Scouting’s suicide

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#692 Feb 7, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
What relevance do those quotes have? Also, you are getting some bad facts.
http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/%...
So, you dispute the authenticity of exactly one of the above quotes...and that changes the discussion...how?

Perhaps, you should consult Ward Churchill.
Take your flag-burning mutt with you.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#693 Feb 7, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>Roughly half of this thread has been people chiming in to explain what their god thinks. I can't possibly see how this should be relevant. Nobody, outside of your faith community should need to concern themselves about your faith, so long as they aren't interrupting the free practice of it.
You've hit the nail on the head.

Its quite evident that those most vocally opposed on here to any recognition of sexual orientation as a "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" class seek to unilaterally impose their selected version of religious morality rules upon others, and their basis for justifying that desire is their religious faith.

That's fine if they wish to speak out. That's their right.

But its interesting that when the First Amendment is used to question the nature of their motivations as they relate to the rest of society and government, and to pose simple questions about the foundations of their faith, the attacks then begin, as if a simple question from a skeptic might actually pose a serious threat to their previously unyielding faith in God, or interfere with their right to practice their religion in any way they please.

I find it particularly enlightening when such people espouse the strength of their morality in one thread, and in another minutes later, refer to their neighbors as "pavement apes" in writing.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#694 Feb 7, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You've hit the nail on the head.
Its quite evident that those most vocally opposed on here to any recognition of sexual orientation as a "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" class seek to unilaterally impose their selected version of religious morality rules upon others, and their basis for justifying that desire is their religious faith.
That's fine if they wish to speak out. That's their right.
But its interesting that when the First Amendment is used to question the nature of their motivations as they relate to the rest of society and government, and to pose simple questions about the foundations of their faith, the attacks then begin, as if a simple question from a skeptic might actually pose a serious threat to their previously unyielding faith in God, or interfere with their right to practice their religion in any way they please.
I find it particularly enlightening when such people espouse the strength of their morality in one thread, and in another minutes later, refer to their neighbors as "pavement apes" in writing.
woof
Name one Constitutional right denied U.S. homosexuals.
Any one will do.

Private organizations may set membership standards as they please.

You might want to pull out your pocket version of the U.S. Constitution, counselor.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#695 Feb 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Name one Constitutional right denied U.S. homosexuals.
Any one will do.
Private organizations may set membership standards as they please.
You might want to pull out your pocket version of the U.S. Constitution, counselor.
Marriage.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#696 Feb 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you dispute the authenticity of exactly one of the above quotes...and that changes the discussion...how?
Perhaps, you should consult Ward Churchill.
Take your flag-burning mutt with you.
How are those quotes relevant?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#697 Feb 7, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage.
Show me where marriage is referenced in the U.S. Constitution.

I'll wait.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#698 Feb 7, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
How are those quotes relevant?
Post #690.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#699 Feb 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Name one Constitutional right denied U.S. homosexuals.
Any one will do.
Private organizations may set membership standards as they please.
You might want to pull out your pocket version of the U.S. Constitution, counselor.
Well, right off the top of my head, I'm gonna guess that the rights of people to equal employment or housing opportunities probably get abridged often.

I love it when you people forget how to read, and see something in my writing that isn't there.

woof

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#700 Feb 7, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage.
I don't see marriage mentioned in the Constitution, but in any case, there is no jurisdiction in America where a homosexual is denied the right to marry.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#701 Feb 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I state Christianity was a state religion?
Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States, in a Jan. 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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."
William Hubbs Rehnquist, JD, former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court at the time of the quotation, who later became Chief Justice, wrote in his June 4, 1985 dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree (131 KB):
"It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment...
The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
Antonin Scalia, LLB, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote in his June 27, 2005 dissenting opinion in McCreary County, KY v. ACLU of Kentucky (163 KB):
"I shall discuss first, why the Court’s oft repeated assertion that the government cannot favor religious practice is false...
George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II,§1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words 'so help me God.' The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer,'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.' The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate. The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim 'a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.'
...The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided:'Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.' And of course the First Amendment itself accords religion (and no other manner of belief) special constitutional protection.
These actions of our First President and Congress and the Marshall Court were not idiosyncratic; they reflected the beliefs of the period. Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality."
Now that you've wasted all of that space citing dissenting opinions that carry no weight, you want to summarize your own personal conclusions?

