Marriage amendment: Love doesn't discriminate; why should we allow marriage to?

[AlonzoMourning23]

In Nashville, Scott and Jon adopted a young boy from a foster home in Massachusetts. The young boy had an abusive past and was struggling with poor grades. Today, with two loving parents, he is an honor roll student. He will tell you that he has a better family, better friends and a better neighborhood.

For weeks, we have heard politicians tell us that the only way to raise children is one man and one woman. In a state with one of the highest divorce rates in the country, isn't it time to be realistic? There are millions of children who need loving homes. There are thousands of stories like Scott and Jon's where gays and lesbians have provided loving homes for children.

These are homes with two parents to attend soccer games or dance recitals. These are homes with two parents to give children an extended family of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.

Children are hurt when their gay parents cannot marry. In July, the American Pediatric Association released a study which said just that. It reminded us that there are over 1,000 rights associated with marriage. Some of those rights — such as survivor benefits — affect children when their parents are denied them.

Nancy and Joan met over 18 years ago in Bible school. Over the years, they have spent money with lawyers to secure rights such as health-care power of attorney and living wills. When one of them was hospitalized, the other had to each night show this legal document in order to spend time with the person she had committed her life and love to.

This story has made me think of my parents. Twenty-five years ago, my mother died of cancer. For the first month of the disease, my father spent every night at the hospital. I think of how difficult that time was for him and how much more difficult it would have been if he had had to produce his marriage license every night just to stay and provide comfort to my mom.

Lately, those opposed to marriage equality have been telling you that you can't make a square a circle or a circle a square. I would add that you can't make a gay person straight. Most of all, I would add that, at the end of the day, love is love. Loves does not discriminate, so why should we allow marriage to?

Young people agree. We know that this is a generational issue, with young people being opposed to this amendment — 60 percent in Tennessee. National polls show upwards of 60 percent of 18- to 24-years-olds support full marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

What is the reason for these numbers with young people? They do not believe the fear and scare tactics used by the opposition. Young voters know personally the people this proposed amendment hurts. They are not characters from television or movies. They are real Tennesseans who are family, classmates, colleagues. They know that these gays and lesbians have the same goals — a career, making a difference, finding someone to share all that with and maybe providing a loving home for children.

Possibly, they know the real facts, such as that the state in the country with the lowest divorce rate is the only state that allows gay marriage — Massachusetts. They see through the hypocrisy of those who argue about the sanctity of marriage while doing nothing about the causes of divorce.

They understand that this is just not a gay issue. Using the Constitution to take away rights instead of enhancing them is a dangerous precedent. They know we should think long and hard before making such a decision.

We talk often about leaving the world better for young people. We talk about leaving less debt. We talk about a world without war and with peace. On this issue, young people have told us they want a state Constitution without discrimination.

I have learned that, in the world today, there are many issues where young people are the experts because they know more. If I need computer help, I know I can get the answer from almost anyone younger than I. This generation of young adults is also one that has a true appreciation of diversity and desires to live in a world where we learn from those who are different as opposed to fearing them.

In many areas, they can teach old dogs some new tricks. Let's listen to their wishes on Amendment 1. Let's leave them the world they desire — one free from a Constitution that discriminates. In order to do that, we must vote no on 1 in November.

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/perspectives/article/0,1406,KNS_2797_4927000,00.html

[firefox]

Get government out of marriage entirely so that we can see more success stories like this one!

[Technocrat]

Get government out of marriage entirely so that we can see more success stories like this one!


A problem is that wouldn't be doable, or pragmatic. The government sactioning of marriage conveys a great many useful attributes to couples that help them in their quest to stay together and even potentially have a family.

Getting rid of it at all would be worse than simply not allowing gays access. Ideally, it should merely be extended to them as well. There's no point in everyone losing benefits.

There are many things, without rights protections in marriage, private organizations, companies, etc do not recognize and likely wouldn't if they didn't have to. There are many things people without rights of marriage do not do, cannot do, and cannot get, and it would be undesirable for everyone to fall to that level. It would likely decrease average happiness and increase average suffering. Few would want to be on the same level as what gays are allowed--which is a great deal fewer privlidges and protections as couples.

It's wrong to make a situation worse, rather than better. You are violating the interests of more people and creating more suffering just to make it "fair."

On the other hand, the interests of those who wish to prevent gays from marrying are rather unimportant and unreasonable compared to gays who want access. The desire not to want someone to do something you can do is not nearly as morally significant; it's not actually affecting them at all. The interests of the gays are more important, since the actions directly affect them and their quality of life. They should be weighed far more heavily in the utility calculation.

