that note, I would hope (based on your experience) you would understand the offensiveness of HOSS's obtuse generalizations.... and I'm the one accused of being condescending..got it.

I'm NOT telling you that, and I'm not going to argue something I did not say... I believe I made my post clear in saying what I felt I needed to say, and made no mention of HOSS or his posts. What I actually said was I completely disagree with everything in your quote(s) above, your presumption of what the Fathers had in mind for our nation, and the fact that the more studied you are about religion the more likely you are to agree with it/you.

My intent was clear and unequivocal.

I will also say the wording of your reply is still laden with hostility and condescension. Perhaps you don't mean it, but that doesn't erase it.

That is all.

Does anyone know where I can get a blowjob from a chick in Vegas?

Try any Arby's

[GovernmentMan]

Try any Arby's

That's nasty. Bunny Ranch or maybe some place that doesn't have vats of cheese goop in the back. Unless that's your thing. Expect them to charge extra, if so. Link is NSFW.

[WAG]

the fact that the more studied you are about religion the more likely you are to agree with it/you.

That is all.

Yes, it was a jab. A well deserved one at that. My point is that if you are going to criticize a religious practice you should really study the practice before making obtuse generalizations. A more sophisticated/educated understanding of the matter DOES give you more flexibility to criticize. That's universal with regard to any subject. On that note, you are right. That is all. I'm over this topic. <and all rejoiced>

Edited June 30, 2013 by WAG

[so.it.goes]

Yes, it was a jab. A well deserved one at that. My point is that if you are going to criticize a religious practice you should really study the practice before making obtuse generalizations. A more sophisticated/educated understanding of the matter DOES give you more flexibility to criticize. That's universal with regard to any subject. On that note, you are right. That is all. I'm over this topic. &lt;and all rejoiced&gt;

I do agree with you in that regard, and certainly appreciate your post... Have a good weekend.

[pawnman]

I believe it's something along the lines of "honor thy father and thy mother" or maybe that's Old Testament/10 Commandments.

Either way, I'm not arguing from a religious point of view.

Perhaps because the concept of one mother, one father/one man, one woman derives from Judeo-Christianity as well as other religions, maybe you're on to something.

I'm arguing that the standards were destroyed by this ruling therefore holding the line anywhere is illogical. In both the marriage of gays, soon to be many other combinations, and for three parent IVF, simply because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

But if all bets are off, then all bets should be off. Strong survive and flourish, the weak get trampled and killed off.

I believe that's called a state of nature so it goes against the religion thing.

Well, maybe the Christianity portion. I'm pretty sure we've shown that the Judaism portion of your argument is pretty weak if you are trying to argue against polygamy.

So as a "religious" scholar turned atheist...are you telling me your mind was changed based on the same interpretation of Christian practice that HOSS broke down for us ("The Bible clearly expects us to keep slaves"...seriously??)

If so, please PM as I would love to be "disappointed" by your revelation.

I can respect that you actively followed and studied your religion for years and then chose to separate from it. On that note, I would hope (based on your experience) you would understand the offensiveness of HOSS's obtuse generalizations.... and I'm the one accused of being condescending..got it.

It is interesting how many people use the bible to justify whatever stance they have, but ignore all the verses that impose other restrictions. Sometimes the religious apologists try to tell us that it's because the Old Testament rules don't apply, since Jesus took care of it for us (nevermind that Jesus said not one letter would be removed from the law), yet even these people who point to Paul's admonition against gays ignore the commands that women must cover their heads and be silent in church.