pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
SCOTUS rules DOMA unconstitutional
#31
TheWolff;107210 Wrote:
RugerGirl;107204 Wrote:Say what you will, but this particular statement is false. Our forefathers considered gayness to be sodomy and prosecuted it as a crime....and in some cases, a capital crime. Do the research.

Your elected officials can make the modern day America to be as you like it, and such goes the way of history. But leave our forefathers out of it.

A swing and a miss. I didn't say our forefathers would have allowed sodomy, or even that this ruling has anything to do with gay sex. Thanks for taking that out of context. The forefathers were for freedom from religious persecution by the government and individual liberty. Using your religion to persecute others is largely your prerogative, but they would not have been for making it the law (see 1a).

Our forefathers viewed this as a perversion, with no individual "liberty" or right by which to view it otherwise. Stop confusing the 1770's for the 1970's.
[Image: incubi+INK.jpg]. ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN no diff
Reply
#32
Spacemanvic;107233 Wrote:
TheWolff;107210 Wrote:A swing and a miss. I didn't say our forefathers would have allowed sodomy, or even that this ruling has anything to do with gay sex. Thanks for taking that out of context. The forefathers were for freedom from religious persecution by the government and individual liberty. Using your religion to persecute others is largely your prerogative, but they would not have been for making it the law (see 1a).

Our forefathers viewed this as a perversion, with no individual "liberty" or right by which to view it otherwise. Stop confusing the 1770's for the 1970's.

Indeed, there's absolutely no reason to try to figure out, in the 21st century, what a bunch of people that lived 250 years ago would do about this issue. Especially considering that they codified racism in the constitution.

They did many great things, but let's not pretend that they really believed in equality for all.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#33
JustinHEMI;107234 Wrote:
Spacemanvic;107233 Wrote:Our forefathers viewed this as a perversion, with no individual "liberty" or right by which to view it otherwise. Stop confusing the 1770's for the 1970's.

Indeed, there's absolutely no reason to try to figure out, in the 21st century, what a bunch of people that lived 250 years ago would do about this issue. Especially considering that they codified racism in the constitution.

They did many great things, but let's not pretend that they really believed in equality for all.

Justin

It wasnt until the 1970's that sexual preference was viewed through the all-encompassing prism of "civil rights", so it wasnt an issue of equality for something that didnt exist.
[Image: incubi+INK.jpg]. ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN no diff
Reply
#34
bac0nfat;107176 Wrote:This is a step in the right direction, and sets a good precedent. However I don't think the government should recognize any marriage.

Agreed... just don't tell my wife! LOL

No really, I do believe we need laws to recognize situations where couples have financial assets, cooperative living arrangements etc... and what happens when someone dies or if those things need to be divided, etc, etc... But marriage itself is really a religious institution. I don't think the government has any business in anything that stems from a religious ceremony. And anything religious should have nothing to do with anything in government.

I think all patriots whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Satanists or Atheist should have a strong stance on separation of church and state. It is one of the corruptions the founding father's sought to prevent.
LostCyborg, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.

You wouldn't be able to run as many people over with that car if it didn't drive as far. It should only have a 10 gallon fuel tank.
Reply
#35
LostCyborg;107236 Wrote:
bac0nfat;107176 Wrote:This is a step in the right direction, and sets a good precedent. However I don't think the government should recognize any marriage.

Agreed... just don't tell my wife! LOL

No really, I do believe we need laws to recognize situations where couples have financial assets, cooperative living arrangements etc... and what happens when someone dies or if those things need to be divided, etc, etc... But marriage itself is really a religious institution. I don't think the government has any business in anything that stems from a religious ceremony. And anything religious should have nothing to do with anything in government.

I think all patriots whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Satanists or Atheist should have a strong stance on separation of church and state. It is one of the corruptions the founding father's sought to prevent.

Of everything that is in bold, which of those cannot be handled by the family or a private entity?
Reply
#36
JustinHEMI;107234 Wrote:
Spacemanvic;107233 Wrote:Our forefathers viewed this as a perversion, with no individual "liberty" or right by which to view it otherwise. Stop confusing the 1770's for the 1970's.

Indeed, there's absolutely no reason to try to figure out, in the 21st century, what a bunch of people that lived 250 years ago would do about this issue. Especially considering that they codified racism in the constitution.

They did many great things, but let's not pretend that they really believed in equality for all.

Justin

They're the guys who wrote 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 among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Some forefathers were strongly pro-slavery, some were strongly anti slavery, I'd imagine many were indifferent. What made the final cut was likely a compromise toward the greater good of getting the nation started, and creating processes to change the things they might not have gotten right. Now compromise is a sign of weakness and the baby often gets thrown out with the bathwater.