[BoogyMan]

mar‧riage – noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Marriage is a relationship that is intended and designed for man and women. If homosexuals must have some kind of access to the same kind of relationship, it should not be called marriage as that is NOT what it is.

[Technocrat]

mar‧riage – noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Marriage is a relationship that is intended and designed for man and women. If homosexuals must have some kind of access to the same kind of relationship, it should not be called marriage as that is NOT what it is.


Well, that's not a universal definition of marriage. That's a limited one. Secondarily, you ought to notice that the dictionary isn't prescriptive, rather descriptive. To claim that marriage is "intended" for X, but not for Y, is simply incorrect and poor ethical reasoning because it jumps from an is to an ought. Marriage is no more "intended" or ought only be for man and woman than it was previously intended or ought to have been for a only individuals of the same socioeconomic strata (and it once was thought to be so). Thus it doesn't follow logically that even if that WERE the sole definition that described reality, that it ought to be the only definition. You cannot bridge the dichotomy between prescriptivism and descriptivism simply by claiming what is the case-- ie,You cannot make the type of argument from what is natural or moreover, from what simply is, is necesarily ethical and ought to be.

In fact, the definition itself is limited and culturally biased. Marriage can be, and is world-wide, far more comprehensive than a simple "man + woman = ok". More properly, and more comprehensively, marriage is a union of consenting individuals for economic, emotional, and social satisfaction and utility for those involved. Calling it something different is irrational anyway, if we are prepared to give the same rights, privlidges, since the real substance of it would and ought to remain equal if we are to live in a just and ethical society that prizes fairness, freedom, and autonomy. Calling it something different, when it's really the same is as pointless as calling dogshit chocolate icecream insofar as it only changes the name. Not the substance. In that case, what you call it is merely for showand to satiate some emotional desire in the human psyche for rationalization.

But on the ethics of freedom, I presonally think that one of the best ways to achieve a utilitas society, at least in the positive sense, is to allow people to do what they want, so long as they don't cause or prevent the diminshment of unnecessary suffering to others. The maxim of your existence shold be such that every action you consciously take should be taken to relieve unwated suffering in a manner that is compatible with those who desire it. Likewise, to promote happiness in a society, each should be able to find his own path to happiness above and beyond merely being free of pain and suffering.

The only limitation that ought be placed on it is simply a matter of negative utility. What harm or drop in welfare does the action cause by being trumpeted? What welfare would increase (objectively), but its disallowal? Whose welfare? And is their perception of a drop in welfare rational? Obviously, harm can be subjective and objective, real or imagined. I trust we can weigh interests accordingly. After all, the real burden of proof for those who whish to deny something equal consideration or existence is on those who claim something is wrong, and thus causes harm. They must therefore be prepared to show what "harm" is done, or there claims get dismissed. The objective in most cases should trump the subjective, the rational woe over the irraitonal woe, the informed over the uninformed.


Our society should be one in which Reason is the primary virtue, alongside universal, disinterested beneficence.

[BoogyMan]

Obviously you have the right to an opinion and that is what you have just posted, a view of how a progressive would imagine his or her perfect society.

What I posted is the term defined. The dictionary definition, not my opionion. What you are doing is trying to modify the truth to fit your view of how things should be per your system of beliefs.

Needless to say, the definition still stands.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Boogy, your post was dishonest. Dictionary.com has multiple definition, you had to of read them:

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.


And merriam webster:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marriage:

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

[BoogyMan]

Alonzo,

Not so, I read the 1st definition and posted it. Had I noticed the later definitions I would have taken a different tack. My point still stands as you will notice husband and wife are indicated, not husband and partner or wife and partner.

Your assumption of dishonesty is ill founded.

[Labrocca]

While I am not a proponent of gay marriage (I think civil unions should be given to them) I have to commend Technocrat on a great post. He almost had me convinced.

[AlonzoMourning23]

But it gives different definitions used. It does mention homosexual marriages, but states they are not legal, which is true everywhere in the u.s. except for MA. Not sure how often the definitions are updated.

Man and women is one definition, but not the only one. Merriam Webster even explicitly states "the state of being united to a person of the same sex".

[sbannon]

Maybe a different question is called for here? For those who oppose gays and lesbians getting married, what exactly do you oppose about it and why?

This is a race I have no personal horse in, but since I view the institution of marriage as one of joy and misery I have so far felt that gays and lesbians should--as American citizens--have the same rights to be happy and miserable as the rest of us.

