What's new
By:

LDS issued statement on recent court ruling

ElRoach0 said:
It took this country from from 1776 to 1863 to abolish slavery. Although African Americans were here after that, it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1964 that we passed law banning discrimination based on sex, color, etc. We raped the natives of their land from the moment we got here. In 1851, congress passed a law giving land to American Natives in Oklahoma, the first reservation, not as a peace offering, but a place to keep existing unwanted persons. They still don't have their land back.

I don't have the faith you do in us doing the right thing. I really wish I could, but I just keep coming to the same conclusion: Historically, we've been real pricks. And the times we haven't been, we've dragged our feet.

Now, as far as a civil union goes, lets do this. Every religion out there can be entitled to their own version of "marriage". Turn that into a religious thing. But the benefits, discounts, and penalties awarded to "married" couples, lets only give to those entered into civil unions.
Click to expand...

I'd be against that. If you grant those rights to "married" couples as well then I am on board. Even make the civil unions open to non romantic couples. Such as GFs sisters example.
 
Stoked said:
I'd be against that. If you grant those rights to "married" couples as well then I am on board. Even make the civil unions open to non romantic couples. Such as GFs sisters example.
Click to expand...

It might be easier if they exist separately, and not mutually exclusive:

You can get married without being in a civil union(NO benefits, discounts, or penalties) (this would allow any religion to include/exclude any couple they feel inappropriate)
Or you could be unmarried but in a civil union(have benefits, discounts, or penalties) (marriage is for chumps anyway)
Or you could be married AND in a civil union(have benefits, discounts, or penalties) (...true love?)

This way, you can do whatever you want in a religion, restricting or granting marriage on your own definition of marriage. Religion at that point would obtain the divorce rights as well. Priests/Pastors/Bishops would all be able to request civil union licenses to be signed upon the marriage, but that side of things would become an easy addition, rather than an all in one.
 
Dishonesty is an ugly thing. The concept of checks and balances is one of the strongest building principles of the U.S. government, and The Church knows it. But they lost, so now it's no fair.
 
green said:
The judicial system has no checks and balances and knows that. It is sad that the popular vote can't run this country anymore. We are run by the loud minority now where everyone else is too afraid to speak up.
Click to expand...

Yeah. What good could come from that? Besides practically every ruling in the civil rights era, that is.

By the way, you obviously aren't very familiar with The Trail of Tears, are you?
 
ElRoach0 said:
Hypothetical: If the white vote in the land all got together and decided that we wanted to have segregated toilets again, would you vote for it? How about if all people with naturally brown or black hair decided that they were the master race, and the US belonged to them and no one else, would you vote to boot everyone else out? How about if all the middle and lower class people voted to confiscate the lands and property of the upper class, and divide it up equally amongst the middle?

You speak of popular vote as if that should be law. But that can be very dangerous. Where's the line that says "We're hurting other people. We shouldn't be allowed to do this."? Are you seriously going to tell me that we as Americans can honestly choose that for ourselves? Really? In 1964 congress recognized the link between cancer and tobacco, has killed or had a direct link in killing 440,000 people a year, and it's STILL legal.

To me, the line that has to stop us is not when we judge another people's ideas/way of life, but when we outlaw that way of life even though it causes no harm.
Click to expand...

Nicely said. A democracy is setup to protect all people and not just the majority. Ruling by the majority only allows oppression to occur. The church seems to think that there way of thinking is the right way while trying to tell non-members how they should live their life. This is wrong no matter how you believe. THe mormon church can and are able to continue "protecting marriage" in the church without any one outside really caring as long as they don't put their beliefs on non-mormons. So if everyone minded their own business the world would be a much better place.
 
JGolds said:
“A man who has never gone to school may steal a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.”
― Theodore Roosevelt

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“The Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot have a nativity scene in Washington, D.C. This wasn't for any religious reasons. They couldn't find three wise men and a virgin.”
― Jay Leno

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
John Adams

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
Benjamin Franklin

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."
Benjamin Franklin

"Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants."
Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."
Patrick Henry

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
Patrick Henry

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." Thomas Jefferson


I am done.. I just felt a need to post some quotes......
Click to expand...

Sorry but time and time again forcing religion on people has shown to be destructive to human beings. Believe what you want but having God in your government only leads to disaster. That is why the founding fathers left out a religious test and a separation of church and state.
 
