|
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 |
|
Yes it DOES violate the First Amendment in | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 08:33:50 |
|
Once again | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 09:21:28 |
|
I told you why. | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
O.K. I'll ask another question | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 09:49:32 |
|
No, because we have a SECULAR | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:00:51 |
|
What secular reasoning? | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 10:09:36 |
|
We've had this debate before. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:15:04 |
| I probably wasn't |
by DesertRat66 |
2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
and I AM playing devil's advocate here. But yes murder was an acceptable part of society at the time of the first commandment I refer you specifically to this. Since then human's have become more enlightened, yes. But at the same time I feel this illustrates how secular law with a religious basis does not violate the first ammendment.
There are no valid arguments at all for outlawing homosexual marriage, but I stand by my original assertion that it does not (if it were to become a law) violate the First Ammendment as one, it does not establish a RELIGION and two it does not prevent the FREE EXERCISE of religion. It may codify a religious belief into law, but so did Prohibition and far many more secular arguments can be made for that boondoggle. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Um, the First Commandment is: "Thou shalt have | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:29:46 |
|
LOL. Nicely done. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:32:53 |
|
If he hadn't posted it at least twice, I was going | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:35:44 |
|
My mistake | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 10:37:03 |
|
<Dorothy>Here's your oil can!</Dorothy> (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:39:45 |
|
Man, when the tin man shows up, | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:40:52 |
|
Since you lost your stuffing, that makes you the | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:41:45 |
|
I dunno... | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:44:01 |
|
But the point of the movie was that they | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:46:24 |
|
...Hunh. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:50:03 |
|
Lemme clarify. Hopefully this'll work. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:31:32 |
|
s/it's is/it's. Can't type to save my life today. (n/t) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:33:44 |
|
*gives Ravenlock's stuffing back* | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:36:47 |
|
Whew! We'll try it with that. Thanks! ;-) (n/t) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:38:21 |
|
Hitting the brakes and hitting them hard | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
NOLAwitch please read ^^^ (n/t) | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 11:27:06 |
|
Yes, it was my assumption... | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:33:52 |
|
By the way, | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:39:55 |
|
s/what where/was where. *Sigh* :-p (n/t) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:40:16 |
|
What tipped me off | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 11:46:34 |
|
Group hug. ;-) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:47:43 |
|
In that case | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 11:40:14 |
|
I agree, and I wonder too. ;-) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:40:56 |
|
My take... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 11:40:00 |
|
I assumed that "legal incidents thereof" | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:43:34 |
|
Support for that, though I don't... | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
i guess that means then | by gibuu | 2004-07-14 13:34:22 |
|
Those words "legal incidents" DO enable the | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 11:43:52 |
|
Now that I have read the ammendment | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 11:51:50 |
|
Elections should be easy enough: dump the | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 11:57:46 |
|
Problem is | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 12:02:09 |
|
I second the motion. All in favor say "Aye". (n/t | by talon0720 | 2004-07-14 14:02:28 |
