Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

[rear naked]

Look, I am not trying to determine what has merit and what doesn't; rather, I am trying to remove the debate from the table as it should be a non issue. That is what you and several other people in this thread are doing. Using the tool of intolerance, you "fight intolerance" without ever seeing the irony in it or apparently giving a damn. What it winds up doing is making your whole effort worthless. But you might just be that machiavellian prick that emanates our culture.

I guess this never gets through, but I will say it again...


My intolerance = contempt for your stupid and irrational arguments. My intolerance stops at ridicule.

Religious fundie intolerance = use legal system (ie. force) to institute the oppressive kind of intolerance.

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS

Your equivalence arguments are completely asinine. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

[marshallnoise]

Look, I am not trying to determine what has merit and what doesn't; rather, I am trying to remove the debate from the table as it should be a non issue. That is what you and several other people in this thread are doing. Using the tool of intolerance, you "fight intolerance" without ever seeing the irony in it or apparently giving a damn. What it winds up doing is making your whole effort worthless. But you might just be that machiavellian prick that emanates our culture.

I guess this never gets through, but I will say it again...


My intolerance = contempt for your stupid and irrational arguments. My intolerance stops at ridicule.

Religious fundie intolerance = use legal system (ie. force) to institute the oppressive kind of intolerance.

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS

Your equivalence arguments are completely asinine. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

So are you Quixote II?

Pretty clear that you are justifying the behavior of using "rational" intolerance to use the legal system (ie. Force) to legalize a different kind of intolerance. Obviously the irony is lost on you because you "feel" you are just in your thoughts and opinions which of course hold "merit" because you say it does.

If you truly gave a shit about justice, you would respect both sides of the issue and appease both sides of the issue. But you aren't interested in the other side because you are a bigot in your own right. Just don't pretend you stand for anything other than your own view of the way the world should be at the expense of those who don't share those views.

[Cflat]

... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Because you are a petty person?

Chris, I am only saying that in terms of the state, no one should have a "marriage." Marriage is a religious choice between said religious people and their church/god. Take the term off the table, call all unions between two concenting adults, "civil unions" and move on.

What is so unreasonable about that?

What is so hard for you to grasp here? You can't claim a word for your religion and then demand special privileges for who you allow to use it, just because your religion adopted marriage as a holy sacrament. Marriages have been taking place since the dawn of humanity. That would be equivalent to me saying the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster considers baseball to be a holy sacrament so anyone who wants to play baseball differently than how we define it must call it something else. That is literally how asinine you sound.

If you want to attach extra religious baggage to marriage, then YOU call it something else.

Are you incapable of reading? In practically every single post, I either eliminated all special privileges or established equal privileges for everyone. Where the fuck, ever, in this thread did I say that only heteros should get ANY benefits and gays shouldn't?

Keep on kicking the shit out of that windmill, Quixote.

Did you even read my post? And you're telling me that I am incapable of reading?
Maybe you should read my post again. Very slowly this time. You don't own the word marriage. So you don't get to dictate who is able to use it. You are the one who wants to add the religious baggage to marriage, so YOU call it something else. Marriage was not invented by the fucking church. What don't you understand about this?

The thing is, Don, is that you keep confusing cohabitation with marriage. One predates the other, and the other is sanctified cohabitation.

However, let's see if you can read something written by someone from Harvard and see if you can understand the position. If you can understand the position, then you can understand what I have been saying since word 1 in this thread.

Government, Get Out of Marriage

I am witholding hope.

I'm not interested in your appeals to the argument from authority. Are you going to tell me about a super smart cousin that agrees with you, next? You are trying to cloud this issue with a completely separate issue. Start your own thread about the big bad government's involvement in private affairs. The fact of the matter is, marriage is not solely a religious sacrament. People of all religions and the nonreligious get married all the time. No rationally minded person gives an uncle fuck about how your religion hijacked it in the 16th century with a decree which declared among other things that no marriage was legitimate unless recognized by the church.

People know what marriage entails and what they are getting in to. If they want to do it that is their business and it's no one's fucking business to tell them that they have to use a different word because of some irrational prejudice being masqueraded as civil liberties. Give me a break. I could at least respect you somewhat if you would just be honest.

[rear naked]

Look, I am not trying to determine what has merit and what doesn't; rather, I am trying to remove the debate from the table as it should be a non issue. That is what you and several other people in this thread are doing. Using the tool of intolerance, you "fight intolerance" without ever seeing the irony in it or apparently giving a damn. What it winds up doing is making your whole effort worthless. But you might just be that machiavellian prick that emanates our culture.

