Supreme Court Strikes Down Key DOMA Provisions

AbyssalMonkey

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
363
Trophies
1
Location
Prox
XP
2,609
Country
Antarctica
Honestly, I don't see why this is an issue. I can solve this with a quote from Jefferson:
Thomas Jefferson said:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Damn, that's an old idea, separation of church and state. You know what this means? Your book doesn't mean shit in court, and neither does your religion and its definition of marriage.
That's a .gov link (oh snap!)

The issue people have nowadays is that marriage has become such a loosely defined word, and now has the vernacular meaning of "union between two people", and that is what they are asking for. They could care less what people think marriage means, they just want the benefits of civil marriage.

There, I smashed anything religion has to do with it. Back your argument with scientific evidence next time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jgblahblahblah

Ericthegreat

Not New Member
Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
3,454
Trophies
2
Location
Vana'diel
XP
4,254
Country
United States
Eh....I give up, you just don't understand the problem. It seems a waste of my time, and I should correct your post a while ago the original Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament was written in Greek, the masses in the Roman Catholic Church were performed in Latin at a time when it was already a dead language and or pretty close to it. Almost every single person didn't understand a word of it (meaning no offense just out to inform).
The NAB is translated from the Vulgate, which is in latin. Read about it if you like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

And it is not that I do not understand the problem, it is that you do not understand the problem in the first place :)
 

Ericthegreat

Not New Member
Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
3,454
Trophies
2
Location
Vana'diel
XP
4,254
Country
United States
Honestly, I don't see why this is an issue. I can solve this with a quote from Jefferson:

Damn, that's an old idea, separation of church and state. You know what this means? Your book doesn't mean shit in court, and neither does your religion and its definition of marriage.

That's a .gov link (oh snap!)

The issue people have nowadays is that marriage has become such a loosely defined word, and now has the vernacular meaning of "union between two people", and that is what they are asking for. They could care less what people think marriage means, they just want the benefits of civil marriage.

There, I smashed anything religion has to do with it. Back your argument with scientific evidence next time.
Thomas Jefferson solved it for you huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

In 1778, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy,[1] however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.[2]

So yea, he didnt wanna kill them, he just wanted their dick chopped off. Maybe your right, maybe they prefered it that way and you think he was doing them a favor?
 

smile72

NewsBot
Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
1,910
Trophies
0
Age
30
Location
???
XP
983
Country
The NAB is translated from the Vulgate, which is in latin. Read about it if you like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

And it is not that I do not understand the problem, it is that you do not understand the problem in the first place :)

No, I do understand....you are promoting discrimination...which is a problem. Your argument is similar to the KKK's against interracial marriage. And I do know about the Vulgate being written in Latin.
 

Gahars

Bakayaro Banzai
OP
Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
10,255
Trophies
0
XP
14,723
Country
United States
2. We done discussed this in the first pages of the thread, read them to find my views on the subject.


The best I came up with was this:

All of these rules are for the Jews. I am Catholic so I believe in forgiveness. But the word of the Lord is still the word of the Lord. As I said may you all be forgiven.

Which is as much as a non-answer as you can get. So the rules are not for you yet they are still the word of God... so what are you saying here, exactly? The rules don't apply except for when they do? Do you have any problems with the fact that you likely violate the rules of God on a constant basis?

Here is a list of countries that persecute gays, some are quite "nice".

http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/

Seems in Russia you cannot even talk about gays in front of minors.

>Russia
>"Nice"

u wot m8

Most of those on the list are third world countries, oppressive theocracies, or somewhere in the middle. Not to mention that the "niceness" of a country doesn't validate its hateful, discriminatory laws and policies - the United States managed to grow as an economic powerhouse while Jim Crow was in effect, but that doesn't somehow make racial segregation alright in any way, shape, or form. It's an irrelevant point.

Also Oklahoma , Kansas, and Texas still have laws against sodomy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

Tho as someone will prob bring up they are not/not really enforced. Yet they are still law. And laws of which the majority of people have voted to keep, not overturn.


The validity of these laws is extremely suspect, at best, considering the Supreme Court ruled anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in the 2003 case. I can't imagine these laws would survive the scrutiny of a court review. (Plus, you're referring to a series of laws that have been repealed in every other state but these three - the momentum of history is hardly on their side)

And the fact that they're voted in means just about nothing. The public has consented to lots of hateful, discriminatory, and downright unconstitutional practices in the past - as history has shown us, putting the rights of an oppressed group in the hands of the majority doesn't always work out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jgblahblahblah

AbyssalMonkey

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
363
Trophies
1
Location
Prox
XP
2,609
Country
Antarctica
Thomas Jefferson solved it for you huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

In 1778, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy,[1] however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.[2]

So yea, he didnt wanna kill them, he just wanted their dick chopped off. Maybe your right, maybe they prefered it that way and you think he was doing them a favor?