ElRoach0 said:
It took this country from from 1776 to 1863 to abolish slavery. Although African Americans were here after that, it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1964 that we passed law banning discrimination based on sex, color, etc. We raped the natives of their land from the moment we got here. In 1851, congress passed a law giving land to American Natives in Oklahoma, the first reservation, not as a peace offering, but a place to keep existing unwanted persons. They still don't have their land back.

I don't have the faith you do in us doing the right thing. I really wish I could, but I just keep coming to the same conclusion: Historically, we've been real pricks. And the times we haven't been, we've dragged our feet.

Now, as far as a civil union goes, lets do this. Every religion out there can be entitled to their own version of "marriage". Turn that into a religious thing. But the benefits, discounts, and penalties awarded to "married" couples, lets only give to those entered into civil unions.
Click to expand...

Amen brother!
 
Siro said:
This ruling spits in the face of this country's silent majority, and it is an obvious violation of the democratic principles that made it great. Unless the majority agrees with the ruling, in which case the ruling is a demonstration of the tyranny of the majority that the Founders warned us about, and a perfect example of the dangers of mob rule.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
ElRoach0 said:
It might be easier if they exist separately, and not mutually exclusive:

You can get married without being in a civil union(NO benefits, discounts, or penalties) (this would allow any religion to include/exclude any couple they feel inappropriate)
Or you could be unmarried but in a civil union(have benefits, discounts, or penalties) (marriage is for chumps anyway)
Or you could be married AND in a civil union(have benefits, discounts, or penalties) (...true love?)

This way, you can do whatever you want in a religion, restricting or granting marriage on your own definition of marriage. Religion at that point would obtain the divorce rights as well. Priests/Pastors/Bishops would all be able to request civil union licenses to be signed upon the marriage, but that side of things would become an easy addition, rather than an all in one.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am talking about. Your previous post just indicated, at least how I understood it, that civil unions would grant benefits and rights that a marriage did not.
 
cowhide said:
Nicely said. A democracy is setup to protect all people and not just the majority. Ruling by the majority only allows oppression to occur. The church seems to think that there way of thinking is the right way while trying to tell non-members how they should live their life. This is wrong no matter how you believe. THe mormon church can and are able to continue "protecting marriage" in the church without any one outside really caring as long as they don't put their beliefs on non-mormons. So if everyone minded their own business the world would be a much better place.
Click to expand...

Not sure why we are talking about democracy and the US. We are not a democracy.
 
cowhide said:
Sorry but time and time again forcing religion on people has shown to be destructive to human beings. Believe what you want but having God in your government only leads to disaster. That is why the founding fathers left out a religious test and a separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

To me church and state removed religion but not spirituality. I think it is being misrepresented by athiests now.
 
Stoked said:
Not sure why we are talking about democracy and the US. We are not a democracy.
Click to expand...

It's a representative/republican democracy because the founding fathers had the insight to know that the common man was dumb and the foresight to know that that wouldn't change.

BTW, there should be a drinking game around political debates where drinks go down every time "founding fathers" gets mentioned. And an entire fifth gets chugged when "Hitler" gets brought up.
 
NUMBERICA said:
It's a representative/republican democracy because the founding fathers had the insight to know that the common man was dumb and the foresight to know that that wouldn't change.

BTW, there should be a drinking game around political debates where drinks go down every time "founding fathers" gets mentioned. And an entire fifth gets chugged when "Hitler" gets brought up.
Click to expand...

Haha, there would be some drunk SOBs...
 
If people want to be mad at someone, they should be mad at California's legislature, who are so out of touch and political that they don't do anything anymore, and anyone that can get 10K signatures can put any old damn thing up to a public referendum.

Minus that crap, prop 8 never happens in the first place.
 
Stoked said:
Haha, there would be some drunk SOBs...
Click to expand...

Yeah dude.. terrible. I'd have to buy a new *keyboard*, since I don't believe in cleaning puke out of it.

Clearly, I was drinking last night.
 
Last edited:
Gameface said:
You understand the role the Constitution and the Bill of Rights plays into all this, right? Majority rule has NEVER been part of the U.S. system. Never.
Click to expand...

Wrong. States vote in representatives by majority rule, and the liberals tell me that ballot initiative (like Prop 8) began as a check on corporate influence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top