I guess this never gets through, but I will say it again...


My intolerance = contempt for your stupid and irrational arguments. My intolerance stops at ridicule.

Religious fundie intolerance = use legal system (ie. force) to institute the oppressive kind of intolerance.

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS

Your equivalence arguments are completely asinine. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

So are you Quixote II?

Pretty clear that you are justifying the behavior of using "rational" intolerance to use the legal system (ie. Force) to legalize a different kind of intolerance. Obviously the irony is lost on you because you "feel" you are just in your thoughts and opinions which of course hold "merit" because you say it does.

If you truly gave a shit about justice, you would respect both sides of the issue and appease both sides of the issue. But you aren't interested in the other side because you are a bigot in your own right. Just don't pretend you stand for anything other than your own view of the way the world should be at the expense of those who don't share those views.

Does granting same sex marriages restrict anyone's legal rights? If not, your post makes no sense whatsoever.

[marshallnoise]

... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Because you are a petty person?

Chris, I am only saying that in terms of the state, no one should have a "marriage." Marriage is a religious choice between said religious people and their church/god. Take the term off the table, call all unions between two concenting adults, "civil unions" and move on.

What is so unreasonable about that?

What is so hard for you to grasp here? You can't claim a word for your religion and then demand special privileges for who you allow to use it, just because your religion adopted marriage as a holy sacrament. Marriages have been taking place since the dawn of humanity. That would be equivalent to me saying the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster considers baseball to be a holy sacrament so anyone who wants to play baseball differently than how we define it must call it something else. That is literally how asinine you sound.

If you want to attach extra religious baggage to marriage, then YOU call it something else.

Are you incapable of reading? In practically every single post, I either eliminated all special privileges or established equal privileges for everyone. Where the fuck, ever, in this thread did I say that only heteros should get ANY benefits and gays shouldn't?

Keep on kicking the shit out of that windmill, Quixote.

Did you even read my post? And you're telling me that I am incapable of reading?
Maybe you should read my post again. Very slowly this time. You don't own the word marriage. So you don't get to dictate who is able to use it. You are the one who wants to add the religious baggage to marriage, so YOU call it something else. Marriage was not invented by the fucking church. What don't you understand about this?

The thing is, Don, is that you keep confusing cohabitation with marriage. One predates the other, and the other is sanctified cohabitation.

However, let's see if you can read something written by someone from Harvard and see if you can understand the position. If you can understand the position, then you can understand what I have been saying since word 1 in this thread.

Government, Get Out of Marriage

I am witholding hope.

I'm not interested in your appeals to the argument from authority. Are you going to tell me about a super smart cousin that agrees with you, next? You are trying to cloud this issue with a completely separate issue. Start your own thread about the big bad government's involvement in private affairs. The fact of the matter is, marriage is not solely a religious sacrament. People of all religions and the nonreligious get married all the time. No rationally minded person gives an uncle fuck about how your religion hijacked it in the 16th century with a decree which declared among other things that no marriage was legitimate unless recognized by the church.

People know what marriage entails and what they are getting in to. If they want to do it that is their business and it's no one's fucking business to tell them that they have to use a different word because of some irrational prejudice being masqueraded as civil liberties. Give me a break. I could at least respect you somewhat if you would just be honest.

No, you wouldn't because you don't now. I am honest and have been this whole time.

From the top, I have not deviated from my views on this. You basically play the part of a 5 year old child screaming at the top of your lungs because you aren't getting your way. It is pathetic and disgusting.

[Cflat]

... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Because you are a petty person?

Chris, I am only saying that in terms of the state, no one should have a "marriage." Marriage is a religious choice between said religious people and their church/god. Take the term off the table, call all unions between two concenting adults, "civil unions" and move on.

What is so unreasonable about that?

What is so hard for you to grasp here? You can't claim a word for your religion and then demand special privileges for who you allow to use it, just because your religion adopted marriage as a holy sacrament. Marriages have been taking place since the dawn of humanity. That would be equivalent to me saying the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster considers baseball to be a holy sacrament so anyone who wants to play baseball differently than how we define it must call it something else. That is literally how asinine you sound.

If you want to attach extra religious baggage to marriage, then YOU call it something else.

