Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 220

5861 posts

Flag Post
I have a lot of respect for that document

Haha, oh wow. Hilarious.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You do not respect the Constitution since you believe marriage should remain between one man and one woman because of “religious values” or “immorality” whatever (same argument as when you people were against miscegenation). Don’t say you or any non-homophobic people respect it, because you do not.

 
Flag Post

First of all, we don’t want to go there, it is a different thread. Second of all You are all wet in your definition of that series of words. Third, I’m not the congress.

 
Flag Post

I know it is a different thread, but all I’m saying is that you do not respect the Constitution and therefore should not be stating that you do. I am simply pointing out that you should not claim to believe in a document the core principle of which you disagree with.

Basically, stop saying “I respect the Constitution” in your posts (and real life). That is all I am saying.

 
Flag Post

This is what I was talking about above. You are reading into a right something entirely different that what it means. In England the King denied the prevailing religion of the time and promoted a religion more to his liking. When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and added the bill of rights, they made sure that our new government couldn’t establish a state religion. That is the hole of the quote you bolded. There is no secret meaning to those words, they say exactly what they are supposed to. And yes I respect that document, both here and in real life.

 
Flag Post
When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and added the bill of rights, they made sure that our new government couldn’t establish a state religion.

Then why is the government in most states denying same-sex marriage for religious reasons?

You do not respect the Constitution: you are homophobic. Regarding same-sex marriage, you can either respect the Constitution, or be homophobic. You cannot be both.

 
Flag Post

The Constitution has nothing to do with the crap you are trying to spew. You don’t seem to know what you are talking about and you are mixing up the federal Constitution with the states Constitutions. I am not going to argue with you about gays. I myself don’t like them and I am not required to do so. Let it go.

 
Flag Post

States’ constitutions that ban same-sex marriage are essentially unconstitutional since they are DICTATING a religion and that religion’s morality even though the First Amendment of the federal constitution is against such policies.

↑ How is this incorrect? Please outline where it is incorrect.

The Constitution has nothing to do with the crap you are trying to spew.

It does, you just fail to see it. The Constitution disallows the establishment of a RELIGION, yet in some states and federally same-sex marriage is disallowed because of the Christian religion’s morality—in particular homophobic verses in the Old Testament.

I myself don’t like them and I am not required to do so.

Haha. You are despicable. Jesus. In sixty years’ time you’ll have to explain to your grandkids why you dislike gays. Your grandkids will view you as scum once same-sex marriage and homosexuality is accepted (which WILL occur in your country, whether you like it or not). (The same exact way how there are nowadays very racist grandparents and racism is no longer lawfully or socially acceptable; the same will occur with homosexuality.)

Please tell me how dictating the Christian religion’s morality (e.g., homophobia) is constitutional.

Please tell me the difference between same-sex marriage and miscegenation. Why do you (I suppose; hell, I HOPE) support the latter and not the former?

Do you realise miscegenation was disliked by Christians too, well into the 1970s (and in some places still today)? They were against it because of their morality. They dictated their religious morality—which is unconstitutional.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Haha. You are despicable. Jesus. In sixty years’ time you’ll have to explain to your grandkids why you dislike gays.

Well… By that time, he would either be dead or his current grandkids will have grandkids.

 
Flag Post

(The same exact way how there are nowadays very racist grandparents and racism is no longer lawfully or socially acceptable; the same will occur with homosexuality.)

Hehe. Not to play ancedote. But one of my Grandma’s was racist in that bewildered ignorant sort of way. Once she remarked, “they shouldn’t let different races get married, it’s hard enough as it is.”

 
Flag Post

JaumeBG,

I could be missing something here (so correct me if I am), but is gay marriage not allowed just because Christian based marriages would rather not sanction such a union? What I’m trying to say is, I think there have been domestic partnerships, civil unions, whatever, proposed and available to gay couples for the purpose of sharing their lives and financial benefits (in California, anyway). I think some of the snags are coming into play when a gay couple wants a church to marry them, and the church would rather not. In this case, do you feel the church is correct in following it’s own moral compass and asking them to legalize the union elsewhere?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Hehe. Not to play ancedote. But one of my Grandma’s was racist in that bewildered ignorant sort of way. Once she remarked, “they shouldn’t let different races get married, it’s hard enough as it is.”

Sounds saner than my grandmother at least. I remember as a teen, she once told me, in a gathering that I was “tall for my height”. I’m not likely to forget that, because of everyone else’s reactions whilst she couldn’t see what was wrong with what she’d said.

 
Flag Post

Coz they want to make money on gun licences or something?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

You gun control Supporters, tell me why you want to Ban guns.

They’re lethal, and can cause a lot of damage in the wrong hands, and cause unecessary accidents.

 
Flag Post
You gun control Supporters, tell me why you want to Ban guns.

