The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-26-2013, 11:50 AM   #101
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,288

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton View Post
Christ, you're ****ing stupid. So overwhelmingly stupid.

Freedom OF religion... and freedom FROM religion...

What someone else does in the privacy of their own home has precisely ****-all to do with what someone else's religion says. But making a law to restrict someone's ****ing relationship based on YOUR hang ups is just fine and dandy in your eyes because A) you're a ****ing moron and B) there is no B.
hey look everyone a liberal calling someone names who he disagrees with! This is the liberal agenda, intimidation.

The the constitution protects freedom of religion and yes, it also protects the religious from governement and vice versa. No one is forcing religion on anyone. Why do you have to be so dramatic?
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 11:52 AM   #102
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
To me, the issue of gay marriage is old. The argument is over. The majority of the public agrees with it, and now government is coming around to it.
The majority agree with civil unions that are equal to the secular status of marriage. Some religions don't agree with gays joining together in Holy Matrimony or as a sacrament. I don't see the big deal because it's just a word, but I didn't think liberals wanted to mix the state with religion. Why can't they adopt a different word that's not considered sacred among religious groups?
Arkie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 11:52 AM   #103
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yeah, it basically said that the federal government had to respect States' definition of marriage, whatever they determined that definition to be.

So far, it doesn't compel one state to honor another state's definition. But that battle will be on its way next I'm sure.
It's going to be difficult to reconcile a state's right to deny a marriage license with:

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."



Furthermore, with regard to Smiling Ass's post...the media (Fox News) is doing the same thing with the VRA Section 5 decision yesterday. It's because the common turd watching television doesn't have a clue what the real text of the laws are, let alone the stipulations in the sections.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 11:57 AM   #104
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
The majority agree with civil unions that are equal to the secular status of marriage. Some religions don't agree with gays joining together in Holy Matrimony or as a sacrament. I don't see the big deal because it's just a word, but I didn't think liberals wanted to mix the state with religion. Why can't they adopt a different word that's not considered sacred among religious groups?
Because religion stole the word from the secular community in the first place. "Marriage" was a secular institution long before it had sacred and religious implications.

The best solution would be to give the word to the religious community entirely, and adopt the term "civil union" to refer to any state-sanctioned "marriage".

So if you want God to smile upon your matrimonial bliss, you get "married" in a church.

If you want a tax break or power of attorney or whatever, you go down to City Hall or Vegas or wherever and get a "civil union".

That's pretty much how it is already (except for the nomenclature), because anyone who gets married by a religious officiant still needs to get a certificate from the state.

The government then doesn't have to recognize any "marriage", as it is now a purely religious institution, and no church anywhere ever will have to worry about getting in trouble for refusing to perform gay marriages (even though that's the case now).
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 11:59 AM   #105
TheElusiveKyleOrton
BOOM.
 
TheElusiveKyleOrton's Avatar
 
Touched By God

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 10,944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
hey look everyone a liberal calling someone names who he disagrees with! This is the liberal agenda, intimidation.

The the constitution protects freedom of religion and yes, it also protects the religious from governement and vice versa. No one is forcing religion on anyone. Why do you have to be so dramatic?
You're intimidated by being called "stupid" on the internet? You must piss your pants all the time.

And it protects the government and people FROM idiots -- again, like you, pee-pants -- who push religion as a higher law for all people, regardless of their personal beliefs.

By saying "the bible says gay people are wrong, so let's pass a law stating that gay people can't get married," you're pushing YOUR religion on other people. Do you honestly not see that?

Are you really that stupid?

Here, I got you these, Pee-Pants.

__________________
Nobody puts Jay-bee in the corner.
TheElusiveKyleOrton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:00 PM   #106
TheElusiveKyleOrton
BOOM.
 
TheElusiveKyleOrton's Avatar
 
Touched By God

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 10,944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
The majority agree with civil unions that are equal to the secular status of marriage. Some religions don't agree with gays joining together in Holy Matrimony or as a sacrament. I don't see the big deal because it's just a word, but I didn't think liberals wanted to mix the state with religion. Why can't they adopt a different word that's not considered sacred among religious groups?
Why do the desires of religious groups trump the desires of the people?
__________________
Nobody puts Jay-bee in the corner.
TheElusiveKyleOrton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:01 PM   #107
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,288

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27 View Post
i'm reading the decision now. court did not 'strike down' DOMA as the moronic media is claiming. it struck down section 3. seems to me it actually strengthened section 2 by protecting 1man/1woman states.
until you get to their Prop 8 decision which basically counteracts their DOMA decision.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:03 PM   #108
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,079

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
until you get to their Prop 8 decision which basically counteracts their DOMA decision.
Exactly. It will be interesting to see what they do next.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:31 PM   #109
sisterhellfyre
Some days it's not worth
 
sisterhellfyre's Avatar
 
fighting the clowns under my bed.

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
Exactly. It will be interesting to see what they do next.
What the Supremes will do next? Nothing, and I'd say it will probably be "nothing" for the next 5 years or so.

That's my guesstimate for the amount of time it will take for a gay married couple to move from a state that recognizes their marriage to one that doesn't, and where the couple suffers some concrete harm from the non-recognition. Tax rates or something like that, most likely, much like Edie Windsor's estate tax bill after her wife's death.