Are you incapable of reading? In practically every single post, I either eliminated all special privileges or established equal privileges for everyone. Where the fuck, ever, in this thread did I say that only heteros should get ANY benefits and gays shouldn't?

Keep on kicking the shit out of that windmill, Quixote.

Did you even read my post? And you're telling me that I am incapable of reading?
Maybe you should read my post again. Very slowly this time. You don't own the word marriage. So you don't get to dictate who is able to use it. You are the one who wants to add the religious baggage to marriage, so YOU call it something else. Marriage was not invented by the fucking church. What don't you understand about this?

The thing is, Don, is that you keep confusing cohabitation with marriage. One predates the other, and the other is sanctified cohabitation.

However, let's see if you can read something written by someone from Harvard and see if you can understand the position. If you can understand the position, then you can understand what I have been saying since word 1 in this thread.

Government, Get Out of Marriage

I am witholding hope.

I'm not interested in your appeals to the argument from authority. Are you going to tell me about a super smart cousin that agrees with you, next? You are trying to cloud this issue with a completely separate issue. Start your own thread about the big bad government's involvement in private affairs. The fact of the matter is, marriage is not solely a religious sacrament. People of all religions and the nonreligious get married all the time. No rationally minded person gives an uncle fuck about how your religion hijacked it in the 16th century with a decree which declared among other things that no marriage was legitimate unless recognized by the church.

People know what marriage entails and what they are getting in to. If they want to do it that is their business and it's no one's fucking business to tell them that they have to use a different word because of some irrational prejudice being masqueraded as civil liberties. Give me a break. I could at least respect you somewhat if you would just be honest.

No, you wouldn't because you don't now. I am honest and have been this whole time.

From the top, I have not deviated from my views on this. You basically play the part of a 5 year old child screaming at the top of your lungs because you aren't getting your way. It is pathetic and disgusting.

What's pathetic and disgusting is your pride in willful ignorance and completely irrational and nonsensical arguments.
Sense. Make more of it.

[marshallnoise]

Look, I am not trying to determine what has merit and what doesn't; rather, I am trying to remove the debate from the table as it should be a non issue. That is what you and several other people in this thread are doing. Using the tool of intolerance, you "fight intolerance" without ever seeing the irony in it or apparently giving a damn. What it winds up doing is making your whole effort worthless. But you might just be that machiavellian prick that emanates our culture.

I guess this never gets through, but I will say it again...


My intolerance = contempt for your stupid and irrational arguments. My intolerance stops at ridicule.

Religious fundie intolerance = use legal system (ie. force) to institute the oppressive kind of intolerance.

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS

Your equivalence arguments are completely asinine. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

So are you Quixote II?

Pretty clear that you are justifying the behavior of using "rational" intolerance to use the legal system (ie. Force) to legalize a different kind of intolerance. Obviously the irony is lost on you because you "feel" you are just in your thoughts and opinions which of course hold "merit" because you say it does.

If you truly gave a shit about justice, you would respect both sides of the issue and appease both sides of the issue. But you aren't interested in the other side because you are a bigot in your own right. Just don't pretend you stand for anything other than your own view of the way the world should be at the expense of those who don't share those views.

Does granting same sex marriages restrict anyone's legal rights? If not, your post makes no sense whatsoever.

Legal rights have never been the issue because same sex unions, when codified with the state (and most states are on board with it), already enjoy the rights that opposite sex marriages have.

It is about redefining teh definition of a word that a huge portion of the nation does not want redefined. Which is silly from every angle.

So don't redefine it; call what government calls marriage something different. The issue has never been about rights, it has always been about forcing acceptance on one very large portion of the nation.

[marshallnoise]

... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Because you are a petty person?

Chris, I am only saying that in terms of the state, no one should have a "marriage." Marriage is a religious choice between said religious people and their church/god. Take the term off the table, call all unions between two concenting adults, "civil unions" and move on.

What is so unreasonable about that?

What is so hard for you to grasp here? You can't claim a word for your religion and then demand special privileges for who you allow to use it, just because your religion adopted marriage as a holy sacrament. Marriages have been taking place since the dawn of humanity. That would be equivalent to me saying the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster considers baseball to be a holy sacrament so anyone who wants to play baseball differently than how we define it must call it something else. That is literally how asinine you sound.

If you want to attach extra religious baggage to marriage, then YOU call it something else.