What you referenced and what I referenced are different. My reference has been held up in the supreme court before, meaning it holds legal precedence, the ball is back in your court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gahars

Ericthegreat

Not New Member
Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
3,454
Trophies
2
Location
Vana'diel
XP
4,254
Country
United States
too long to quote
Not a Non Answer, I am not one of the Jews who are the chosen people of God, all I can do is pray for those who commit sexual sin. Read the BIble and you would understand this.

The rest of what you say is based upon your own opinions.

What you referenced and what I referenced are different. My reference has been held up in the supreme court before, meaning it holds legal precedence, the ball is back in your court.

And in the same way gay marriage has been shot down in past cases. As I said before the Bible does affect our laws no matter how much you try and prove that they do not. Look at things such as marriage, abortion, and death sentencing and they would be different if what you say was the ultimate "Seperation" of Church and state. But what you say is true, it is in the constitution, But only held their a bit more then the unenforced laws I spoke of.
 

KingVamp

Haaah-hahahaha!
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
13,474
Trophies
2
Location
Netherworld
XP
7,887
Country
United States
But I think most would agree it isn't like the translation is that far off.

Or maybe it is, specially when some text has been lost and rip out.


I mean Kansas, has a bombing every year near an abortion clinic. Totally Christian.

I can't be sure if you are saying all Christians do this or you saying it not really Christian like at all.
 

Gahars

Bakayaro Banzai
OP
Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
10,255
Trophies
0
XP
14,723
Country
United States
Not a Non Answer, I am not one of the Jews who are the chosen people of God, all I can do is pray for those who commie sexual sin.

That doesn't answer the question about the rest of the sins.

Do you pray for people who wear clothes with mixed fiber? And who eat shellfish? And who shave and get rounded haircuts? And who get tattoos? Because if you're going to pray for the gays, well, we better not leave the rest out.

Read the BIble and you would understand this.

A) Yet another non answer.
B) I have. You're the one who can't provide a satisfactory justification for your arguments - perhaps it's your understanding that needs work here.

The rest of what you say is based upon your own opinions.


Are you playing non answer bingo or what?

As I said before the Bible does affect our laws no matter how much you try and prove that they do not. Look at things such as marriage, abortion, and death sentencing and they would be different if what you say was the ultimate "Seperation" of Church and state. That I agree most people agree to. But what you say is true, it is in the constitution, But only held their a bit more then the unenforced laws I spoke of.


Having some influence /= Having any sort of actual legal standing whatsoever.
 

AbyssalMonkey

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
363
Trophies
1
Location
Prox
XP
2,609
Country
Antarctica
And in the same way gay marriage has been shot down in past cases. As I said before the Bible does affect our laws no matter how much you try and prove that they do not. Look at things such as marriage, abortion, and death sentencing and they would be different if what you say was the ultimate "Seperation" of Church and state. But what you say is true, it is in the constitution, But only held their a bit more then the unenforced laws I spoke of.


I'm not arguing that the Bible hasn't affected our laws in the past, I'm arguing the fact that you cannot force your morals upon everyone else because of legal precedence (and constitutional!). Also, I refer back to my previous post about what the real issue is here:

The issue people have nowadays is that marriage has become such a loosely defined word, and now has the vernacular meaning of "union between two people", and that is what they are asking for. They could care less what people think marriage means, they just want the benefits of civil marriage.


And because of the constitution, your religion (and therefore its morals) cannot say what they can and cannot do, and therefore should not influence what kind privileges they get, especially when it does not interfere with your religious worshiping.

So please, refer me to some higher law in the land that says you get to do otherwise. Remember we have already disenfranchised your god (oops, it should be God).
 

Ericthegreat

Not New Member
Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
3,454
Trophies
2
Location
Vana'diel
XP
4,254
Country
United States
I'm not arguing that the Bible hasn't affected our laws in the past, I'm arguing the fact that you cannot force your morals upon everyone else because of legal precedence (and constitutional!). Also, I refer back to my previous post about what the real issue is here:




And because of the constitution, your religion (and therefore its morals) cannot say what they can and cannot do, and therefore should not influence what kind privileges they get, especially when it does not interfere with your religious worshiping.

So please, refer me to some higher law in the land that says you get to do otherwise. Remember we have already disenfranchised your god (oops, it should be God).

And you cannot force me to be okay with your morals lol....
 

