Responding to insults against me by a troll is not censorship.<quoted text>
Oh I am relaxed, I just enjoy pointing out your constant lying 
Complain about censorship of others more.. it is really funny
A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.Full Story
#196442 Jun 17, 2013
“What Goes Around, Comes Around”
Since: Mar 07
Kansas City, MO.
#196443 Jun 17, 2013
Rizzo.....After the ruling I will have no need to come to this thread. You can ramble on about ANYTHING you want to! Have fun.=)
#196444 Jun 17, 2013
If you want to marr your boyfriend, again great. I think you two should. I am glad to see that you see the problem.
#196445 Jun 17, 2013
Hey Flunkie are you going to talk about Poly marriage or not?
#196446 Jun 17, 2013
Relax, take it easy, put your feet up, have a beer. Now why are you so upset?
#196447 Jun 17, 2013
Take a chill pill. Why are you so mad? Hey post about Poly. I am still waiting.
#196448 Jun 17, 2013
As you may have noticed, I don't need your permission. Thanks for playing. Even though you have no argument you gave it your best shot! But failed.
#196449 Jun 17, 2013
WOW! The old "why you mad" schtick, that might work. g
Getting even pretty desperate eh Jiz? What a loser.
#196450 Jun 17, 2013
I find it difficult to see Jizzy's logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
#196451 Jun 17, 2013
If I got any more relaxed, I'd turn to rubber. How about yourself? You seem upset.
#196452 Jun 17, 2013
Moron says what?
Here comes the homophobia. Nice!
#196453 Jun 17, 2013
Frank, calm down. Put your special helmit on and STOP licking the windows.
#196454 Jun 17, 2013
Yes. I have been. Despite your trolling. We'll tell you about it all tomorrow when you sober up.
#196455 Jun 17, 2013
Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.
Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.
#196456 Jun 17, 2013
Frankie, I just don't see why we should change existing laws for the sake of one religion. If we do that then the flood doors will open. 1797 different religions, sects and tree worshipers wanting different terms. Nope let that one be.
Its all in the Constitution, if you care to read.
#196457 Jun 17, 2013
I said marry your boy frind, good for you. Don't you feel better now?
#196458 Jun 17, 2013
Not for the sake of religion. For the sake of equality.
What harm would a marriage of three atheist men cause you or your loveless monogamous marriage?
Show me where marriage is mentioned in the Constitution moron. I have read it. You have not.
"Its all in the Consitution..." What a dope! Too funny!
#196459 Jun 17, 2013
I don't want to marry anyone. Why do you keep saying stupid stuff like that? You are truly a moron. A buffoon!
I'll tell you why you do it. Because you're mad and you have no argument.
Hope that helps! Always ask for help. Remember! You are an idiot.
#196460 Jun 17, 2013
Religious Law and Its Application in U.S. Courts
Various religions have developed their own set of precepts to guide the actions and behaviors of
their particular religious community and followers. For the purposes of this report, these precepts
are generally referred to as religious law—that is, the rules of a particular religious community, as
opposed to secular law, which would be laws adopted by the government of a particular state or
nation. Sharia—often translated as Islamic law, which encompasses rules, norms, processes, and
practices to be followed by Muslims, has been of particular interest recently.4 However, it is not
the only religious legal structure that might intersect with issues before U.S. courts. For example,
in Judaism, the Halakhah and Haggadah comprise the norms by which individuals of the Jewish
faith are governed.5 Similarly, canon law is a body of law that applies to certain sects of Christianity.6 These bodies of religious law may play as relevant a role in certain legal actions as
sharia might play in others.
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
subject themselves to such religious laws by their association with the community.7 For example,
if a particular religious sect or denomination requires its members to dress modestly, and an
individual who is a member of that particular group does not comply with the dress code, that
individual would be in violation of that group’s religious law. The individual’s belief in the
religion’s precepts would guide his or her individual actions, with any sanction for noncompliance
generally remaining a private matter between the individual and the religious group.
The individual would not be subject to any penalty by the government because the government
does not enforce such a dress code. Interestingly, this distinction between religious and secular
laws can become complicated when an action might be governed by both religious law and
secular law. For example, many religious denominations’ beliefs prohibit murder under their
religious code. Both federal and state laws also prohibit murder. Thus, an individual who
commits murder would be in violation of both a religious law and a secular law and may be
sanctioned by the religious group, the government, or both.
The First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise are not limited to traditional notions of
worship, but extend to other behaviors that may be motivated by religious beliefs.8 Religious law
often times is not limited to traditional worship or religious activities. Rather it may extend to
day-to-day practices and behaviors. That is, Christianity may require attendance of religious
services on Sunday but it also instructs its followers to perform charitable acts toward other
individuals. Under Christian religious law, an individual’s exercise of Christian beliefs may
include both going to church and assisting one’s neighbors. Similarly, in compliance with sharia,
Muslims should not only observe daily prayers, but also conduct financial dealings consistent
with their religious law.9 This understanding of the broad scope of many religious laws is
significant when considering how these laws may intersect with the secular legal system.
#196461 Jun 17, 2013
Oh that's what moron said. Marry my boy frind sic ha ha so funny.
That doesn't prove your argument. What was your argument again?
Add your comments below
|Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08)||2 hr||Rick Moss||71,088|
|Carmel River diverted to allow dam removal, pre...||Dec 16||Clint||1|
|Calif. cop may be fired for giving suicidal stu...||Dec 13||John Smith||1|
|Kristen Scannell Saratoga Springs NY Adds New H...||Dec 12||Alex Montgomery||1|
|Who do you think is the MOST corrupt Monterey C...||Dec 9||montereyusedtobenice||1|
|where can I find heroin in monterey?||Dec 9||montereyusedtobenice||5|
|Help! In need of opiates preferably boi||Dec 5||Njp9080||1|
Find what you want!
Search Monterey Forum Now
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC