Amendment 1 in North Carolina
Replies
-
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
It's completely irrelevant what faith they were. It only matters what the law says, and freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are basic tenants upon which America was founded. I find it highly significant that they chose to put this particular guarantee at the first amendment not the second third or fourth. In fact, it's the first line of the first amendment.
This makes any religion-based argument against gay-marriage moot upfront. It's unconstitutional.
There is no "freedom from religion" in the Constitution. The state simply cannot start a church, end of story. It has no bearing on whether or not a student would like to pray, or a politician for that matter.
The courts have consistently upheld decisions prohibiting congress from establishing any laws based in religious argument over the last 200 years (with some exceptions that have been overturned in subsequent years). This is their legal interpretation of the first amendment and the one to which the law is required to hold.What I find so hilarious is that the argument about ssm is that it harms no one, yet listening to someone pray is toxic.
NO ONE is taking away your right to pray. You can still voluntarily pray in public schools, in government buildings, etc. What you cannot do is force everyone else to do it. BIG DIFFERENCE.
There have been rogue instances of teachers and administrators overreacting to children praying in school. It is these small outlier events that tend to get the most press about the "War on Religion."
rogue events to not mean the entire left is against you.... . consistent support of legislation that deny rights to gay citizens... that's a bit worse than a few bad apples... and there are bad apples on both sides
Of course! The ACLU only handled a handful of cases in it's entire 40 years of existence. Do you people even bother to stay informed?0 -
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?
Hmmm, a static set of laws that doesn't evolve. Maybe if we could base it on a book that is worshiped as literally the word of God - not stories about or second hand stuff, quite literally, every single one written by God himself - and which will brook no "interpretation". Maybe then. That'd be cool, I think.
You are entirely too witty and level headed to be on the internet.
Yeah hilarious. Let me see, it wrong to mock homosexuals, but it's ok to make fun of someone's faith and the book they live by and the fact they live in the south.
You libs really do own the mantle of virtue. Please keep enlightening us simpletons0 -
Please note that my posting time was 1 minute and 2 minutes after your posts. I was typing at the same time as you. You just finished sooner.
Good grief, Bahet. I've addressed this a couple of times already. Let's try to have a debate about the issue instead of attacking Christianity. Shall we?No it hasn't. It's banned teaching the tenets and beliefs of only Christianity. But that's not the same as banning religion. My sons both learned about Muslim beliefs when studying the ME, Hindu beliefs when studying India, and a lot of Chrisitanity when studying the Roman Empire, the Crusades, etc. The fact that the 10 Commandments aren't posted in their hallway, they don't learn that the Christian God created the world in 7 days, or they aren't being told that if they don't accept Jesus they will burn in hell doesn't mean they aren't being taught about religions in schools.0 -
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?
Hmmm, a static set of laws that doesn't evolve. Maybe if we could base it on a book that is worshiped as literally the word of God - not stories about or second hand stuff, quite literally, every single one written by God himself - and which will brook no "interpretation". Maybe then. That'd be cool, I think.
You are entirely too witty and level headed to be on the internet.
Yeah hilarious. Let me see, it wrong to mock homosexuals, but it's ok to make fun of someone's faith and the book they live by and the fact they live in the south.
You libs really do own the mantle of virtue. Please keep enlightening us simpletons
Who said you lived in the South? Also, the points raised are valid points. Is it better to have a rigid frame of laws established 5000 years ago and updated 2000 years ago or one that can adapt with the times?
ETA: changed the timing to account for Old and New Testaments.0 -
Surely you didn't believe this debate would not involve the discussion of religion???I came here to participate in the debate on Amendment 1 and marriage equality. Why does it ALWAYS go back to religion?
<Sigh>
No, just wishful thinking I guess.
I understand that there IS a religious component (ok, foundation) for the no-SSM-argument, but I just don't see how it's relevant. My best friend's religion says it's wrong, unlcean and unnatural to eat pork or shellfish. That doesn't mean she gets to dictate what I order when we go out to dinner. It might offend her sensibilities that I get a spicy shrimp roll with crab, but that's just something she has to learn to deal with.
Personally, it offends my sensibilities that I occasionally have to listen to proselytizing during my weekly networking meeting (especially around Christmas and Easter), but it's my personal choice to stay. If it bugs me that much, I can leave the meeting. I don't think it's good for business, but it's not my place to impose my beliefs (specifically, for me, that prayer is personal and meant to be shared in a community of other believers) on others.
Now that I think about it, no, as a progressive Christian, I do not understand what one person's religion has to do with the rights of others to enter into a contract for marriage.0 -
Ok im checking out, this is the "if ur not pro gay ur stupid a big or uninformed" thread
Heres a final thought, I under stand n empsthizr wiyh u feeling wronged n im pro civil unions, but u all do ur caise a disservice in how u react to those who have a diffetence in oponions....if u really want to "win" grow up and act like an adult and not like children who were told they cant play in the sandbox.
Trust me
did you type that with your nose?
I was wondering the same.
Why does he constantly bang on about "winning".
Sorry, was driving at the time...by winning I meam winning ppl to ur argument.
I seriously hope you weren't driving the exact same time as typing that, that would be very dangerous and stupid0 -
You ran him off before I could debate "Christian to Christian" on this issue!Oh goodness! There you are Patti, I was looking for you, and it looks like you've changed your picture I specifically asked where you were because you're always so able to defend your views without being rude or accusatory. Glad to see you're still representing.
I tried to be civil! I hope that came through. I really did want an honest debate from him. 0 -
Surely you didn't believe this debate would not involve the discussion of religion???I came here to participate in the debate on Amendment 1 and marriage equality. Why does it ALWAYS go back to religion?
<Sigh>
No, just wishful thinking I guess.
I understand that there IS a religious component (ok, foundation) for the no-SSM-argument, but I just don't see how it's relevant. My best friend's religion says it's wrong, unlcean and unnatural to eat pork or shellfish. That doesn't mean she gets to dictate what I order when we go out to dinner. It might offend her sensibilities that I get a spicy shrimp roll with crab, but that's just something she has to learn to deal with.
Personally, it offends my sensibilities that I occasionally have to listen to proselytizing during my weekly networking meeting (especially around Christmas and Easter), but it's my personal choice to stay. If it bugs me that much, I can leave the meeting. I don't think it's good for business, but it's not my place to impose my beliefs (specifically, for me, that prayer is personal and meant to be shared in a community of other believers) on others.
Now that I think about it, no, as a progressive Christian, I do not understand what one person's religion has to do with the rights of others to enter into a contract for marriage.
stop being logical0 -
Marriage has nothin at all to do with religion. You can get married without a church. You cannot get married without a marriage license issued by the government.My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
FTR, I also think marrying a 500 lb balding redhead with bad teeth is repugnant but if they fall in love with someone who loves them back, more power to them and I wish them well. I'm not about to vote that they shouldn't be allowed to get married simply because I think it's icky.0 -
Yeah hilarious. Let me see, it wrong to mock homosexuals, but it's ok to make fun of someone's faith and the book they live by and the fact they live in the south.
You libs really do own the mantle of virtue. Please keep enlightening us simpletons
You're Muslim? I was of course referrring to the Qu'ran.
Also? I'm a registered Republican. Yep, voted for Dubya twice. Love that nucular f***. Generally my views are somewhere to the right of Pinochet, but on some social issues I dress left.0 -
You ran him off before I could debate "Christian to Christian" on this issue!Oh goodness! There you are Patti, I was looking for you, and it looks like you've changed your picture I specifically asked where you were because you're always so able to defend your views without being rude or accusatory. Glad to see you're still representing.
I tried to be civil! I hope that came through. I really did want an honest debate from him.
There's a reason it's called "harsh" reality. Being more civil would have been waffling on your points.0 -
what's even funnier is that the debate has been made into a gay issue.. when Amendment 1 will actually strip rights away from ANY unmarried couple regardless of their genders
That's right. We're missing a big part of this. It's not just an amendment that says "you can't marry someone of the same gender."
No same-sex civil union.
No same-sex domestic partnership.
No opposite-sex civil union.
No opposite-sex domestic partnership.
Further, by excluding civil unions, same-sex couples are being stripped of rights they previously had. This was a huge part of the discussion of the Prop 8 marriage amendment in California as same-sex marriage was legal before Prop 8 passed. It's one thing to tell people they can't do something, something else to remove a legal right they previously had.0 -
1. You can't really call the sexual act of a gay person "repugnant" and then act like a victim when someone calls you a homophobe or a bigot. Feel free to share that opinion, but be prepared for the back lash.
2. "This country was founded on christian values". Which? We basically have the same laws every other nation in history has ever had at our conception except for "freedom from religion" Not stealing, murdering, and so on is not uniquely christian. The forefathers were undoubtedly for the most part believers in a supreme being, but the fact that they always mention god but never Jesus should have bare some light on the subject.
3. The forefathers were geniuses, warrior poets light years ahead of their time. But they were not right about everything. Slavery and genocide against the Indians is not exactly enlightened or a "christian" value.
