[Falcons Ace]

Enlightened29, on 06 November 2009 - 07:10 AM, said:

Seperation of church and state is blown out of proportion and has been for years. The Libtards in office are using that one statement to try to abolish Christianity in this nation. I find it funny that the Bible, prayer, and the Ten Commandments have all been made to be "wrong" under this part of the Constitution, by some in government. What happened to tolerance? I find it weird that in order for people to be able to enjoy their freedom of religion they have to take away another's freedom of religion. As long as no one is forcing you to partake in the religion I say leave them alone.

Im sure everyone knows about the judge that was fired for displaying the Ten Commandments in Alabama. Well, to me thats discrimination. He was just exercising his rights. Now, if this is fair under separation of church and state then I guess they need to tear down the Supreme Court. Not only is there a picture of Moses holding the Ten Commandments on the front of the building, there are other engraved images of the Ten Commandments inside. So dont give me that separation of church and state means that you cant publically have any opinion based upon your religious beliefs.

No one seems to mind when the ACLU fusses and throws a fit about ridding themselves of anything Christian. They are the most Atheist group in America. Isnt that funny, no one gets in their face about freedom of religion, but as soon as someone mentions Christ, the FIRST thing you hear is "separation of church and state".

So fill me in on all these rights that Christians have had taken away from them. A person can pray in school, I can read the Bible on in/on any public ground, if I go through the proper channels I can hold a Christian event in public areas, and I can say Merry Christmas to whoever I please. You can have an opinion based on religious beliefs, but as soon as you try to deny other people equal rights based solely on your religious beliefs, you are shoving your religion down their throat. Even as a Christian I say myself, no matter what the Bible says about homosexuality, it has no place dictating policy in America. America is about equal rights for all so long as their actions do not harm or effect another person do to their actions.

Give equal rights, or don't involve government in it at all.

[Enlightened29]

Falcons Ace, on 06 November 2009 - 12:39 PM, said:

So fill me in on all these rights that Christians have had taken away from them. A person can pray in school, I can read the Bible on in/on any public ground, if I go through the proper channels I can hold a Christian event in public areas, and I can say Merry Christmas to whoever I please. You can have an opinion based on religious beliefs, but as soon as you try to deny other people equal rights based solely on your religious beliefs, you are shoving your religion down their throat. Even as a Christian I say myself, no matter what the Bible says about homosexuality, it has no place dictating policy in America. America is about equal rights for all so long as their actions do not harm or effect another person do to their actions.

Give equal rights, or don't involve government in it at all.

You think you can read the Bible in a school and not get punished for it, tell that to a teacher. Prayer is school was replaced with "a moment of silence". Too afraid to call it what it is, because of "separation of church and state". Why cant we display the Ten Commmandments in a court room? Who is that hurting?

[Falcons Ace]

Enlightened29, on 06 November 2009 - 12:54 PM, said:

You think you can read the Bible in a school and not get punished for it, tell that to a teacher. Prayer is school was replaced with "a moment of silence". Too afraid to call it what it is, because of "separation of church and state". Why cant we display the Ten Commmandments in a court room? Who is that hurting?

Yes, and I've done it myself. I've seen a children today do it. You have a child? If so, send them school with a Bible and tell them to just read it during lunch, recess, or whenever they don't have anything to do. I guarantee you that they will have no means by which they can stop them from doing that.

Concerning "school prayer", you don't need a government worker to stop class and lead a prayer for a kid to pray to God. If a child wants to pray, they can pray whenever they want and no one can stop them as long as it doesn't interrupt school functions. I don't even think you need a moment of silence, if a child wants to pray to God before school then they will do it. Should the government

Would you be willing to place up anything in a public courthouse that embodies or displays the fundamental teachings of Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, or even Scientology? Would you be willing to allocate public funds, your tax money, to do just that? Personally, I wouldn't, which is then why the Ten Commandments shouldn't be up there either. In America, Christians should not be given any more rights than any other religion.

[Falcons Ace]

To expand on my previous post. Can you imagine the outrage by people if we erected a monument dedicated to the Five Pillars of Islam? How about setting apart school time for those same followers of Islam to practice Salah, their prayer. How about a monument dedicated to the Four Noble Truths of Buddism?

I could go on and on and include everything from Islam to Scientology. I assure you that people would sh*t bricks if any of the above happened.

[BenB321]

Enlightened29, on 06 November 2009 - 10:17 AM, said:

Well said :D

Appreciate it. Oh yeah lets not forget what institution is responsible for the huge increase in single parents especially single mothers. Ding, Ding yes the Federal government which introduced welfare which had the effect of replacing poor men as the provider for families. Suddenly women were being paid to have children without being married.

Then came the consequences of having children being raised without fathers. Suprise, suprise the boys in general had no male role models and inadequate disciplne and many grew up to be thugs. The girls got knocked up before they graduated from high school because they were so desperate for male attention and in general their mothers were bad role models.