Still, I am open to honest points of reason (which go beyond 'the Bible says so') for opposing same sex marriages, I just never hear any. Maybe someone here could provide them for discussion?

[Technocrat]

Obviously you have the right to an opinion and that is what you have just posted, a view of how a progressive would imagine his or her perfect society.

The normative aspect is my opinion. The descriptive part isn't, and neither is the logic of the is/ought fallacy.


What I posted is the term defined. The dictionary definition, not my opionion. What you are doing is trying to modify the truth to fit your view of how things should be per your system of beliefs.

As I reported in my post, dictionaries are not, in fact, prescriptive, but rahter descriptive. The fact that someone uses something some way is all that it says. It doesn't advocate a way nor does it list the "correct" definitions. As per my example, Atheism is defined as "immorality."



Needless to say, the definition still stands.


No, it doesn't, I am afraid. You cannot win debates on politics by appealing to the dictionary. If that were the case, then Atheism really does mean immorality. Since that's demonstrably false, the dictionary's definition is entirely irrelevant.

The "truth" is my view. It is a fact of reality that marriage is what I said it is. It is only the opposite to people who believe "tradition," in the non-universalist sense. Tradition isn't an argument. It's fallacious reasoning.

[Technocrat]

Alonzo,

Not so, I read the 1st definition and posted it. Had I noticed the later definitions I would have taken a different tack. My point still stands as you will notice husband and wife are indicated, not husband and partner or wife and partner.

Your assumption of dishonesty is ill founded.


The only reason I choose to post two in a row is that I am not aware of the procedure for posting on different ideas in the same thread. I am sorry if I should have edited the previous post instead of making this addendum.

The person who replied to your post, directly above you, is correct. You only choose the first definition so as to validate your argument. That's called selctive information sampling, and it's dishonest.

There's little way you could have "missed" this definition directly following the one you use: "(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage."

Secondarily, in response to the above person's critique, you claim your argument still stands. On the contrary, your entire argument is underminded by the fact that the dictionary itself provides exactly alternative definitions of marriage. YOu claim, however, that the definition doesn't mention wife and partner, husband and partner, but husband and wife. That's entirely irrelevant.

The dictionary doesn't need to. One definition of marriage (and according to your theory, if it's in the dictionary, it's correct) is the following: "(2) : The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>." The definition of marriage--just not traditional marriage--is given, using same sex. in lieu of "husband and wife." The fact that it doesn't say "partner" is irrelevant. It says union of consenting members of the same sex. That automatically implies partners, since in a sam sex marriage, as is defined above, there is no husband and wife in the traditional sense.

:rolleyes:

Your endeavour to save your crumbling argument is itself dishonest; you really expect people to buy the excuse that you somehow missed all the other definitions in the dictionary, but just happened to pick the one that supported your thesis? They are dirctly under the one you cut and pasted. That's absurd and implausible.

[maartena]

mar‧riage – noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Marriage is a relationship that is intended and designed for man and women. If homosexuals must have some kind of access to the same kind of relationship, it should not be called marriage as that is NOT what it is.


The problem is not so much marriage. The problem is equal rights. What a gay couple really wants is the same benefits that a married couple gets, such as the ability to add your spouse to your work's medical/dental/401k plans, the right to be with your partner when he/she is dying without risk of losing his/her employment like a married couple, the same tax breaks as a married couple, the same rights to inheritance as a married couple, etc, etc.

I have a few gay couples in my circle of friends, and they all say the same thing. Its not specifically about marriage, they would be happy as well if a registered partnership would evolve on a federal level that would grant them these same rights. Many gay couples have chosen their partner for life, just like a married couple. Why shouldn't they be allowed to use the medical policy of the person working, just like a husband would do for his wife?

Its not about marriage, its about equal rights.

As far as the definition of marriage goes: Many European countries (and Canada, New Zealand) have now defined marriage as a "bond between one person and one other person", taking out the definition of sex. Many other countries (Including Argentina, the first South American country to do so) have added a legal partnership to their laws basically granting the same rights as a married couple, sometimes with some exceptions on things like adoption.

Bottom line is that most gay couples don't really care about marriage or no marriage, they care about getting the same rights. In the United States this can most easiliy be solved by allowing a Civil Union on a federal level. Not likely to happen though before Bush leaves office.

[BoogyMan]

There's little way you could have "missed" this definition directly following the one you use: "(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage."