The reasoning is less guns = less violence.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
You gun control Supporters, tell me why you want to Ban guns.

The reasoning is less guns = less violence.

Not quite. The reasoning is higher levels of regulation and training = greater guarantee of competent situational awareness and aim in the general population, and greater ease in tracking down the owner of the firearm a particular round was fired from.

The violence levels will be about the same, however the collateral damage will be much lower.

 
Flag Post

I doubt the violence level would be the same as otherwise (assuming a competently designed gun control regime). Anything that makes violence harder, and restricting access to weapons does that, should reduce crime too.

As we can create a gun control regime that significantly places burdens on criminals looking for illegal weapons but which does not overly restrict legal uses of firearms for those who are truly motivated to have them, this is worth doing.

 
Flag Post

HOooooooboy, the hyperbole abounds in this post. I shall point them out using bold

Originally posted by jhco50:

I read some of the comments on this thread and I feel like you folks are so scared of everything. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way.

Then he is either woefully “lacking” in his vocabulary (although he’s stated it to be “extensive”…lol),,,OR, he still just doesn’t get it that there is a whooole lot of difference between fear // scared and having considered & reasonable CONERN. So, yeah…I’d say he is intentionally or unintentionally being “derogatory” there.

It’s just like talking to people who are afraid of everything.

Seriously…EVERYTHING? Yeah, even if such ppl exist, I’m pretty sure he hasn’t talked to them….lol.

It kind of reminds me of the old hippy days when we had all of the hippies running around speaking peace my brother, etc. Those were the days of free love and the peace sign and drugs…they were big on drugs back then.

First: “Those days” were about a lot more than the few TOPICAL items he listed.
Second: I’m pretty sure we’re just as “big on drugs” today as then….if not even more so.

Vika, when did you present large blocks of the constitution at me? It’s hell getting old and forgetting. :) I have a lot of respect for that document and the people who brought it to us. Most people on here have never read it and make their posts uniformed.

While all of that is merely his opinion,,something very much allowed (encouraged?) on this forum,,I’m not all that ready to agree that “most have never read it” or that they are all that “uninformed”.

I get a little short with some of the foreigners trying to argue it without knowing what it says or means, but I understand the hesitation on their part for taking the time to study it. Still, if they are going to argue for changes, they should know what they are arguing.

WHAT? “…argue it..”? I haven’t a clue what <<that means. I think most ppl on this forum have a pretty good idea of what the SPECIFIC area of the Constitution that is up for dicussion. OR, more to the point….the ISSUE that is up for dicussion that the Constitution relates to. jake-o likely ought to consider that our Constitution IS NOT a “huge tail wagging a litttle dog”. Life and human rights extisted looooong before it was written.

SO, just where exactly is the “problem” w/ “foriegners”—when discussing issues that relate to our Constitution—contesting those who would bring it into the discussion?

The Bill of Rights we ended up with were specific and were added to our founding document to insure we would always be protected.

No problem w/ that statement. Most 6th graders can recite that.

Our government, and some others who would like to see it gone, have tried to dismantle everything this country stands for.

HOOooooBoy…now we’re off into “boogymanland”. I luv how he manages to “scare” us w/ the ol’ nonspecific “some others”. LOL
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

JaumeBG,

I could be missing something here (so correct me if I am), but is gay marriage not allowed just because Christian based marriages would rather not sanction such a union? What I’m trying to say is, I think there have been domestic partnerships, civil unions, whatever, proposed and available to gay couples for the purpose of sharing their lives and financial benefits (in California, anyway). I think some of the snags are coming into play when a gay couple wants a church to marry them, and the church would rather not. In this case, do you feel the church is correct in following it’s own moral compass and asking them to legalize the union elsewhere?

Hmmmmmm….a thought provoking post.
I hadn’t really considered it from that angle.
Mostly because I’ve never, EVER heard that MAKING CHURCHES (religion) MARRY GAYS was the real issue….even though the wording in the many state constitutions use the word “marriage”…which to me, is the domain of religion.

Ergo, I can certainly see the confusion (many?) ppl (esp. jake-o) might have on this. Esp. when there is this odd mixing//coupling of church & state.

 
Flag Post

Twilight, gay marriage is not allowed, basically because the church sees the concept of marriage as their sole domain. Yes, civil unions are allowed, but there are many legal benefits tied explicitly into marriage, that are not tied into civil unions. As a result, gay unions are legally less binding than a full marriage is – which is the purview of the churches. Even a civil ceremony marriage is out of the question, because the church insists that marriage is its sole domain.

If that makes sense to you, it makes far more than it does to me.