Are you incapable of reading? In practically every single post, I either eliminated all special privileges or established equal privileges for everyone. Where the fuck, ever, in this thread did I say that only heteros should get ANY benefits and gays shouldn't?

Keep on kicking the shit out of that windmill, Quixote.

Did you even read my post? And you're telling me that I am incapable of reading?
Maybe you should read my post again. Very slowly this time. You don't own the word marriage. So you don't get to dictate who is able to use it. You are the one who wants to add the religious baggage to marriage, so YOU call it something else. Marriage was not invented by the fucking church. What don't you understand about this?

The thing is, Don, is that you keep confusing cohabitation with marriage. One predates the other, and the other is sanctified cohabitation.

However, let's see if you can read something written by someone from Harvard and see if you can understand the position. If you can understand the position, then you can understand what I have been saying since word 1 in this thread.

Government, Get Out of Marriage

I am witholding hope.

I'm not interested in your appeals to the argument from authority. Are you going to tell me about a super smart cousin that agrees with you, next? You are trying to cloud this issue with a completely separate issue. Start your own thread about the big bad government's involvement in private affairs. The fact of the matter is, marriage is not solely a religious sacrament. People of all religions and the nonreligious get married all the time. No rationally minded person gives an uncle fuck about how your religion hijacked it in the 16th century with a decree which declared among other things that no marriage was legitimate unless recognized by the church.

People know what marriage entails and what they are getting in to. If they want to do it that is their business and it's no one's fucking business to tell them that they have to use a different word because of some irrational prejudice being masqueraded as civil liberties. Give me a break. I could at least respect you somewhat if you would just be honest.

No, you wouldn't because you don't now. I am honest and have been this whole time.

From the top, I have not deviated from my views on this. You basically play the part of a 5 year old child screaming at the top of your lungs because you aren't getting your way. It is pathetic and disgusting.

What's pathetic and disgusting is your pride in willful ignorance and completely irrational and nonsensical arguments.
Sense. Make more of it.

...because you disagree with me. How inclusive of you!

[Cflat]

... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Because you are a petty person?

Chris, I am only saying that in terms of the state, no one should have a "marriage." Marriage is a religious choice between said religious people and their church/god. Take the term off the table, call all unions between two concenting adults, "civil unions" and move on.

What is so unreasonable about that?

What is so hard for you to grasp here? You can't claim a word for your religion and then demand special privileges for who you allow to use it, just because your religion adopted marriage as a holy sacrament. Marriages have been taking place since the dawn of humanity. That would be equivalent to me saying the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster considers baseball to be a holy sacrament so anyone who wants to play baseball differently than how we define it must call it something else. That is literally how asinine you sound.

If you want to attach extra religious baggage to marriage, then YOU call it something else.

Are you incapable of reading? In practically every single post, I either eliminated all special privileges or established equal privileges for everyone. Where the fuck, ever, in this thread did I say that only heteros should get ANY benefits and gays shouldn't?

Keep on kicking the shit out of that windmill, Quixote.

Did you even read my post? And you're telling me that I am incapable of reading?
Maybe you should read my post again. Very slowly this time. You don't own the word marriage. So you don't get to dictate who is able to use it. You are the one who wants to add the religious baggage to marriage, so YOU call it something else. Marriage was not invented by the fucking church. What don't you understand about this?

The thing is, Don, is that you keep confusing cohabitation with marriage. One predates the other, and the other is sanctified cohabitation.

However, let's see if you can read something written by someone from Harvard and see if you can understand the position. If you can understand the position, then you can understand what I have been saying since word 1 in this thread.

Government, Get Out of Marriage

I am witholding hope.

I'm not interested in your appeals to the argument from authority. Are you going to tell me about a super smart cousin that agrees with you, next? You are trying to cloud this issue with a completely separate issue. Start your own thread about the big bad government's involvement in private affairs. The fact of the matter is, marriage is not solely a religious sacrament. People of all religions and the nonreligious get married all the time. No rationally minded person gives an uncle fuck about how your religion hijacked it in the 16th century with a decree which declared among other things that no marriage was legitimate unless recognized by the church.

People know what marriage entails and what they are getting in to. If they want to do it that is their business and it's no one's fucking business to tell them that they have to use a different word because of some irrational prejudice being masqueraded as civil liberties. Give me a break. I could at least respect you somewhat if you would just be honest.

No, you wouldn't because you don't now. I am honest and have been this whole time.