Secondarily, in response to the above person's critique, you claim your argument still stands. On the contrary, your entire argument is underminded by the fact that the dictionary itself provides exactly alternative definitions of marriage. YOu claim, however, that the definition doesn't mention wife and partner, husband and partner, but husband and wife. That's entirely irrelevant.

The dictionary doesn't need to. One definition of marriage (and according to your theory, if it's in the dictionary, it's correct) is the following: "(2) : The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>." The definition of marriage--just not traditional marriage--is given, using same sex. in lieu of "husband and wife."Â*Â*The fact that it doesn't sayÂ*Â*"partner" is irrelevant. It says union of consenting members of the same sex. That automatically implies partners, since in a sam sex marriage, as is defined above, there is no husband and wife in the traditional sense.

:rolleyes:

Your endeavour to save your crumbling argument is itself dishonest; you really expect people to buy the excuse that you somehow missed all the other definitions in the dictionary, but just happened to pick the one that supported your thesis? They are dirctly under the one you cut and pasted. That's absurd and implausible.Â*Â*


What is absurd is your insistance that you know what is going through my mind. You have once again made yourself look petty and silly. Good job!

[BoogyMan]

No, it doesn't, I am afraid. You cannot win debates on politics by appealing to the dictionary. If that were the case, then Atheism really does mean immorality. Since that's demonstrably false, the dictionary's definition is entirely irrelevant.

The "truth" is my view. It is a fact of reality that marriage is what I said it is. It is only the opposite to people who believe "tradition," in the non-universalist sense. Tradition isn't an argument. It's fallacious reasoning.


Yet again, the arrogance is just amazing.

[Technocrat]

No, it doesn't, I am afraid. You cannot win debates on politics by appealing to the dictionary. If that were the case, then Atheism really does mean immorality. Since that's demonstrably false, the dictionary's definition is entirely irrelevant.

The "truth" is my view. It is a fact of reality that marriage is what I said it is. It is only the opposite to people who believe "tradition," in the non-universalist sense. Tradition isn't an argument. It's fallacious reasoning.


Yet again, the arrogance is just amazing.


For the sake of argument, do you think that tradition is a valid argument? Do you think that the dictionary is prescriptive, rather than descriptive?

Yes or no on both parts. This isn't a hard question set.

[dsanthony]

mar‧riage – noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Marriage is a relationship that is intended and designed for man and women.Â*Â*If homosexuals must have some kind of access to the same kind of relationship, it should not be called marriage as that is NOT what it is.





There is one word which should be enough to save marriage -- tradition. That is a word liberals and Dems hate. For 2000 years, Western Civilization has defined marriage between one man and one woman. Before that, many western cultures allowed marriage between one man and several women, but that has not been the norm for a long time.

The US has made reasonable accomodation for homosexuals (ie, about 5% of the US population with a genetic mutation--slightly more than have Down's Syndrome).

If tradition is not enough, let's be honest (which the dems also hate) and say this. It is ONLY tradition that keeps marriage as a union between one man and one woman. If we remove that support, there is ZERO justification to deny marriage between 1 man and 4 women, or six men, to 3 men and 3 women. Once the traditional defintion of marriage is destroyed by the Dems, there is no real definition to take it's place--certainly none acceptable to "the people"-- another thing the Dems hate.

[Cobra]

The US has made reasonable accomodation for homosexuals (ie, about 5% of the US population with a genetic mutation--slightly more than have Down's Syndrome).
Proof, Evidence, Link, or Bullshit.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Tradition is no argument. Many, many things now denounced have been "tradition". Interracial marriage, women not voting, slavery etc. were all tradition. Tradition means nothing as to whether its correct or not, simply that certain rules were normally in place.

[dsanthony]

Certainly traditions change. But not without good reason. "Christmas" is only a tradition as well, but your best efforts have not destroyed that tradition yet -- though you have tried and had some success in pushing it out of schools, govt and commerce.

You attack tradition for the sake of attacking it. Tradition is what holds society together... but of course you want all of America living like your captive urban blacks, in anarchy and chaos--as long as they vote for you.

[Technocrat]

Appeal to tradition is never a good argument. It's inhernetly logically fallacious; hence why they call it "appeal to tradition fallacy." Something is right or wrong, good or bad, doable or undoable due entirely due to the utility it provides, not the "tradition" of the people or subjective emotional attachment to a practice.

You should never adhere to something simply because it is the tradition.

There is no war on Christianity or Christmas. That's all propaganda and goobledeegook by people with a persecution complex. Christians enjoy crying persecution when someone actually tries to stop them from doing just that to others.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Certainly traditions change.Â*Â*But not without good reason.Â*Â*"Christmas" is only a tradition as well, but your best efforts have not destroyed that tradition yet -- though you have tried and had some success in pushing it out of schools, govt and commerce.