 
Flag Post

Hollow points, no pity

 
Flag Post

It’s all about making same-sex marriage be recognised by the state, not the church. Churches will probably not marry gays since they don’t believe in non-discrimination (Christianity: Discriminating and killing other people over religious beliefs since the 1st century even though Jesus Christ said to not do that, but why should we listen to Jesus Christ anyway?TM ← I swear that should we trademarked). It’s not about making the marriage be recognised by the church at all. Not all marriages are performed in churches, people should know that.

And the reason liberals want to REGULATE gun control is because of all the American shootings. I mean, seriously? The Minneapolis shooting wasn’t even on The New York Times or the BBC for what I’ve seen. Do you want to know why? Shootings and Americans killing each other has become so commonplace in America that it is no longer news-worthy. And that is sad. I, unlike conservatives, dislike shootings and people killing each other and therefore I want them to reduce gun violence (which with more regulation and control will occur).

 
Flag Post
It’s not about making the marriage be recognised by the church at all. Not all marriages are performed in churches, people should know that.

It’s more the fact that marriage is a religious institution and every major religious institution defines marriage as one man, one woman. I feel like the government is reluctant to involve itself into regulating religious institutions in order to not produce a firestorm of controversy (see birth control mandate for institutions affiliated with religions). If want to call religions discriminatory or homophobic for defining marriage as one man, one woman, then fine. I completely disagree with that assertion, but to each their own.

Vika hit on the main problem in terms of gay rights – that is unions not having the same legal rights as marriage. The issue isn’t so much, in my opinion, making gay marriage legal, but rather, equating the rights of a civil union with that of a marriage. I know it sounds like I’m arguing semantics, and to an extent, but the difference between marriage and a civil union seem clear to me. I’ve always understood marriage to be something that God has blessed via the priest, whereas a civil union is simply something the government honors. I’m not a theologian, and I certainly may be incorrect about why marriage is something that is strictly religious, and if so, please correct me. All that being said, if the federal government did legalize gay marriage tomorrow, I would not care at all, although I would prefer the government works on either A) trimming the ridiculous amount of benefits for married people or B) make civil unions as legally binding as marriage as well as allowing gay couples the same privileges under the law as married people have.

I, unlike conservatives, dislike shootings and people killing each other and therefore I want them to reduce gun violence (which with more regulation and control will occur).

You got it. There’s nothing that makes me happier when I wake up and read the paper than to see another murder, especially when the murder was executed with a gun. When the murder was a shooting, I’m absolutely giddy.

 
Flag Post

Vika hit on the main problem in terms of gay rights – that is unions not having the same legal rights as marriage. The issue isn’t so much, in my opinion, making gay marriage legal, but rather, equating the rights of a civil union with that of a marriage. I know it sounds like I’m arguing semantics, and to an extent, but the difference between marriage and a civil union seem clear to me. I’ve always understood marriage to be something that God has blessed via the priest, whereas a civil union is simply something the government honors.

I think you may be surprisingly wide of the mark here. I’ve just been mugging up on this, and it appears that in England and Wales (I’ll come to America in a moment) all that was required for a marriage was for a couple to commit themselves verbally to it, whether ot not in the presence of a priest or legal official, or witnesses for that matter. That stopped in 1753, when all marriages had to be conducted by an officially recognised church, synagogue etc. Civil marriages were introduced in 1836, in the era when the church was beginning to lose its stranglehold on British society. These rules didn’t apply in Scotland, but then the Jocks always did like to do things differently.

Now as America was still a British colony in 1753, it is quite likely that the same rules applied, but I haven’t dug up any info on that so far. But as you say, it’s not just about a union being blessed by God, there are legal aspects to marriage as well. If one partner dies, everything in that marriage – possessions, money, custody of children and so on – automatically gets conferred on the surviving partner unless there is a will instructing otherwise. Even then, the survivor can often mount a strong legal challenge to have the will anulled. As I understand it, this is the main reason that gays are pressing for full marriage rights. Over here, it is likely that we will have full gay marriage before the next general election in 2015, so I imagine that in the usual way, America will follow our lead in thirty years or so.

And the reason liberals want to REGULATE gun control is because of all the American shootings. I mean, seriously? The Minneapolis shooting wasn’t even on The New York Times or the BBC for what I’ve seen. Do you want to know why? Shootings and Americans killing each other has become so commonplace in America that it is no longer news-worthy.

It is on the Beeb here, but it didn’t make the headlines. And you’re right, it is barely newsworthy because of the frequency of such events.

 
Flag Post
I think you may be surprisingly wide of the mark here. I’ve just been mugging up on this, and it appears that in England and Wales (I’ll come to America in a moment) all that was required for a marriage was for a couple to commit themselves verbally to it, whether ot not in the presence of a priest or legal official, or witnesses for that matter. That stopped in 1753, when all marriages had to be conducted by an officially recognised church, synagogue etc.

Out of curiousity, do you know what the reasoning was to chang it so a marriage had to become recognized by a religion?