Nathan Drake

Obligations fulfilled, now I depart.
Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
6,192
Trophies
0
XP
2,707
Country
And you cannot force me to be okay with your morals lol....
That is not the point he was making. On a legal level, you can not force the morals of the Bible onto the people. As such, striking down homosexuality due to religious reasons should technically be illegal in itself. The Supreme Court has upheld the idea that this is a country that promotes separation of church and state, and have referenced it in the past a number of times when making rulings. By saying that the country should have made a different decision in regards to DOMA because the decision made doesn't line up with your religious moral compass, you've only shown that you are ignorant of how the US functions and instead have an idealized view of a theocratic US government that would, for whatever reason, suddenly turn itself on its head in order to adhere to a God that many within the country don't even believe in.
 

AbyssalMonkey

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
363
Trophies
1
Location
Prox
XP
2,609
Country
Antarctica
And you cannot force me to be okay with your morals lol....

You're right, but this isn't morals, and we are not forcing it upon you. If you want to have a "traditional Christian Holy Matrimony" you are free to that, but I do not see how allowing homosexuals to have equal rights is forcing anything upon you. It will have zero impact on how you worship and therefore you can not use religion to back your argument. Now if this law said that churches could not decline homosexual marriages in their chapel, then you would have an argument, but even then, it would not be what we are arguing about right now, it would be over the fact that you are interfering with religious worship by allowing homosexual marriage in the chapel, not the act of the marriage itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gahars

Gahars

Bakayaro Banzai
OP
Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
10,255
Trophies
0
XP
14,723
Country
United States
  • Like
Reactions: KingVamp

Ericthegreat

Not New Member
Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
3,454
Trophies
2
Location
Vana'diel
XP
4,254
Country
United States
That doesn't answer the question about the rest of the sins.

Do you pray for people who wear clothes with mixed fiber? And who eat shellfish? And who shave and get rounded haircuts? And who get tattoos? Because if you're going to pray for the gays, well, we better not leave the rest out.

If you've read the Bible then you understand that Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said to pray for those who commit sexual sin.

Here maybe this will help you understand what I am trying to say a bit more:

http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

You're right, but this isn't morals, and we are not forcing it upon you. If you want to have a "traditional Christian Holy Matrimony" you are free to that, but I do not see how allowing homosexuals to have equal rights is forcing anything upon you. It will have zero impact on how you worship and therefore you can not use religion to back your argument. Now if this law said that churches could not decline homosexual marriages in their chapel, then you would have an argument, but even then, it would not be what we are arguing about right now, it would be over the fact that you are interfering with religious worship by allowing homosexual marriage in the chapel, not the act of the marriage itself.
That is not the point he was making. On a legal level, you can not force the morals of the Bible onto the people. As such, striking down homosexuality due to religious reasons should technically be illegal in itself. The Supreme Court has upheld the idea that this is a country that promotes separation of church and state, and have referenced it in the past a number of times when making rulings. By saying that the country should have made a different decision in regards to DOMA because the decision made doesn't line up with your religious moral compass, you've only shown that you are ignorant of how the US functions and instead have an idealized view of a theocratic US government that would, for whatever reason, suddenly turn itself on its head in order to adhere to a God that many within the country don't even believe in.
Law be what it is, I am allowed to disapprove of whatever I disapprove of. If that includes me fighting for rights to be withheld from others, then so be it. And you cannot disagree that it has worked in the past.
 

Sicklyboy

#JOYCONBOYZFOREVER
Global Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
6,297
Trophies
2
Location
[̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]
XP
7,950
Country
United States
Ericthegreat - You keep ignoring my question. Let's put forth the fact that I more or less deny, to myself, the existence of any god, yet I would not denounce the idea of one existing should sufficient, solid proof be provided. In other words, Agnostic. I consider myself part of no religion.

We do not live in a theocratic government.

So answer me this - If I am not a part of your religion, if I do not practice nor follow it in any way, and we do not live in a country where your religion is the elected one that the country chooses to follow as a whole, why would and why should I be forced to abide by YOUR rules?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbyssalMonkey

Nathan Drake

Obligations fulfilled, now I depart.
Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
6,192
Trophies
0
XP
2,707
Country
Law be what it is, I am allowed to disapprove of whatever I disapprove of. If that includes me fighting for rights to be withheld from others, then so be it.
The moment you start trying to change the law to fit your religious beliefs, you no longer have the right within this country to legally fight for those rights to be upheld in any kind of court. Sure, you can disapprove of the decision, but you can not legally try to take the rights of another. The fact that you would consider taking the rights of another to fit your beliefs is already appalling. How religion can preach acceptance and then discriminate has always astounded me. How does "we accept you as long as you fall within these guidelines" sound any better than the KKK, or the Westboro Baptist Church?
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2: "Now I know why he took his own life"