Christmas, as a day in and of itself, has meaning to people and does not force people to celebrate or not celebrate something else. There's no comparison.

And I'm not aware of any attempt to destroy christmas, though I am aware of nuts claiming their is.

You attack tradition for the sake of attacking it.

Funny, I always thought ensuring equality is a worthwhile american goal. I wonder if you condemn wanting to make interracial marriage legal as attacking tradition simply for the sake of attacking it.
Â*Â*
Tradition is what holds society together...


And tradition can also keep society apart. See the traditions of slavery, male only voting rights etc.

but of course you want all of America living like your captive urban blacks, in anarchy and chaos--as long as they vote for you.

That's an odd comment to make, since you're the one trying to keep people down by withholding marriage rights.

[Rider]

Techno wrote- There is no war on Christianity or Christmas. That's all propaganda and goobledeegook by people with a persecution complex. Christians enjoy crying persecution when someone actually tries to stop them from doing just that to others.
Maybe not, but the ACLU is making a pretty good imitation. And I'd be careful about characterizing Christians. They make up about 85% of the population. I think that the most accurate characterization you could come up with is that they all tend to believe in Jesus.

[Technocrat]

Techno wrote- There is no war on Christianity or Christmas. That's all propaganda and goobledeegook by people with a persecution complex. Christians enjoy crying persecution when someone actually tries to stop them from doing just that to others.
Maybe not, but the ACLU is making a pretty good imitation. And I'd be careful about characterizing Christians. They make up about 85% of the population. I think that the most accurate characterization you could come up with is that they all tend to believe in Jesus.


I know, most believe it. I tend to think it's a mass delusion, as thought Freud. Some people are very mild in this delusion, thus nice, functional people.

Many are not.

This problem manifests itself in vast lack of understanding and belief American society has in Natural Selection. Only 20% actually believe it. Almost 60% do not. We are, except for Turkey, the worst in the world according to latest studies.

People like to pick on the ALCU, but they aren't anti-christian, nor do they war against Christ. The ACLU, imo, is the boogyman of the religious right. They use it as a punching bag to show people how oppressed they are, even though they are a huge per centage of the American population. Christians crying persecution is ludicrous. They have the majority and the majority power.

In a religious society such as America, Atheists are, by far, more persecuted than Christians ever will be.

[Rider]

The ACLU is on a crusade to remove religion, especially Christianity completely from the public sphere. Day after day we read about their lawyers flitting about the country, filing lawsuit after lawsuit, literally hounding Christians at every minutest opportunity.
For example, the symbol of the cross is under attack everywhere. There is even an attempt right now to formulate a lawsuit to change out every tombstone in Arlington cemetery from crosses to some other shape. People are disgusted with such gestures.
Businesses and schools are afraid to even label the Christmas holidays! Oh no, we have to have "winter festivals" or some such drivel, as though everyone doesn't know that it's Christmas that's being celebrated.
The Constitution is being twisted and distorted in an attempt to secularize our society. I'm not what anyone would call a "bible thumper", but my roots are, like the vast majority in this country, Christian. But now it is demanded by some tiny minority that the majority "jump through hoops" to prevent the slightest hint of insult or upset to anyone else as though there were enshrined somewhere in the Constitution a right not to ever be offended. According to the ACLU our society has been in gross violation of the Constitution since the time of the founders themselves.
So the reality is that religion, especially Christianity IS most definitely under assault in this country and not some mass delusion as you suggest, Techno.
To say that the ACLU is not anti-Christian is to ignore and deny the patently obvious. I don't care what they say about themselves, actions speak louder than words.

As for natural selection, well it is a theory that is in complete acceptance by the scientific community that, in its hubris insists that it be considered true. Not just true mind you, but TRUTH! Pure blinding white, inviolate TRUTH that none dare question, let alone deny. The theory of evolution has become the scriptural dogma of secular humanism, which has taken on all of the aspects of religion itself.

[Technocrat]

The ACLU is on a crusade to remove religion, especially Christianity completely from the public sphere.


No it's not; it's merely trying to get rid of it where it doesn't belong. The United States isn't and wasn't ever based on Christianity. It's unconstitutional to force people to pay for religious decorations on buildings if they are not that religion.

Putting crosses on court buildings is no different from placing Crescents on them. It's silly.


Day after day we read about their lawyers flitting about the country, filing lawsuit after lawsuit, literally hounding Christians at every minutest opportunity.


