Apply this to any of Steves or Roads childish whining when there viewpoint is called what it is .And the objection can be ignored .

(July 16, 2018 at 4:09 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 4:00 pm)polymath257 Wrote: It's a good idea. The word 'marriage' is now a *legal* term, not a religious term. And like many other words, there is more than one denotation. Secular marriage is more inclusive.

Do you think that polygamy should be legalized?

As a way for consenting adults to form a family unit? Yes.

As a way to oppress women by marrying as teenagers? No.

(July 16, 2018 at 5:55 pm)Cecelia Wrote: It's absolutely clear that SteveII has zero clue how the US constitution works.

Democratically, laws cannot be passed that go against the constitution.  I highly recommend taking a remedial course in US Government in order to correct your flawed understanding of the US constitution and the Supreme Court.  Banning Same Sex Marriage is a violation of the United States Constitution -- namely a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States.  Your lack of understanding does NOT mean that you get to go around calling people who disagree with you on court cases 'Judicial Activists".  The judicial activists on that court were the ones who sided with YOUR Side and against the constitution.  Wanting to allow laws that go against the constitution because it's in alignment with their personal beliefs.  We don't base laws in this country over a bunch of fairy tales written by neanderthals.  We base them on the US constitution.  Again, I highly recommend a remedial course in US Civics so that you can educate yourself.

I really think this cuts to the long term core of fundies mistaking the letter, which was not a law, but a letter to the king as a "fuck you" in the Declaration of Independence where it says, "Endowed by their creator", as meaning a collective state religion, and that is not what they meant. They meant "their" as in the mind of the individual, which is what the First Amendment reflects, and what the oath of office reflects, in the final LAW we call the Constitution.

The fundies keep forgetting that there was an 11 year period between the start of the war, to the first state ratifying the constitution in 1787. And guess what, in our Constitution, there is no mention of the words "Bible" "Jesus" or "Christianity".

In that time the founders argued over how to represent God in the constitution. Jefferson and Paine especially AND REPEATEDLY argued that because religion was so personal, all anyone could do is to simply neither be for or against, and if you could not agree to let all in, it was better to leave it at the door.

They were not, not even the more religious of them in Adams, none of them were for setting up a social pecking order based on a religious litmus test. 

Jefferson wrote the "Virginia Religious Freedom Act" prior to the founding of the country, which basically said that nobody could be compelled to fund or bow to a religion. In that, he was NOT saying he wanted an atheist nation, but in that he was saying that no citizen can be forced to participate in a religion they don't agree with nor can they be included or excluded to attempting to make a run at public service based on a religious test. That act became the prototype that Madison modeled the First Amendment on. The concept of neutrality is also backed up by the oath of office, in "no religious test".

Combine that with Jefferson's "wall" letter to the Baptists it is clear that Jefferson, the individual most responsible for the path that gave more freedom to more, and that all the congress back then singed off on those concepts, even the more religious of the founders, it is clear they did not want a religious pecking order mandated by our government.

Jefferson was a Unitarian, not an atheist, but today, most sects of Christianity see Unitarians as not "true Christians". The same guy said the following of atheists regardless.....

"whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists." Thomas Jefferson.

If anyone reading this wants to condemn liberal theists or the liberal atheists whom support liberal theists, then they have to condemn the founder most responsible for why America exists today.

(July 16, 2018 at 4:13 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 4:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: Do you think that polygamy should be legalized?

No. But somehow a jackass like you would defend it if it were 1 man and several women, but not one women and several men. CONGRATS, you have the same stupid logic LDS and ISIS have.

I've always thought a quad was the most stable setup, but I've never found it.

(July 16, 2018 at 9:08 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 5:55 pm)Cecelia Wrote: It's absolutely clear that SteveII has zero clue how the US constitution works.

Democratically, laws cannot be passed that go against the constitution.  I highly recommend taking a remedial course in US Government in order to correct your flawed understanding of the US constitution and the Supreme Court.  Banning Same Sex Marriage is a violation of the United States Constitution -- namely a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States.  Your lack of understanding does NOT mean that you get to go around calling people who disagree with you on court cases 'Judicial Activists".  The judicial activists on that court were the ones who sided with YOUR Side and against the constitution.  Wanting to allow laws that go against the constitution because it's in alignment with their personal beliefs.  We don't base laws in this country over a bunch of fairy tales written by neanderthals.  We base them on the US constitution.  Again, I highly recommend a remedial course in US Civics so that you can educate yourself.

I really think this cuts to the long term core of fundies mistaking the letter, which was not a law, but a letter to the king as a "fuck you" in the Declaration of Independence where it says, "Endowed by their creator", as meaning a collective state religion, and that is not what they meant. They meant "their" as in the mind of the individual, which is what the First Amendment reflects, and what the oath of office reflects, in the final LAW we call the Constitution.