From the top, I have not deviated from my views on this. You basically play the part of a 5 year old child screaming at the top of your lungs because you aren't getting your way. It is pathetic and disgusting.

What's pathetic and disgusting is your pride in willful ignorance and completely irrational and nonsensical arguments.
Sense. Make more of it.

...because you disagree with me. How inclusive of you!

Insert Brain. Then try again.

[rear naked]

Current laws restrict rights of gay couples to marry.

Legalizing same sex marriage does not restrict anyone from anything that they are not currently restricted from doing. This is not intolerance of any kind.

[ComOp]

Current laws restrict rights of gay couples to marry.

Legalizing same sex marriage does not restrict anyone from anything that they are not currently restricted from doing. This is not intolerance of any kind.

In the end it all comes down to this:

[Steveijobzz]

God, he's still going at it?

marshallnoise what do you not get about this?

When you get married, you have to FILE YOUR MARRIAGE PAPERWORK WITH THE STATE BECAUSE IT IS A LEGAL CONTRACT YOU MAKE WITH YOUR SPOUSE THAT THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES.

Anybody (human) should be able to get fucking married. Who the fuck cares about the word "marriage?" Sorry some people feel like they're being grouped in with the homogays.

They should just get the fuck over it because those gay people are their neighbors, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters. They should have equal rights under the LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. No matter what someone's right wing nutjob priest/rabbi/clergy says about it.

What it comes down to is that many religious people think that homosexuality is immoral. That's fine, but they can't exclude them from their private little "marriage party" because it makes them uncomfortable, since the same excuses were used 50 years ago to keep black people from voting or eating at the same restaurant or riding on the front of the bus or attending good schools. You know what we call people who still think like that?

Racists.

I like how you defend the religious person's comfort, because you think it's more important than two people being able to have their love and commitment recognized by the state on the same level as their heterosexual peers.

[Hardtail]

... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Interesting - I always thought the primary objection from the gay point of view was that they were not able to receive the same legal rights as straight couples. IF I were gay, the whole being "equal" to straight married couples by calling it a marriage would be so much farther down the food chain - legal rights would be my primary concern. But I understand your point & to some gays, I'm sure it is all about being equal by using the same term. Almost seems that to those holding that position, they're doing it out of spite to some degree, and not looking at the big picture from a legal rights point of view ... which brings me back to my compromise theory ...

Why do you think equality of civil rights is something to compromise on?

Its a matter of being realistic. Gays are not likely ever going to get what they're asking for if their approach is all or nothing. A compromise would give them the legal rights they desire. I think most reasonable people would not begrudge committed gay couples legal rights. Alot of people don't want to call it marriage, and thats not going to change. I would think a reasonable gay person would cut their losses and be happy if they were able to pay their "union" dues and get the legal rights associated with it. If they want it all, prolly not gonna get anything. C O M P R O M I S E would be the smart way to approach this from their perspective.

[Amishassassin]

ok so i have a question...and this is more of a curiosity than anything. but we know that the our founding fathers were very religious and the whole United States is founded ont he concept of "in God we Trust"...i mean, its printed on every f-ing piece of currency. but since it seems that we as a society have become less religious through the ages, what does that mean for the founding beliefs of our forefathers...do we have to adapt our beliefs based on how we are now versus them? i mean in all reality...we DID have to adapt and change laws about colored people and races. so my question is this, if the premise of our country being founded was based off of beliefs of religion/christianity, then i want to know the following...WHERE DO WE SEE THE GOVERNMENT CHANGING? DOES IT HAVE TO CHANGE BASED OFF OF 200 YEAR OLD BELIEFS? and im not looking for people telling me im a dumb shit or what not. i just wanna know what people think about this. does the change in society determine the future change in our country? or do we submit ourselves to the original concept of what this country was built for?

[Cflat]

ok so i have a question...and this is more of a curiosity than anything. but we know that the our founding fathers were very religious and the whole United States is founded ont he concept of "in God we Trust"...i mean, its printed on every f-ing piece of currency. but since it seems that we as a society have become less religious through the ages, what does that mean for the founding beliefs of our forefathers...do we have to adapt our beliefs based on how we are now versus them? i mean in all reality...we DID have to adapt and change laws about colored people and races. so my question is this, if the premise of our country being founded was based off of beliefs of religion/christianity, then i want to know the following...WHERE DO WE SEE THE GOVERNMENT CHANGING? DOES IT HAVE TO CHANGE BASED OFF OF 200 YEAR OLD BELIEFS? and im not looking for people telling me im a dumb shit or what not. i just wanna know what people think about this. does the change in society determine the future change in our country? or do we submit ourselves to the original concept of what this country was built for?