That's because these oh-so-persecuted syndrome Christians are doing something wrong and trying to get away with it. If they don't like to be hounded for trying to break the law to satiate their religious ideas, that's just too damn bad.


For example, the symbol of the cross is under attack everywhere. There is even an attempt right now to formulate a lawsuit to change out every tombstone in Arlington cemetery from crosses to some other shape. People are disgusted with such gestures.

That's becase most of the places they put the Christian cross on conflicts with Constitutionality. it is a religious icon, not a governmental one. Therefore, the primary or overwhelming purpose of putting up the religious icon cannot be religious in nature. That's self-explanatory.


Businesses and schools are afraid to even label the Christmas holidays!

Nonsense. They have no reason to be afraid. The vast majority of their customers are Christian, and many stores still labled it Christian. No one is forcing them not to, and no one can successfully sue them, since they are a private organization. They can do whatever they want; if they choose to say happy holidays, that's great.

You take to heart too much of what O'Reily and his bloggers say about the "Grand Old War." It's simply untrue. However, I fear you wouldn't feel the same if they decided to drop Christmas and say Happy Rhamadan! You'd be up in arms! No, the problem at heart is that you want to spread and envelope the world in Christianity, and when people don't share your view of the spread of said religion, you get huffy.


Oh no, we have to have "winter festivals" or some such drivel, as though everyone doesn't know that it's Christmas that's being celebrated.

Actually, Christmas is borred FROM the winter festival. It was originally a winter festival month. Christ wasn't even born in December. The Christians stole the original festival holiday and dropped Christianity on in to convert Pagans. Excuse me if I don't cry over a store saying happy winter holiday.

*Boo hoo* sniffle. Grow up and think of more important things.


The Constitution is being twisted and distorted in an attempt to secularize our society.

It is secular, and secular societies are better than heavily religious ones, which is why every theocratic society is crap and has been crap. The Founding Fathers sought to create a secular government. The constitution is hardly being twisted. If you read the legislation by the Founding Fathers, you would realize their religion was often not Christianity, but Deistic. The less religion in government and forced on people, the better, was their motto--especially that if James Madison, the Father of the Constitution.


I'm not what anyone would call a "bible thumper", but my roots are, like the vast majority in this country, Christian.

So? Because the majority believes something, the majority ought to get its way?


But now it is demanded by some tiny minority that the majority "jump through hoops" to prevent the slightest hint of insult or upset to anyone else as though there were enshrined somewhere in the Constitution a right not to ever be offended. According to the ACLU our society has been in gross violation of the Constitution since the time of the founders themselves.

No one is forcing anyone to say happy holidays, so get off the persecution kick. Christians whine and moan when they are offended all the time, from boobies on TV, to the word "fuck." They are professional whiners. As I said, they are all about controlling others, but when the tables turn and THEY are asked to do something, they bitch and moan. How bout you just not give a shit about what stores say? Oh wait...that takes the wind out of useless whining about Wars on Christmas.


So the reality is that religion, especially Christianity IS most definitely under assault in this country and not some mass delusion as you suggest, Techno.

No, it's not. Christianity is not under assault; it's the majority religion here, very strong, lots of power. Assault really means, to you "not letting Christians do whatever they want." Persecution is oft merely not letting Christians persecute others according to whateve irrational tenets of their religions recomend.


To say that the ACLU is not anti-Christian is to ignore and deny the patently obvious. I don't care what they say about themselves, actions speak louder than words.

Sure, sure. You keep thinking they are.


As for natural selection, well it is a theory that is in complete acceptance by the scientific community that, in its hubris insists that it be considered true. Not just true mind you, but TRUTH! Pure blinding white, inviolate TRUTH that none dare question, let alone deny. The theory of evolution has become the scriptural dogma of secular humanism, which has taken on all of the aspects of religion itself.

The above paragraph is all I need to know to understand you. That you don't think it's true, and that you bring up the "theory only" comment shows me you know nothing of what a theory means, how science works. Typical.

That you say it's a dogma of secular humanism is so wildly inaccurate it's not worth addressing with reason, since I know it doesn't work on Christians.

Secular Humanism is not a religion and evolution isn't the dogma of anything anymore than Newtons laws of motion are dogma. Again, you are engaging in Whiney Christian Syndrome(TM). You don't like something, therefore you attack it, while trying to get sympathy for being "persecuted."