4. People who are voting to ban gay marriage are hiding behind religion and fear for their childrens safety. There is no credible study that homosexuals or homosexual couples have any more chance of being abusive to children.
People using religion as a back drop for their argument are cherry picking their bible. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the 10 commandments, the 7 deadly sins, or by Christ. You don't here for anyone calling upon the government to greed or pride, hell, they are embraced. Besides, all the same people who are usually complaining about the government being to large and oppressive seem to only care about their taxes, but have no problem using the very government they think to intrusive to go after people they don't agree with.
5. The national debate.....who cares. I could care less if 99.9% of americans were against gay marriage. When was the last time our nation ever got anything right on the first try? That is the genius of not living in a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic with three branches of government, democratically elected officials, and a Bill of Rights. It is slow, but it evolves, usually in a good way. So what will end up happening is in a generation, our children will look back at us as barbarians, much in the same way most my generation looks at old people who still use the racial slurs.0 -
Yeah hilarious. Let me see, it wrong to mock homosexuals, but it's ok to make fun of someone's faith and the book they live by and the fact they live in the south.
You libs really do own the mantle of virtue. Please keep enlightening us simpletons
You're Muslim? I was of course referrring to the Qu'ran.
Also? I'm a registered Republican. Yep, voted for Dubya twice. Love that nucular f***. Generally my views are somewhere to the right of Pinochet, but on some social issues I dress left.
Then stop using the left's tactics and us thought rather than mockery to make a point.0 -
Once you start mocking, ridiculing, and insulting, you've lost the debate. That goes for both sides.Let me see, it wrong to mock homosexuals, but it's ok to make fun of someone's faith and the book they live by and the fact they live in the south.0 -
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?
Hmmm, a static set of laws that doesn't evolve. Maybe if we could base it on a book that is worshiped as literally the word of God - not stories about or second hand stuff, quite literally, every single one written by God himself - and which will brook no "interpretation". Maybe then. That'd be cool, I think.
You are entirely too witty and level headed to be on the internet.
Yeah hilarious. Let me see, it wrong to mock homosexuals, but it's ok to make fun of someone's faith and the book they live by and the fact they live in the south.
You libs really do own the mantle of virtue. Please keep enlightening us simpletons
Nobody is making fun of you or your religion, as far as I can tell. It sounds like the above person was making fun of the idea that it's a fantastic plan to base our Federal laws on a literal interpretation of the bible and nothing else. Seriously, it is a little silly to think of a productive, modern country with laws that ban eating shellfish, working on Sabbath (Saturday or Sunday depending on the Old or New Testament), cotton-poly blends and divorce, but permits slavery and polygamy as totally OK. You know, because Bible.0 -
Then stop using the left's tactics and us thought rather than mockery to make a point.
Oh, I don't think I'll be taking debate pointers from ya there, Champ. No offense.0 -
1. You can't really call the sexual act of a gay person "repugnant" and then act like a victim when someone calls you a homophobe or a bigot. Feel free to share that opinion, but be prepared for the back lash.
2. "This country was founded on christian values". Which? We basically have the same laws every other nation in history has ever had at our conception except for "freedom from religion" Not stealing, murdering, and so on is not uniquely christian. The forefathers were undoubtedly for the most part believers in a supreme being, but the fact that they always mention god but never Jesus should have bare some light on the subject.
3. The forefathers were geniuses, warrior poets light years ahead of their time. But they were not right about everything. Slavery and genocide against the Indians is not exactly enlightened or a "christian" value.
4. People who are voting to ban gay marriage are hiding behind religion and fear for their childrens safety. There is no credible study that homosexuals or homosexual couples have any more chance of being abusive to children.
People using religion as a back drop for their argument are cherry picking their bible. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the 10 commandments, the 7 deadly sins, or by Christ. You don't here for anyone calling upon the government to greed or pride, hell, they are embraced. Besides, all the same people who are usually complaining about the government being to large and oppressive seem to only care about their taxes, but have no problem using the very government they think to intrusive to go after people they don't agree with.
5. The national debate.....who cares. I could care less if 99.9% of americans were against gay marriage. When was the last time our nation ever got anything right on the first try? That is the genius of not living in a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic with three branches of government, democratically elected officials, and a Bill of Rights. It is slow, but it evolves, usually in a good way. So what will end up happening is in a generation, our children will look back at us as barbarians, much in the same way most my generation looks at old people who still use the racial slurs.
I didn't use the Bible at all in my post in the initial thread. In fact, I believe its a bit judgmental to say this was defeated because of Christians.