Dude. You should seriously do some research. None of the founding fathers that most people can name could really be considered religious. Unless you consider religious to mean that you speak out against organized religion, miracles, and deny the existence of an intervening god. Look up what Thomas Jefferson had to say about christianity. Or Thomas Paine. Most were Deists, at best, that had much to say about the dangers of religion and the nonsense found in the bible.

This country was not founded based off the beliefs of christianity. That doesn't even make sense. This is, and always has been, a secular nation. Try reading the constitution.

By the way, "in god we trust" was added to our money in 1956. Before that our motto was, "E pluribus unum" which means, "one from many". It should've stayed that way. Hell, even "under god" wasn't added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954. One can make a very strong argument that we are much more religious now.

[Amishassassin]

Actually, im really confused, cuz i HAVE done my homework and heres a list

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran
William Few Georgia Methodist
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran


Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian

ALSO...i am a Freemason and i can tell you that over 50% of those men were masons and in order to BE a mason...you HAVE to believe in god...doesnt matter what religion, but you have to believe that god exists. so im really confused as to why you would make a irrational assumption based off of 1 maybe 2 founding fathers...im not trying to start a fight or anything, but it seems that my entire logic and research would be considered invalid if you make that claim. im ALL for opening up and seeing other people's points of views...but this one doesnt make sense.

[Amishassassin]

and maybe im wrong...im really open minded and i love being proved wrong and im very ACCEPTING of it if theres evidence to back it up. but this one seems rather difficult to do. IF you can prove me wrong...then i will applaud you and then back you up. im being totally serious too. it seems weird cu this goes against my entire childhood history classes. and maybe my teachers were wrong. i dont know. but if anyone can back up either side...i would love to hear it

[Cflat]

and maybe im wrong...im really open minded and i love being proved wrong and im very ACCEPTING of it if theres evidence to back it up. but this one seems rather difficult to do. IF you can prove me wrong...then i will applaud you and then back you up. im being totally serious too. it seems weird cu this goes against my entire childhood history classes. and maybe my teachers were wrong. i dont know. but if anyone can back up either side...i would love to hear it

I didn't say they didn't believe in god. They were deists. I also didn't say all founding fathers. I said the primary founding fathers that most people can name. They believed in a creator or cause for the universe, but thought it to be ambivalent about human affairs and did not intervene. Although you can make the argument that most of them would be atheist or pantheist in today's world based on their beliefs. This was during the age of enlightenment, don't forget.

I have a hard time believing that you've done much research on this. You thought the USA was founded on the concept of "in god we trust". Unless you think the USA was founded in 1956? Maybe do some more.

Look any of them up for yourself. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the new testament. He rewrote the story of Jesus and ripped out all miracles and supernatural occurrences, including the virgin birth and resurrection. He only believed in following most of the teachings of Jesus as a philosophy. You can still buy this version. It's called the Jefferson Bible. Then go a head and read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, where he tears ass through christianity and organized religion.
Most of those who considered themselves christian in any way were anti-clerical christians who denied the divinity of Jesus and most of the supernatural parts of it. That's hardly what most christians today would call christianity.

The founding fathers were very clear about omitting god from the constitution and keeping religion separate from government. You should've learned that in your history classes.

http://zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/FoundingFathers/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /myth.html

[Hardtail]

Actually, im really confused, cuz i HAVE done my homework and heres a list

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran
William Few Georgia Methodist
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran


Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian

ALSO...i am a Freemason and i can tell you that over 50% of those men were masons and in order to BE a mason...you HAVE to believe in god...doesnt matter what religion, but you have to believe that god exists. so im really confused as to why you would make a irrational assumption based off of 1 maybe 2 founding fathers...im not trying to start a fight or anything, but it seems that my entire logic and research would be considered invalid if you make that claim. im ALL for opening up and seeing other people's points of views...but this one doesnt make sense.

BURN !

[rear naked]

Uh...he said the ones most people could name...ie the important ones....like the guy who fucking wrote the declaration...

Not that it matters what religion they were anyway...