[/quote]

[sbannon]

I think Christians perceive themselves as being under attack from the ACLU because as Rider points out you do read about new cases where the ACLU is trying to remove symbols of Christianity from public ports on an almost daily basis. But, the ACLU does apply the same vigor to preventing symbols from other religions from being displayed in the same inappropriate public places as well.

The reason it doesn't seem so is not due to the ACLU waging some dark war on Christianity, but rather because of the disproportionate number of Christians to followers of other faiths in America, by their vast majority numbers of-course Christians have become the most targeted in these cases. It's not because of their faith though, it's because of their numbers.

I don't always agree with the ACLU's actions in every instance, but I believe at the core their mission and intentions are to protect the Constitution of the U.S. for all Americans. I also believe that if they didn't take on even some of the more extreme fights that the fanatical religious right elements in America would force more of themselves down other's throats.

Nobody I know, even those who despise the ACLU, want the so-called "Bible Thumpers" gaining an abundance of political control in America either. As I see it, with regards to cases involving or surrounding religious questions, the ACLU is sort of a counter-balance keeping us centered.

[Rider]

In reply to Techno-

Rider Wrote:

The ACLU is on a crusade to remove religion, especially Christianity completely from the public sphere.



No it's not; it's merely trying to get rid of it where it doesn't belong. The United States isn't and wasn't ever based on Christianity. It's unconstitutional to force people to pay for religious decorations on buildings if they are not that religion.
The problem here is that the definition of "where it doesn't belong" is being changed to reflect the beliefs of a very small minority in this society. I believe that forcing me to pay for many things that I don't accept or agee with is wrong, but I accept that the democratic process won't always make me happy.

Putting crosses on court buildings is no different from placing Crescents on them. It's silly.
Well, perhaps it is silly. So what?


Quote:

Day after day we read about their lawyers flitting about the country, filing lawsuit after lawsuit, literally hounding Christians at every minutest opportunity.



That's because these oh-so-persecuted syndrome Christians are doing something wrong and trying to get away with it. If they don't like to be hounded for trying to break the law to satiate their religious ideas, that's just too damn bad.
Many of the laws that are being attacked have been in place since the very birth of this nation. Have these laws been wrong all this time? What laws exactly are being broken? The laws governing marriage are quite clear. It is people like the mayor of San Francisco that are trying to break the law. Besides, laws are made by elected legislators, not judges.

Quote:

For example, the symbol of the cross is under attack everywhere. There is even an attempt right now to formulate a lawsuit to change out every tombstone in Arlington cemetery from crosses to some other shape. People are disgusted with such gestures.



That's becase most of the places they put the Christian cross on conflicts with Constitutionality. it is a religious icon, not a governmental one. Therefore, the primary or overwhelming purpose of putting up the religious icon cannot be religious in nature. That's self-explanatory.

I cant' help but be amused at your assertion. You actually want us to believe that buildings, monuments and even cemetaries created by the government literally hundreds of years ago are in conflict with the Constitution and that it's self-explanatory?
Quote:

Businesses and schools are afraid to even label the Christmas holidays!



Nonsense. They have no reason to be afraid. The vast majority of their customers are Christian, and many stores still labled it Christian. No one is forcing them not to, and no one can successfully sue them, since they are a private organization. They can do whatever they want; if they choose to say happy holidays, that's great.

If it's nonsense then why have the teachers in our school district been forbidden to use Christmas themes or songs or illustrations in an effort to prevent lawsuits that the district cannot afford? School districts can and have been successfully sued for this and many other picayune issues. Even suits that have no merit and are unsuccessful bleed needed funds from budgets. The threat of lawsuits is a valuble weapon used by special interest groups of all types. Since when are public schools private organizations? They can do whatever they want? Sounds to me like you've never been to a school board meeting.


You take to heart too much of what O'Reily and his bloggers say about the "Grand Old War." It's simply untrue. However, I fear you wouldn't feel the same if they decided to drop Christmas and say Happy Rhamadan! You'd be up in arms! No, the problem at heart is that you want to spread and envelope the world in Christianity, and when people don't share your view of the spread of said religion, you get huffy.

Evidenced from your postings you are the one feeling huffy. I have never even heard of the term " Grand Old War". I assume you're talking about the scourge of homophobia sweeping the nation and trampling on the rights of this minority. You're right, it doesn't exist, except in the minds of left wing radicals.

If our local schools decided to replace Christmas with Rhamadan I would go to the school board meeting (along with several hundred other like minded taxpayers) and get it changed. It's called voting. If 85% of the school children were Muslim, I'd go on about my business. Once again, it's called voting.