So we see not only does the government not promote marriage between a man and a woman it actively tries to destroy it. What a bunch of morons in Washington. I'm suprised they're not all Panthers fans.

[BTL FED]

Falcons Ace, on 06 November 2009 - 01:17 PM, said:

To expand on my previous post. Can you imagine the outrage by people if we erected a monument dedicated to the Five Pillars of Islam? How about setting apart school time for those same followers of Islam to practice Salah, their prayer. How about a monument dedicated to the Four Noble Truths of Buddism?

I could go on and on and include everything from Islam to Scientology. I assure you that people would sh*t bricks if any of the above happened.

I guess you missed this little article of news... :mellow:

http://doctorbulldog...tional-airport/

[Awesome Possum]

JDaveG, on 06 November 2009 - 12:30 PM, said:

You asked what my "ideal solution" is. My pragmatic solution is status quo plus civil unions.

even if civil unions are unequal to marriages?

[Falcons Ace]

http://life.atlantafalcons.com/public/style_images/atlanta/snapback.png

http://doctorbulldog...tional-airport/

[Enlightened29]

Falcons Ace, on 07 November 2009 - 03:34 AM, said:

The difference here is that this is a question of sanitation, health, and liability. Last I checked, the Ten Commandments and the Five Pillars of Islam don't serve any other purpose other than asthetic. Regardless, you see the outrage there. Those individuals protesting are throwing around some very bigoted and flat out hateful remarks that are completely ignorant, but regardless there is a negative reaction there.

This is where tolerance would come in, but we Americans dont know what that is.

[JDaveG]

Awesome Possum, on 06 November 2009 - 10:02 PM, said:

even if civil unions are unequal to marriages?

In terms of special privileges extended by government (i.e. taxes, benefits sharing, etc.), they should be equal to marriage. If they are not, they should be made so.

So the answer to the question as you asked it is "no."

The problem is a false dichotomy is being set up. Civil unions are "not equal." So lets make them so. But, but, but, civil unions would then be "separate but equal." I can live with that since homosexuals cannot enter into a "marriage" by definition in the first place.

But neither side wants civil unions, so if you pick a side, you can guarantee civil unions won't be on your list.

[VincentVanBro]

JDaveG, on 06 November 2009 - 07:04 AM, said:

So the problem is lack of federal recognition? I'm in -- lets get civil unions federally recognized, then. Seems to be the simplest way to solve the problem.

The problem is that when you strip away all of the religious connotations and focus on simply the law, marriage is a legal safeguard for families to have the necessary legal rights for custody and emergencies and such (as well as tax breaks, but to me that's secondary). To give those rights to straight families, but then deny them to people that need them for all the same reasons and fulfill all of the criteria we associate with marriage is simply wrong. Civil unions don't give those same rights.

If you want to just make everything a civil union legally with full rights, then I'd totally agree, although I believe you mentioned (and I'd agree with), that's not going to happen. Personally, I think any attempt to do it is simply stagnating the issue and the only way to get the situation remedied is to allow gay marriages.

[Enlightened29]

VincentVanBro, on 07 November 2009 - 03:27 PM, said:

The problem is that when you strip away all of the religious connotations and focus on simply the law, marriage is a legal safeguard for families to have the necessary legal rights for custody and emergencies and such (as well as tax breaks, but to me that's secondary). To give those rights to straight families, but then deny them to people that need them for all the same reasons and fulfill all of the criteria we associate with marriage is simply wrong. Civil unions don't give those same rights.

If you want to just make everything a civil union legally with full rights, then I'd totally agree, although I believe you mentioned (and I'd agree with), that's not going to happen. Personally, I think any attempt to do it is simply stagnating the issue and the only way to get the situation remedied is to allow gay marriages.

So you are saying that gays need to have legal safeguarding for their "families". Let me see if I follow this. You want GAYS to be protected under a FAMILY heading when they cant have CHILDREN? Ok, that makes sense.

[JDaveG]

VincentVanBro, on 07 November 2009 - 03:27 PM, said:

The problem is that when you strip away all of the religious connotations and focus on simply the law, marriage is a legal safeguard for families to have the necessary legal rights for custody and emergencies and such (as well as tax breaks, but to me that's secondary). To give those rights to straight families, but then deny them to people that need them for all the same reasons and fulfill all of the criteria we associate with marriage is simply wrong. Civil unions don't give those same rights.

Since when? And why not? Why could we not just MAKE civil unions equal to the extent they are not?

And, FWIW, there is no "religious connotation" to providing a stable foundational institution for child-rearing. That is a societal concern regardless of one's religious affiliation or lack thereof.

Quote

If you want to just make everything a civil union legally with full rights, then I'd totally agree, although I believe you mentioned (and I'd agree with), that's not going to happen. Personally, I think any attempt to do it is simply stagnating the issue and the only way to get the situation remedied is to allow gay marriages.

I didn't say it wasn't going to happen, but I concede it's unlikely. My point is that's the fix if there is one.