|
GOP vows to ban same-sex marriage | by FireballMatt | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Santorum is such a pr*ck! | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 06:48:15 |
|
What pisses me off the most about these @$$holes | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 07:30:16 |
|
Doesn't parse for me | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 08:21:51 |
| Um, Sorry. The proposed amendment does violate |
by talon0720 |
2004-07-14 09:11:52 |
| the constitution. It is basically saying, you cannot practice your religion, or lack thereof freely. The First Amendment is to guarantee that the government does not discriminate against or favor any religion over another, and that is exactly what this proposed pile of crap would do, tell people of one religious viewpoint "You are favored, you may have a legally recognized marriage" while simultaneously saying to those excluded by it "Your displease the government, you shall not have a legally recognized marriage". I'm glad we agree that its a Bad Idea, but I feel it necessary to pick this nit on why. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
That someone of DesertRat66's intelligence | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 09:19:47 |
|
I can see his point. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 10:31:01 |
|
It does impose a religious act: marginalizing and | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:33:39 |
|
Ding. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:35:31 |
|
How is that religious? | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 10:47:52 |
|
No, but you have to be religious... | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:55:07 |
|
What about | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:04:19 |
|
That was why I used "valid", as well. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:18:34 |
|
I'm not familiar with arguments for | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:33:23 |
|
Wrong quote placement. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:37:51 |
|
Amendment 22 | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:51:34 |
|
Well, I can't shoot you down, | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:57:50 |
|
As Ravenlock indicated... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:19:25 |
|
For starters, it's a lie. | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:13:55 |
|
On your first paragraph | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 12:22:05 |
|
Invalid arguments are ignored. | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:31:02 |
|
Irrelevant. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 11:08:16 |
|
...Interesting. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:16:59 |
|
No. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 11:49:15 |
|
Fair enough. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:53:40 |
|
Hey now, | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 12:01:19 |
|
Okay by me. :-) (n/t) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 12:01:58 |
|
But that's precisely what they are arguing. | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 11:29:15 |
|
In fact it has been listed as a sacrament | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:41:30 |
|
Clearly, they are wrong. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 11:55:18 |
|
See my point about circumcision. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:58:31 |
|
If you define marriage solely according to the | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 12:06:56 |
|
But the dispute and the amendment | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 12:51:16 |
|
Well, now I gotta drag it out again. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 12:54:57 |
|
Wouldn't happen. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 13:14:03 |
|
By your logic... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 16:01:15 |
|
They are using their religion to justify their | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:55:50 |
|
But that is different | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 11:04:07 |
|
Then use Slippery Slope argument. | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:27:47 |
|
Is the dogma the basis for the law | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 12:33:16 |
|
A bit off all of the above, don't you think? (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 12:35:39 |
|
s/off/of (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 12:35:50 |
|
What NOLA said. | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 13:03:02 |
|
My take on it | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:13:50 |