Quote:

Oh no, we have to have "winter festivals" or some such drivel, as though everyone doesn't know that it's Christmas that's being celebrated.


Actually, Christmas is borred FROM the winter festival. It was originally a winter festival month. Christ wasn't even born in December. The Christians stole the original festival holiday and dropped Christianity on in to convert Pagans. Excuse me if I don't cry over a store saying happy winter holiday.

*Boo hoo* sniffle. Grow up and think of more important things.

It seems certain that you'll instuct us all as to what those "more important things" may be.
Quote:

The Constitution is being twisted and distorted in an attempt to secularize our society.


It is secular, and secular societies are better than heavily religious ones, which is why every theocratic society is crap and has been crap. The Founding Fathers sought to create a secular government. The constitution is hardly being twisted. If you read the legislation by the Founding Fathers, you would realize their religion was often not Christianity, but Deistic. The less religion in government and forced on people, the better, was their motto--especially that if James Madison, the Father of the Constitution.

Excuse me, I should have said- attempt to completely secularize our society. You're right though, our government is and should be secular. They were wise to craft the first amendment protecting religion.
Our sociey however, has always been Christian and strongly influenced by that religion. I happen to think that this is a good thing.


Quote:

I'm not what anyone would call a "bible thumper", but my roots are, like the vast majority in this country, Christian.


So? Because the majority believes something, the majority ought to get its way?

Say, that's a great idea....let's call it democracy!

Quote:

But now it is demanded by some tiny minority that the majority "jump through hoops" to prevent the slightest hint of insult or upset to anyone else as though there were enshrined somewhere in the Constitution a right not to ever be offended. According to the ACLU our society has been in gross violation of the Constitution since the time of the founders themselves.


No one is forcing anyone to say happy holidays, so get off the persecution kick. Christians whine and moan when they are offended all the time, from boobies on TV, to the word "f_ck." They are professional whiners. As I said, they are all about controlling others, but when the tables turn and THEY are asked to do something, they bitch and moan. How bout you just not give a sh1t about what stores say? Oh wait...that takes the wind out of useless whining about Wars on Christmas.

You know, you're the only one that has mentioned the issue of speech in private institutions such as stores. I have no problem with them at all. You just seem to assume that I do for some reason. You also seem to have a problem with Christians in general; do you? As for control, the truth is that everyone wants to have a say in how their society is run; liberals are worse than Christians. Liberals, unable to impose their views on society through the ballot box have been using the judiciary for that purpose for decades.

Quote:

So the reality is that religion, especially Christianity IS most definitely under assault in this country and not some mass delusion as you suggest, Techno.


No, it's not. Christianity is not under assault; it's the majority religion here, very strong, lots of power. Assault really means, to you "not letting Christians do whatever they want." Persecution is oft merely not letting Christians persecute others according to whateve irrational tenets of their religions recomend.

When have I ever even implied that I believe that Christians should be able to do anything they want? And what persecution by Christians would you be refering to? Irrational tenets such as "love thy neighbor as thyself" or maybe prohibitions on lying, murder, adultery, theft?

Quote:

To say that the ACLU is not anti-Christian is to ignore and deny the patently obvious. I don't care what they say about themselves, actions speak louder than words.


Sure, sure. You keep thinking they are.

Of course I will, as will millions of people in this country. Why should we think otherwise?
Quote:

As for natural selection, well it is a theory that is in complete acceptance by the scientific community that, in its hubris insists that it be considered true. Not just true mind you, but TRUTH! Pure blinding white, inviolate TRUTH that none dare question, let alone deny. The theory of evolution has become the scriptural dogma of secular humanism, which has taken on all of the aspects of religion itself.



The above paragraph is all I need to know to understand you. That you don't think it's true, and that you bring up the "theory only" comment shows me you know nothing of what a theory means, how science works. Typical.

Your smug arrogance displays your contempt for discourse and intellectual debate on a very controversial theory. The fact is that is that it IS a theory and shutting off debate is pretty strong evidence that you're not so sure you can hold your own.


That you say it's a dogma of secular humanism is so wildly inaccurate it's not worth addressing with reason, since I know it doesn't work on Christians.Secular Humanism is not a religion and evolution isn't the dogma of anything anymore than Newtons laws of motion are dogma. Again, you are engaging in Whiney Christian Syndromeâ„¢. You don't like something, therefore you attack it, while trying to get sympathy for being "persecuted."

You don't seem to be very adept at dispensing reason in any case. I don't think you have the intellectual horsepower to do anything but rant at straw dogs.