Religion should be outlawed.

---

Originally Posted By: unsupervised...what is common and who has the right to enforce it? Enforcement doesn't even come into the equation. Let me ask you this: How many gay marriages have occured in this nation prior to, say, 1950? How many in the world? How many religions (prior to, say, 1950) speak of, recognize, or otherwise sanctify it? Indeed, part of the gay agenda is to ask the government to do that which is anti-Constitutional...that is, to recognize gay "marriage". For in doing so, it must re-defined for the church what the term "marriage" means. It must meddle in the affairs of the church.

So it is true because it is denied?

Originally Posted By: IneligibleSo it is true because it is denied? Sorry, but you'll have to be a little less vague if you expect a response.

Quote:How many gay marriages have occured in this nation prior to, say, 1950? I don't know. Probably about the same number as interracial marriages.

Then point out in the Constitution where Christianity is, or for that matter, God are even mentioned.Nor is the Deceleration of Independence which is often sited to show the christian values of this country. The difference is the Treaty of Tripoli shows many of the framers thoughts via their governmental actions on church and state relations. The actions of the new government under Washington's administration, later ratified by the senate, which included many framers, more-so shows the mindset of the framers, and the fledgling government the conceived, than any other document.The perceptions of other nations is only relevant in as much as the official response it garnered by the United States Government which set forth in no uncertain terms that, "the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." So is your contention that Washington and his administration along with the body of the Senate and the John Adams where all fool hardy liars?

Quote:How many gay marriages have occured in this nation prior to, say, 1950?Probably quite a few - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-SpiritDo you think marriage is a religious matter or a civil matter, thor?If it is a religious matter, then the state should not interfere - it should leave the definition of marriage to individual religions or consciences.If it is a civil matter, then religion should not interfere: it is up to the legislature to define it as it sees fit.

I'm trying to find the principle behind your statement - but it seems there is none.

Originally Posted By: OldFolksThen point out in the Constitution where Christianity is, or for that matter, God are even mentioned.Nor is the Deceleration of Independence which is often sited to show the christian values of this country. The difference is the Treaty of Tripoli shows many of the framers thoughts via their governmental actions on church and state relations. The actions of the new government under Washington's administration, later ratified by the senate, which included many framers, more-so shows the mindset of the framers, and the fledgling government the conceived, than any other document.The perceptions of other nations is only relevant in as much as the official response it garnered by the United States Government which set forth in no uncertain terms that, "the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." So is your contention that Washington and his administration along with the body of the Senate and the John Adams where all fool hardy liars? Nope. The point, since you seem to be uninterested in researching the matter yourself, is that the US wanted to ensure that the Treaty of Tripoli indicated that no religions, including Christianity, would be favored. If you had bothered to look up the political situation behind that treaty, you would have found this out yourself.Now, how about you address just why such a treaty, coming from the US, would need to indicate its impartiality in a situation requiring so, if it were not perceived to be a Christian nation by other nations. Why do you think this perception among other nations existed?

The depth of our heathen ways goes even deeper than that simple wiki article suggest, at least is my guess as I didn't read it.Not only could and did two men marry, many times times a man married a women and a man. It was considered or thought to be soundly logical because another strong man in the house could help, depending on his inclination, on the hunt or with household chores and offer added protection to your family when you where away. Of course this wasn't restricted to just men either, at least not in my tribe. Women could marry women and one was free to join the hunt but couldn't become apart of the "hunt society." Beyond that the was a ceremony in which two married men, outside their respective families, could join together in a union literally transfered, closer than brothers. Some form of this also existed for women but all detail of that is lost. We were just heathens though and therefor nothing may be learned from us, so it doesn't really matter.

if the US is as it it perceived to be by other nations, then I suggest you run for your life!

No your wrong, you read it. And your calling the founding fathers liars, so there.Your way of arguing is very effective, thank you."is that the US wanted to ensure that the Treaty of Tripoli indicated that no religions, including Christianity, would be favored."That's not what the treaty says there hotshot.

Originally Posted By: Ineligible Quote:How many gay marriages have occured in this nation prior to, say, 1950?Probably quite a few - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-SpiritNo mention of marriage there. Just differing roles in non-marital relationships. Quote:Do you think marriage is a religious matter or a civil matter, thor?I KNOW it's a religious matter. But the state DOES decide what marriages it recognizes. You can go have a marriage in some "made-up-for-the-gay-agenda" church, but don't expect the government to recognize it. At least not overnight. The gays know this...which is why it's so important to them to push their agenda, using social pressures and brainwashing techniques, onto pre-existing churches and their congregations. Unless I miss my guess, you're part of just such a church. Ignoring the Bible when it becomes socially agreeable to do so. There is nothing new under the sun.

Originally Posted By: OldFolksNo your wrong, you read it. And your calling the founding fathers liars, so there.Your way of arguing is very effective, thank you."is that the US wanted to ensure that the Treaty of Tripoli indicated that no religions, including Christianity, would be favored."That's not what the treaty says there hotshot. Do the research. You'll see why it was written the way it was. If you don't, you won't.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedif the US is as it it perceived to be by other nations, then I suggest you run for your life! You refer to the "what"...I refer to the "why".

Originally Posted By: OldFolksThe depth of our heathen ways goes even deeper than that simple wiki article suggest, at least is my guess as I didn't read it.Not only could and did two men marry, many times times a man married a women and a man. It was considered or thought to be soundly logical because another strong man in the house could help, depending on his inclination, on the hunt or with household chores and offer added protection to your family when you where away. Of course this wasn't restricted to just men either, at least not in my tribe. Women could marry women and one was free to join the hunt but couldn't become apart of the "hunt society." Beyond that the was a ceremony in which two married men, outside their respective families, could join together in a union literally transfered, closer than brothers. Some form of this also existed for women but all detail of that is lost. We were just heathens though and therefor nothing may be learned from us, so it doesn't really matter. It's an interesting study, no doubt. But unless modern-day gays are willing (and allowed) to join native tribes for the purposes of getting "married" (which would be just another sham on their part), what happens doesn't apply. It should also be noted that many of the tribes did not practice this "two-spirit" concept to the point of uniting, if at all. In fact, the article mentions only one tribe that discusses this concept in its literature. Though, in view of the actual practices of some tribes, it's not surprising that missionaries felt the need to introduce natives to Christianity. Some of them were cannibals.

Quote:No mention of marriage there.Wrong. Quote:I KNOW it's a religious matter. But the state DOES decide what marriages it recognizes.Why should it? Is it the state's job to decide which religions are right?Do you believe atheists have the right to marry?I am happy to debate issues on Biblical grounds at any time, thor. But you find it too much to read a chapter.

Originally Posted By: Ineligible

Quote:

No mention of marriage there.
Wrong.

Go check your Bible for the definition. They had a union, but I doubt they called it marriage. At least not until they were introduced to Christianity.

Quote:

Quote:

I KNOW it's a religious matter. But the state DOES decide what marriages it recognizes.
Why should it? Is it the state's job to decide which religions are right?

No more than yours. But the state does no such thing. Go read the definition of the term "recognize", as it applies here, until the meaning sinks in.

Quote:

Do you believe atheists have the right to marry?

I've got a better question. If they truly understood what a marriage was, why would they want to?

Quote:

I am happy to debate issues on Biblical grounds at any time, thor. But you find it too much to read a chapter.

I suggest you try the whole book. ALL of it.

Do your research thor, if you care too. Tribes that didn't allow marriage among same sex people where defiantly outside "the norm." It was prolifically common and noted by most white men who first contacted natives."Though, in view of the actual practices of some tribes, it's not surprising that missionaries felt the need to introduce natives to Christianity."And your an ignorant piece of shit who's child, for the good of civilization, needs to be removed from your caveman ways and superstitions and brought to a more enlightened level of being. Go do your research and try to learn something.

Originally Posted By: OldFolksNo your wrong, you read it. And your calling the founding fathers liars, so there.FWIW, there is a difference between religious practices and principles existing within a government, and having a government based on Christianity. The latter would require a religious base of power much like what existed in the medieval times in Europe. I would hope you could understand why that would be something to avoid.

Originally Posted By: OldFolksAnd your an ignorant piece of shit who's child, for the good of civilization, needs to be removed from your caveman ways and superstitions and brought to a more enlightened level of being. Go do your research and try to learn something. I doubt your concept of enlightenment means anything more than folks being allowed to do whatever they want...which is really just headonism by another name.