As far as having the same laws as other nations, ummm no. We have similar, but we are distinct as well. No other nation had a constitution that valued freedom as much as ours. We are different, hence why we were able to become what we are today. No other nation acknowledge that our rights were endowed by our Creator rather than men.0 -
I know, Kat!I tried to be civil! I hope that came through. I really did want an honest debate from him.
You can be civil without waffling on your position.There's a reason it's called "harsh" reality. Being more civil would have been waffling on your points.0 -
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?
Hmmm, a static set of laws that doesn't evolve. Maybe if we could base it on a book that is worshiped as literally the word of God - not stories about or second hand stuff, quite literally, every single one written by God himself - and which will brook no "interpretation". Maybe then. That'd be cool, I think.
You are entirely too witty and level headed to be on the internet.
Yeah hilarious. Let me see, it wrong to mock homosexuals, but it's ok to make fun of someone's faith and the book they live by and the fact they live in the south.
You libs really do own the mantle of virtue. Please keep enlightening us simpletons
Nobody is making fun of you or your religion, as far as I can tell. It sounds like the above person was making fun of the idea that it's a fantastic plan to base our Federal laws on a literal interpretation of the bible and nothing else. Seriously, it is a little silly to think of a productive, modern country with laws that ban eating shellfish, working on Sabbath (Saturday or Sunday depending on the Old or New Testament), cotton-poly blends and divorce, but permits slavery and polygamy as totally OK. You know, because Bible.
I don't care if he what he makes fun of. But don't act as though he or anyone else who thinks it was a great post is somehow more virtuous than those of us on the other side of the argument. If you actually digested my post, you'd see that.0 -
Then stop using the left's tactics and us thought rather than mockery to make a point.
Oh, I don't think I'll be taking debate pointers from ya there, Champ. No offense.
None taken, not everyone has the ability to critically think. Noted.0 -
As far as having the same laws as other nations, ummm no. We have similar, but we are distinct as well. No other nation had a constitution that valued freedom as much as ours. We are different, hence why we were able to become what we are today. No other nation acknowledge that our rights were endowed by our Creator rather than men.
That's just semantics.. you are sort of missing the point of what he said0 -
Okay, so you and I agree on much. Can we try debating the topic of this thread? Can you address my other quote?The examples I mention do not infringe on other people's religion or lack thereof. And no, it's not generally agreed upon. Can you tell me why a city can't have a nativity set, how does that infringe on your rights? It does not coerce you in anyway shape matter or form. What "freedom from religion" is, is actually suppression of religious expression. People may not like religious symbols, but they have no right to eradicate all religion from public view simply because they don't like it.
"Politics divide. Love doesn't. Sad for the division and loss this unnecessary political move has caused and will cause. Sad for the message it sends. "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's and don't get them tangled up...."0 -
1. You can't really call the sexual act of a gay person "repugnant" and then act like a victim when someone calls you a homophobe or a bigot. Feel free to share that opinion, but be prepared for the back lash.
2. "This country was founded on christian values". Which? We basically have the same laws every other nation in history has ever had at our conception except for "freedom from religion" Not stealing, murdering, and so on is not uniquely christian. The forefathers were undoubtedly for the most part believers in a supreme being, but the fact that they always mention god but never Jesus should have bare some light on the subject.
3. The forefathers were geniuses, warrior poets light years ahead of their time. But they were not right about everything. Slavery and genocide against the Indians is not exactly enlightened or a "christian" value.
4. People who are voting to ban gay marriage are hiding behind religion and fear for their childrens safety. There is no credible study that homosexuals or homosexual couples have any more chance of being abusive to children.
People using religion as a back drop for their argument are cherry picking their bible. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the 10 commandments, the 7 deadly sins, or by Christ. You don't here for anyone calling upon the government to greed or pride, hell, they are embraced. Besides, all the same people who are usually complaining about the government being to large and oppressive seem to only care about their taxes, but have no problem using the very government they think to intrusive to go after people they don't agree with.
5. The national debate.....who cares. I could care less if 99.9% of americans were against gay marriage. When was the last time our nation ever got anything right on the first try? That is the genius of not living in a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic with three branches of government, democratically elected officials, and a Bill of Rights. It is slow, but it evolves, usually in a good way. So what will end up happening is in a generation, our children will look back at us as barbarians, much in the same way most my generation looks at old people who still use the racial slurs.
I didn't use the Bible at all in my post in the initial thread. In fact, I believe its a bit judgmental to say this was defeated because of Christians.
As far as having the same laws as other nations, ummm no. We have similar, but we are distinct as well. No other nation had a constitution that valued freedom as much as ours. We are different, hence why we were able to become what we are today. No other nation acknowledge that our rights were endowed by our Creator rather than men.