You're right though, it doesn't get us anywhere to try to figure it out. It just really bothers me that so many people think the forefathers built a Christian nation, put "under God" in the pledge and "in God we trust" on the money (they didn't). In truth, they wanted freedom to worship as they wished.

So many people here think that the laws of their religion should be the law of the land, then get upset about Muslims wanting to institute Sharia law. It would be better to have a nation of laws that benefit the greatest amount of people and allow the most freedom. Then, God forbid the people running your country ever be of a different religion than you are, you're guaranteed protection against the whims of their deity.
TheWolff, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#37
TheWolff;107243 Wrote:
JustinHEMI;107234 Wrote:Indeed, there's absolutely no reason to try to figure out, in the 21st century, what a bunch of people that lived 250 years ago would do about this issue. Especially considering that they codified racism in the constitution.

They did many great things, but let's not pretend that they really believed in equality for all.

Justin

They're the guys who wrote 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 among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Some forefathers were strongly pro-slavery, some were strongly anti slavery, I'd imagine many were indifferent. What made the final cut was likely a compromise toward the greater good of getting the nation started, and creating processes to change the things they might not have gotten right. Now compromise is a sign of weakness and the baby often gets thrown out with the bathwater.

You're right though, it doesn't get us anywhere to try to figure it out. It just really bothers me that so many people think the forefathers built a Christian nation, put "under God" in the pledge and "in God we trust" on the money (they didn't). In truth, they wanted freedom to worship as they wished.

So many people here think that the laws of their religion should be the law of the land, then get upset about Muslims wanting to institute Sharia law. It would be better to have a nation of laws that benefit the greatest amount of people and allow the most freedom. Then, God forbid the people running your country ever be of a different religion than you are, you're guaranteed protection against the whims of their deity.

Well said.

"The News Room" got it right when they called them "the American taliban."


Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#38
bac0nfat;107242 Wrote:
LostCyborg;107236 Wrote:No really, I do believe we need laws to recognize situations where couples have financial assets, cooperative living arrangements etc... and what happens when someone dies or if those things need to be divided, etc, etc...

Of everything that is in bold, which of those cannot be handled by the family or a private entity?

Good point. I was thinking along those lines more or less.
LostCyborg, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.

You wouldn't be able to run as many people over with that car if it didn't drive as far. It should only have a 10 gallon fuel tank.
Reply
#39
Personally I enjoy cracked.com take on it.

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-...fects-you/

In case you missed it, or just saw people screaming about it on Facebook, the US Supreme Court just ruled that the federal government will now recognize gay marriages as legitimate (specifically, that the Defense of Marriage Act that had been preventing it, was unconstitutional). BUT individual states are still free to pass their own laws.

Millions of people, most of whom are neither gay nor looking to get same-sex married, are loudly asking on the internet how exactly this case impacts their life.

For them we have provided a handy guide:

If You Are a Homosexual and Are Already Married:

The federal government now recognizes your marriage as a thing, and you are eligible for tax, health and pension benefits under federal law like any other married couple, pending further political shenanigans. You can file taxes jointly, all that shit.

If You Are a Homosexual and Want to Get Married:

This does nothing to affect you UNLESS you live in California. States are still free to decide whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, if you live in Mississippi this does not help you. But, the voter initiative to ban gay marriage in California is now dead, pending further legal challenges or other fuckery.

If You Are a Heterosexual and Do NOT Want to Enter Into a Homosexual Marriage:

You will not be required to marry a gay person. This is a common misunderstanding. This decision actually does not affect you in any way.

If You Are Currently in a Heterosexual Marriage:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who is Not Currently Married:

This decision does not affect you in any way.


If You Are a Heterosexual Who Hopes to Eventually Marry:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Member of a Church That Performs Wedding Ceremonies But That Does Not Believe in Gay Marriage:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Religious Official Who Performs Wedding Ceremonies But Who Thinks Gay Marriage is Wrong:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General is Wrong for Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General is Wrong for Non-Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Adversely Affects Your Marriage or the Concept of Marriage in General:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Negatively Affects You in Some Way:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Suffers Anger or Anxiety at the Thought of Gay Couples Getting Married as an Abstract Concept, and Believes the Only Cure is to Legally Prevent Gay Marriage:

This decision will cause you some degree of anger or anxiety. Otherwise, this decision does not affect you in any way.

Hope this helps!



Read more: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-...z2XLyphc3l
Everytime we look the other way when someone else loses rights we disagree with, we make it easier to lose the rights we support.

Reply
#40
In Pennsylvania we don't care for gay marriages by partners who want to spend the rest of their lives together.

BUT... our Commonwealth will fall all over itself to recognize a quicky out of state Nevada marriage between two sluts officiated by an Elvis impersonator after too many drinks.
Reply








Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.