I say that state and local governments can't Constitutionally perform acts which support, aid, or establish a particular religion.

What's your take?

woof
Duke for Mayor

United States

#702 Feb 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me where marriage is referenced in the U.S. Constitution.
I'll wait.
Ohhhhh boy...Here we go.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...

Its right there next to the right to breathe, you idiot.

woof
Duke for Mayor

United States

#703 Feb 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Post #690.
You wanna expound a little Tippy?

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#704 Feb 7, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhh boy...Here we go.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...
Its right there next to the right to breathe, you idiot.
woof
Marriage is not referenced in the U.S. Constitution.
Loving v. Virginia was a racial discrimination case.
This case did not establish a right to marry, nor did it redefine marriage.
It merely ended a state's racial discrimination with respect to marriage within that state.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#705 Feb 7, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You wanna expound a little Tippy?
woof
I believe Rehnquist and Scalia did a more than adequate job of expounding our nation's foundational views with respect to religion.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#706 Feb 7, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I love the beach. I just try and head places that are a bit less white-trash aspirational than cheap package tours to this or that walled resort. We've just booked an add on to Palau, for the honeymoon (to see some other friends get married).
Yawn. Can't wait to see you leave.

What exactly is the definition of 'white trash?' You peolpe intent on de-classing everyone else, usually live in a make believe world.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#707 Feb 7, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, right off the top of my head, I'm gonna guess that the rights of people to equal employment or housing opportunities probably get abridged often.
I love it when you people forget how to read, and see something in my writing that isn't there.
woof
And every U.S. citizen is guaranteed remedy under the law.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#708 Feb 7, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>I don't see marriage mentioned in the Constitution, but in any case, there is no jurisdiction in America where a homosexual is denied the right to marry.
Homosexuals don't want equal rights, George. Like every other so called 'minority' group in this country they want additional rights.

If they can find a clergyman that will marry them, what the h*ll do I care?(Got flagged last night for using dam.......n)

As far as them being allowed to participate in ANY youth oriented activity: Jerry Sandusky

And on the Philly news last night they talked about ANOTHER teacher abusing young boys.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#709 Feb 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
And every U.S. citizen is guaranteed remedy under the law.
Ohhh. Ok.

woof
Duke for Mayor

United States

#710 Feb 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is not referenced in the U.S. Constitution.
Loving v. Virginia was a racial discrimination case.
This case did not establish a right to marry, nor did it redefine marriage.
It merely ended a state's racial discrimination with respect to marriage within that state.
Neither is your right to hunt. Or eat. Or sleep. Or fck.

You got a point tippy?

Are you trying to claim that no American has a right to marry under the US Constitution? You always speak in tongues, so I'm not sure.

If that's your claim, its utterly ridiculous.

woof
Che Reagan Christ

Akron, OH

#711 Feb 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me where marriage is referenced in the U.S. Constitution.
I'll wait.
Read Loving v. Virginia.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Proof that Trump voters want a Daddy 8 min Reality Speaks 13
T Minus 4 3 2 1 ,,,, | Mueller Gone! 9 min d pants 1,408
Black Panther Sucked 10 min tell me 24
Billy Graham has died. 40 min Christian 11
News Gas prices at 6-month low 1 hr a1 b2 c3 d4 e5 f6... 7
Peter Kurto Columbus Industries 7 hr T Wayne V 19
Romney ! Trumps Best Friend ! 8 hr bud 13

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages