Actually I think given your example, she still has a point. Just because the institution of marriage came over the pond as a governmental issue doesn't change your point that it was put in place by the Church, which in modern day is supposed to be separate from government.

I don't think her point was valid because she made it sound as though this were a recent development (by recent, I mean within the last couple hundred years) within American jurisprudence designed to discriminate against particular groups. That's not the case at all. It's status as a civil institution was certainly used *later* in that context, but that was never the original intent.

It just kind of proves (to me) that America is not as progressive as everyone would have us "wee folk" believe.

Well, it all depends upon what you mean by the term "progressive." If you're using the term in the context of Leftist ideology, then I would say we're not as "progressive" as Europe. That said, we're way more "progressive" than we were even ten years ago. In my brief 25 years on this planet, I can honestly say that I've never seen social change move so rapidly.

You do have a point about her comment. I didn't read it that way at first, but I can see how the second sentence is a leading statement.

I don't think it matters whose ideology I mean by "progressive." The term is self-explanatory and you're right, we are moving quickly, especially for so young a nation. I suppose getting off on a late start was helpful in our case. My point however was that there is this "separation of church and state" which exists in ideology but not in actuality, whether we are moving towards it or not; the idea is present that it is already instituted in our government, though if you stop to look, religion is still a huge contributing factor in many civil institutions, marriage being a prime example.

Also you'll have to forgive me if I wasn't clear earlier, I was pretty drunk XD I guess you don't HAVE to forgive me but that's my excuse.

Accepting sin and legalizing that sin is not progressive it is destructive and dangerous before a righteous and Holy God.

Perhaps you should consider moving to a nation that does not claim to value a separation of church and state, and does not consider religious choice a personal freedom.

That may be the stupidest statement on this thread. As long as there are people and people who run the government there will never be a real separation of church and state. And just in case you didn't know the purpose of the clause governing that separation was not to protect the government from religion it was to protect religion from the long arm of the federal government of which they left England to ensure. Perhaps you should know more about the purpose before quoting what you don't know nor have you done anything to protect. When you serve in the Armed Forces of the United States then you can think about telling me where I should live. Until then, perhaps the best course of action with just be quiet and live in that freedom that I have provided to you through sacrifice and service.

I really value your comments because you took the time to insult me. If you want someone to listen, don't be an arse about it. I'm glad to see this on the other side of the argument. Proves everyone's got their heads up their own asses. No one really cares about doing what's right- it's about BEING right, over someone else. I can't believe as the original poster you are perpetuating this behavior, since you claimed to just want people's uninsulted opinions on the pageant outcome. If you wanted to debate morals and condone drama, why not say it up front? I guess that is how drama works.

I'd rather be stupid than an asshole that is incapable of putting my argument forward in respectable terms. At least I am able to educate myself. There is no cure for douchebag.

I didn't tell you where to live. I just made a suggestion. Why do I have to have serve in the Armed Forces to make a suggestion to you in a public forum that you started? Is that why you've got your head so far up your ass? Because you did something for the nation? I'm not denying that you did, but hey, some of us are incapable- does it make me less American because I have physical inabilities? Thanks for the freedom, I really mean that, but I would appreciate a little respect since I am a human being- AND an American no matter how much you'd like me not to be one- and considering the fact you don't know the difference between me and anyone else on this site. Perhaps you'd rather me be an unconcerned citizen? Are those easier to deal with because they don't give a shit about the direction our nation is headed in, instead of having an opinion?

Disgusting.

Oh, you know what. I apologize. I thought this was the thread you started. I haven't been following this thread for weeks, just clicked on it because it was at the top and assumed it was your thread. However I do think everything but the "original poster" part applies.

Must have hit a nerve with the truth

No, you hit a nerve with insulting me when I was being perfectly civil. It is unfortunate that non-military citizens' non-involvement in their government is a "truth" to you.

I find it quite insulting when you tell me to leave the country I love and served and didn't find that to be civil at all. And sorry if I believe that we should serve. I am glad there are many who share my conviction that we need to do more than talk.

It is unfortunate you are sorry for what you believe. People serve in their own way, whether it be in the military or in other parts of the government. But you are right, everyone should serve in their own way. What makes me more angry than someone that argues with me disrespectfully, is someone that talks with no action.

who is that no longer member up there? ANyone know? lol

As long as there are people and people who run the government there will never be a real separation of church and state.

There's a difference between separation of church and state versus separation of religion and state. Constitutionally, we have the former but not the latter.

You don't have to accept it. You don't have to condone it, but it's not your place to stop others from doing it. So long as what people do consensually behind closed doors does not directly injure, harm or inhibit another human being, you have no place in regulating it, not should one attempt to judge. I'm not terribly religious by any means, but last I checked, it was God's place to pass judgment and punishment, not yours.

Teach your children the values you want them to embrace. Teach your family the values you want to embrace. However, do not force your values on others. The same goes for same-sex marraiges or unions. You don't have to believe them right or accept them at all, but it's not your place to deny people that right based on a religion that people may opt out of of.

Actually in many states Sodomy not just forced is against the law. :) Just in case you didn't know. As far as I know...that is part of the sexual act in homosexuals. So hurting someone...So breaking the law hurts us all.

It's a silly law.

Sodomy isn't just anal intercourse. It also applies to oral intercourse as well. If there is a law banning "Sodomy" then it bans anal intercourse as well as oral intercourse. Many heterosexuals are breaking the law as well, not just homosexuals. If a man plows his wife up the ass, he's committing the same crime as two men in the same situation. If the woman gives her husband a blowjob, she's comitting the same crime as two men in the same situation, however, only the homosexuals ever really get prosecuted by the law, and when they do, they appeal it and the verdict gets reversed. There was a case in Texas like that, and in the end, the two men were acquitted.

How a couple chooses to have sexual intercourse is not the government's place to mandate.

No man may seduce and corrupt an unmarried girl, or else he risks five years in prison.

750.532 Seduction; punishment.
Sec. 532.

Punishment�Any man who shall seduce and debauch any unmarried woman shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years or by fine of not more than 2,500 dollars; but no prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.


History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;--CL 1948, 750.532 .

Former Law: See section 7 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, � 5862; CL 1871, � 7697; How., � 9283; CL 1897, � 11694; CL 1915, � 15468; and CL 1929, � 16823.


That's on the books in Michigan. Guess almost every man at a bar should be arrested and thrown in jail.

When are you guys going to acknowledge the obvious that there will never be a true separation of church and government. There never has been and never will be because like it or not government is made up of people and people have faith in God and thus they reflect those beliefs in the government.

dude. seriously? I can't even believe that you would even say something like this.

Not only is it horribly offensive to anyone who is any other religion than yours, it is sad to think that you believe that your religion runs the government. I'm not denying that there is a huge number of Christians in America, but that is just hurtful and really demeaning.

I will never stop fighting for my beliefs and my religion. And for you to assume that you just automatically win because the "government" stands behind you is unbelievable.

Wow...

I also agree. Unfortunately this is no longer a debate about personal commitment vs. civil. It's been moved from an objective consideration to its current presence a "moral" debate. How appropriately inappropriate. As if we didn't have more important things going on in our government to consider.

Stepping away from the marriage issue... Why is acceptance so hard?

Why is acceptance so hard?

Acceptance by whom?

That news story is about an 11 year old boy who killed himself. He's the second 11 year old boy in a month to do this over being bullied about being gay, whether he was or wasn't I'm not sure... I guess what I'm asking is where did these kids learn that it's okay to bully, and that being gay is wrong? But acceptance on every level. Even the original topic of this thread, the group was attacked.

... I guess what I'm asking is where did these kids learn that it's okay to bully, and that being gay is wrong?

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy. Just because someone happens to think that homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean that they're going to bully homosexuals. And from what I remember from my school days, there was no shortage of excuses for why someone would be bullied. If the issue is bullying, then deal with bullying. Whether the individual targeted is a homosexual is irrelevant.

Kids can bully about anything, I'm not denying that. But they're specifically bullying this child for being gay. I just wondered if it was something they taught themselves. And it isn't irrelevant in this case - being bullied about being gay was what drove this CHILD to suicide.