I haven't read most of your posts, but I was not aware anyone called you bigoted.
Yes, we had some new rights. One of them was freedom of religion.0 -
No other nation had a constitution that valued freedom as much as ours.
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you out on that. Unless you mean something other than personal freedoms, I think you're mistaken. Canada is extremely "freedom loving." So is the UK. Scandinavia. Finland. I believe they all have constitutions too. Can I get some non-Americans to back me up here?0 -
The examples I mention do not infringe on other people's religion or lack thereof. And no, it's not generally agreed upon. Can you tell me why a city can't have a nativity set, how does that infringe on your rights? It does not coerce you in anyway shape matter or form. What "freedom from religion" is, is actually suppression of religious expression. People may not like religious symbols, but they have no right to eradicate all religion from public view simply because they don't like it.
No one is eradicating religious symbols from public view. You just can't have them on public property because it's unconstitutional and that is the law. You can still have it at your house, your property, your business, and if you get the proper paper work done through the city, you can have a parade.0 -
The examples I mention do not infringe on other people's religion or lack thereof. And no, it's not generally agreed upon. Can you tell me why a city can't have a nativity set, how does that infringe on your rights? It does not coerce you in anyway shape matter or form. What "freedom from religion" is, is actually suppression of religious expression. People may not like religious symbols, but they have no right to eradicate all religion from public view simply because they don't like it.
No one is eradicating religious symbols from public view. You just can't have them on public property because it's unconstitutional and that is the law. You can still have it at your house, your property, your business, and if you get the proper paper work done through the city, you can have a parade.
horray for parades0 -
1. You can't really call the sexual act of a gay person "repugnant" and then act like a victim when someone calls you a homophobe or a bigot. Feel free to share that opinion, but be prepared for the back lash.
2. "This country was founded on christian values". Which? We basically have the same laws every other nation in history has ever had at our conception except for "freedom from religion" Not stealing, murdering, and so on is not uniquely christian. The forefathers were undoubtedly for the most part believers in a supreme being, but the fact that they always mention god but never Jesus should have bare some light on the subject.
3. The forefathers were geniuses, warrior poets light years ahead of their time. But they were not right about everything. Slavery and genocide against the Indians is not exactly enlightened or a "christian" value.
4. People who are voting to ban gay marriage are hiding behind religion and fear for their childrens safety. There is no credible study that homosexuals or homosexual couples have any more chance of being abusive to children.
People using religion as a back drop for their argument are cherry picking their bible. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the 10 commandments, the 7 deadly sins, or by Christ. You don't here for anyone calling upon the government to greed or pride, hell, they are embraced. Besides, all the same people who are usually complaining about the government being to large and oppressive seem to only care about their taxes, but have no problem using the very government they think to intrusive to go after people they don't agree with.
5. The national debate.....who cares. I could care less if 99.9% of americans were against gay marriage. When was the last time our nation ever got anything right on the first try? That is the genius of not living in a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic with three branches of government, democratically elected officials, and a Bill of Rights. It is slow, but it evolves, usually in a good way. So what will end up happening is in a generation, our children will look back at us as barbarians, much in the same way most my generation looks at old people who still use the racial slurs.
I didn't use the Bible at all in my post in the initial thread. In fact, I believe its a bit judgmental to say this was defeated because of Christians.
As far as having the same laws as other nations, ummm no. We have similar, but we are distinct as well. No other nation had a constitution that valued freedom as much as ours. We are different, hence why we were able to become what we are today. No other nation acknowledge that our rights were endowed by our Creator rather than men.
I haven't read most of your posts, but I was not aware anyone called you bigoted.
Yes, we had some new rights. One of them was freedom of religion.
Take a look through this thread and the other if it's still viewable. Not so nice stuff was said about those that disagree with ssm. I don't care what people say about my views, that's their right. But I do find it disingenuous and hypocritical for one side to claim it's all inclusive and accepts everyone, but then turns around and labels the opposition.0 -
No other nation had a constitution that valued freedom as much as ours.
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you out on that. Unless you mean something other than personal freedoms, I think you're mistaken. Canada is extremely "freedom loving." So is the UK. Scandinavia. Finland. I believe they all have constitutions too. Can I get some non-Americans to back me up here?
I think if you head over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index you'll see that exactly 18 nations value freedom *more* than we do in the US... just sayin0 -
At the very least, the government should recognize that the only basis for the argument is religious.
I find it insulting that I grew up taught about the separation of church and state and then come to find that it is a farce. As long as the majority have the power, they will use it to discriminate against the minority.
We need to stop teaching a separation of church and state if we can't live up to it.0
This discussion has been closed.