[Cflat]

Actually, im really confused, cuz i HAVE done my homework and heres a list

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran
William Few Georgia Methodist
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran


Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian

ALSO...i am a Freemason and i can tell you that over 50% of those men were masons and in order to BE a mason...you HAVE to believe in god...doesnt matter what religion, but you have to believe that god exists. so im really confused as to why you would make a irrational assumption based off of 1 maybe 2 founding fathers...im not trying to start a fight or anything, but it seems that my entire logic and research would be considered invalid if you make that claim. im ALL for opening up and seeing other people's points of views...but this one doesnt make sense.

BURN !

Oh look. Another person who should learn to read before making a fool of himself. You are bowing to someone who thinks the USA was founded in 1956 after "doing his homework".

-"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson.
-"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
-"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus." -Thomas Jefferson
-"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." -Thomas Jefferson
-"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Would you consider him a christian?

-"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin
-"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." - Benjamin Franklin


How about him?

-"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." -Thomas Paine
-"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." -Thomas Paine
-"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." -Thomas Paine
-"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." -Thomas Paine

Him?

-"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams
-"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams

......Him?

These people were not christian in the way you understand it. What religion they considered themselves is irrelevant anyway. It was never the point I was making. They were very clear about separating all instances of church from state.
Yeah, SICK BURN, man. He really got me.
Maybe next he'll talk about how the constitution says we are a theocracy so you can bow to that too.

[Cflat]

Uh...he said the ones most people could name...ie the important ones....like the guy who fucking wrote the declaration...

Not that it matters what religion they were anyway...

Reading comprehension is unimportant to the willfully ignorant more interested in gotcha games than forming a coherent thought.

[Amishassassin]

other than Jefferson's quote...the other quotes NEVER denied christianity OR GOD. in fact they referenced god. and actually your whole 1950's argument is slightly flawed...the ORIGINAL time that "in god we trust" was printed on because it was originaly printed in 1864. so maybe you should do your homework. 1954 was when they RE printed it on the currency. just saying. SO YES!!! the american religous system of government was established in 1864!!! HOORAY! and i dont think that you should base your whole argument off of something that i stated that may or may not have been wrong.

THE ARGUMENT is as follows....was the american Founding fathers religious? yes or no my friend....yes or no?

[Amishassassin]

And i dont mean Jefferson being a deist (cuz technically that means that he believes in GOD) i mean the LOT. is the majority..(if not all) were they god FEARING people who believed in a higher entity?

[Cflat]

other than Jefferson's quote...the other quotes NEVER denied christianity OR GOD. in fact they referenced god.

Are you dense? You're arguing against things I never said. I never said that they didn't believe in god. How many times do I have to tell you this? I said that the founding fathers that most people can name were deists, and that they were known for speaking out against organized religion and orthodox christianity. Read that as many times as necessary for it to sink in.

and actually your whole 1950's argument is slightly flawed...the ORIGINAL time that "in god we trust" was printed on because it was originaly printed in 1864. so maybe you should do your homework. 1954 was when they RE printed it on the currency. just saying.

What 1950's argument? WTF are you talking about? You said this;

...but we know that the our founding fathers were very religious and the whole United States is founded ont he concept of "in God we Trust"

No, WE don't know that. Which is exactly why I corrected you. I'll restate it again: The whole United States was not founded on the concept of "in god we trust". The United States was and has always been a secular country. Read the constitution. "In god we trust" was adopted as the official motto in 1956 to replace "E pluribus unum" meaning, "one from many". I still content that it should've never changed. I don't remember saying that it was never on coins before that. It wasn't "printed" on paper currency until 1957.
So, go on. Please elaborate on how my correcting your imbecility is a flawed argument.

SO YES!!! the american religous system of government was established in 1864!!! HOORAY! and i dont think that you should base your whole argument off of something that i stated that may or may not have been wrong.

Because we started putting "in god we trust" on coins means that we have a religious system of government?
Some sources from the constitution to back up your statement would surely help your case.

THE ARGUMENT is as follows....was the american Founding fathers religious? yes or no my friend....yes or no?

That's not an argument, bozo. That's a question. And an irrelevant one. How are you defining religious? Just a general belief in god? Then, sure. But if you're implying that most of the primary founding fathers that most people can name were christian in the same sense most people understand it today, then no. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. It seems that you're trying to argue with things I'm not saying in order to seem like you're making valid points. Please try harder in either case.

And please get to the point about how this ties in to gay marriage.