The fundies keep forgetting that there was an 11 year period between the start of the war, to the first state ratifying the constitution in 1787. And guess what, in our Constitution, there is no mention of the words "Bible" "Jesus" or "Christianity".

In that time the founders argued over how to represent God in the constitution. Jefferson and Paine especially AND REPEATEDLY argued that because religion was so personal, all anyone could do is to simply neither be for or against, and if you could not agree to let all in, it was better to leave it at the door.

They were not, not even the more religious of them in Adams, none of them were for setting up a social pecking order based on a religious litmus test. 

Jefferson wrote the "Virginia Religious Freedom Act" prior to the founding of the country, which basically said that nobody could be compelled to fund or bow to a religion. In that, he was NOT saying he wanted an atheist nation, but in that he was saying that no citizen can be forced to participate in a religion they don't agree with nor can they be included or excluded to attempting to make a run at public service based on a religious test. That act became the prototype that Madison modeled the First Amendment on. The concept of neutrality is also backed up by the oath of office, in "no religious test".

Combine that with Jefferson's "wall" letter to the Baptists it is clear that Jefferson, the individual most responsible for the path that gave more freedom to more, and that all the congress back then singed off on those concepts, even the more religious of the founders, it is clear they did not want a religious pecking order mandated by our government.

Jefferson was a Unitarian, not an atheist, but today, most sects of Christianity see Unitarians as not "true Christians". The same guy said the following of atheists regardless.....

"whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists." Thomas Jefferson.

If anyone reading this wants to condemn liberal theists or the liberal atheists whom support liberal theists, then they have to condemn the founder most responsible for why America exists today.

I love wen christains try and say the "creator in the declaration is their god when it is not .

(July 16, 2018 at 3:52 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 3:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote: OK, so every time you hear the word 'marriage' in a *secular* context, just think of it as being 'civil union'. because that's what it is.

Oh, so pretend that the word was not redefined. Okay, I'll try that.

Funny how you're not squawking about how secular governments changed the definition of marriage when they started allowing judges not ordained by any church to perform them.

You claim you're fine with civil unions. But, the only way to be fair about civil unions is to make them the only legally binding agreement. That means your local shaman would no longer have the power to grant a legally binding agreement between "one man and one woman." You down with that Stevie? Or, are you going to ignore me again?

Its a legal contract between two people. The genders/sexes of those two people have no effect on the contract. It's really sad to watch bigots pretend they have some genuine reason to protest.

Dropping the redundant restriction also stops any concern about transgender or intersex people marrying. It's two adults, making an agreement between themselves. It doesn't involve anyone else, so I find it bizarre anyone else thinks they should get a say.

I also want to note that any religious ceremony surrounding a marriage is just that. It doesn't create a marriage in the eyes of the law. A further secular legal document is required for that. If a religious person really did only care about being married "in the eyes of God", then they'd have no need for that secular document.

(July 16, 2018 at 4:47 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 9:55 am)SteveII Wrote: Even back in whatever culture you might find a mention, the concept that it was different would still be clear. You cannot argue that traditional marriage was not one of the primary pillars of every culture. There is no argument that could be made that the few cultures that allowed open same-sex relationships viewed them on par with traditional marriage within the fabric of their society.

So what? How is that an argument to not allow them? You seem to be literally saying it shouldn't be allowed because gay people are a minority.

No, your point was to weaken the concept of marriage defined as between a man and a women by bringing in historical references to homosexual relationships. My answer was to address that point. 

My argument is that instead of a democratic process, 5 people redefined a concept so old. Why do I care? Just the principle of the thing. Justice Roberts sums it up:

Quote:In his dissent, Roberts argued that the issue of same-sex marriage should be decided not by the courts but by the public process.
"Just who do you think we are?" Roberts asked, calling the majority's decision "an act of will, not legal judgment."
He implored his audience to "understand well" what his dissent is about.
"It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples," he said. "It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes under the law."
Note he refers to his brethren as "lawyers."
Roberts said that the Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
"The people of a state are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition," he said.
Roberts eviscerated his colleagues for "stealing this issue from the people" and in doing so "casting a cloud" over same-sex marriage.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/...index.html

Justice Roberts would have ruled against Loving v. Virginia too, I'm sure. Because he's a fucking asshole, just like you.

Rights should NOT be left up to the public vote. Especially because Christians are among the most disgusting people in western civilization. Most love pedophiles and child molesters.

Our Supreme Court prior to the end of slavery took cases on slave ownership. Our Supreme Court has also taken cases about interracial marriage bans. 

The progress of pluralism isn't about clinging to the past. And if you are claiming 5 people shouldn't decide you just defied yourself by citing a court you claim should not have that power. Cant have it both ways.

It isn't about you being afraid of the SCOTUS existing, you are merely afraid of not getting everything you want all the time.