The couple will sue, and the suit will take a while to wind its way up through the court system until it eventually lands on the Supremes' docket again as a "full faith and credit" case. That's when it will get interesting again. ;-) In the meantime, there's a lot of work for LGBT people and agencies to do on legal issues that don't have the gut-punch headline value of "gay marriage."

Also in the meantime there will be much d***-waving and slapfighting on forums much like this one. Remember, boys: winning an argument on the Internet is like winning the 50-yard dash at Special Ed field day. Yah, you won, but....
sisterhellfyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:38 PM   #110
Flex Gunmetal
Icy Fresh
 
Flex Gunmetal's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: COLORADO
Posts: 3,083

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Francis Daytona
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.
You are an absolute dipschit and advertise it well.
Flex Gunmetal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:45 PM   #111
Archer81
Optimum Homo
 
Archer81's Avatar
 
Tactical Neck.

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 22,711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.




Archer81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:47 PM   #112
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
"Traditional Marriage" is not solely a religious institution.
If anyone were truly interested in "traditional marriage," then polygamy would be legal.
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:49 PM   #113
ZONA
Ring of Famer
 
ZONA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 10,560

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Seems like a good ruling once again proving the conservatives will vote with minds and liberals just tow the line.
Yes, because no republican has ever towed the line..............what a bunch of ****
ZONA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 12:51 PM   #114
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.
You're a ****ing idiot. Gay marriage is an pact between consenting adults. Animals and children cannot give their consent. There's no similarity.
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 01:01 PM   #115
ZONA
Ring of Famer
 
ZONA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 10,560

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
Conservatives need to get back to good principles. Believing that people, not government, make America go. There's a lot of Black and Hispanic groups that have very conservative values but the left has done such a good job of painting Republicans as racists that they turn to the only thing left.

Many Black communities hate the welfare state - the way it encourages Husbandless - even "partner-less" welfare mothers who have more children to get bigger checks. Hispanic communities favor family values and hard work. They really aren't looking for a handout. My gay friend is fiscally very conservative and only votes Democrat because of he and his partner's personal issues.

If Republicans would get onto the fiscal responsibility angle, worked on keeping government off our phone calls and fighting for family values - that's families with parents, preferably two or more, raising children in good homes - they could get a lot of votes and retake power.

I think a majority of Americans don't want a large police state that tries to do everything.
Well there's things the republicans have going for them and some things they don't. Let's just skip over the minority thing, they need to understand they're losing the vote on several issues. Their hard stance or abortion doesn't sit well with the ladies. Many republicans don't even care if it was rape or not. And the fact that they want to deregulate everything, leads to things like we saw on wallstreet several years ago. Their's just so much risk involved with that. And their stance on letting the wealthiest corporations and richest Americans slide through tax loop holes while they ensure a poor person has no loopholes or ways to hide from tax. I've never understood why it is that people think the rich create jobs. Most job in America are small business, the blue collar person who hires a few people. But do they get to hide money in offshore accounts, do they get to pay much less tax then a janitor?

There's a reason why the republicans have been losing of late. They've allowed the tea party to move them even further to the right. I mean, all of the republican presidential candidates have to pledge to something that isn't even law, just to be in the race. The party is being held hostage to a few really F'd up dudes. IMO, they won't win another race unless some serious changes are made. I still don't think they've learned those lessons yet. Some have, but some haven't and it might take another 8 years of not having the white house before they start to make these changes.
ZONA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 01:27 PM   #116
Kaylore
Because I am better
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
Everything

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 47,043

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
The cow would have to consent.
The argument follows that homosexuals are consenting adults and have rights to marry. That's fine. Logic follows polygamists should have the same right under that criterion.
Kaylore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 01:28 PM   #117
Kaylore
Because I am better
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
Everything

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 47,043

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

I totally disagree on Abortion, Zona. The majority of Americans do not favor abortion as a form of birth control. It's like 70%. That's what 99% of abortions are used for.
Kaylore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 01:30 PM   #118
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
The argument follows that homosexuals are consenting adults and have rights to marry. That's fine. Logic follows polygamists should have the same right under that criterion.
And family members of course.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 01:31 PM   #119
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,079

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
The argument follows that homosexuals are consenting adults and have rights to marry. That's fine. Logic follows polygamists should have the same right under that criterion.
I agree.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 01:40 PM   #120
thumpc
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
thumpc's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Future
Posts: 774

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Richard Quinn
Default

On the flip side,

"In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.

State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

Says Who?

Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first ....
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/
thumpc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 02:01 PM   #121
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
love the liberal answer to democracy--it works only when you vote the way WE want. Otherwise, we will use the courts to force our agenda down your throat.

If Prop 8 was enacted to lock up gays and lesbians and outlaw homosexuality then you would have a point. But it's supporting traditional marriage which in now way harms the homosexual community. The majority of CA voted for it, including real minorities.
Sure it does. You can't file joint tax returns Federally before, so theoretically youo get discrimatory tax treatment. If your man lover dies, his Social Secuirty he work his entire life for goes back to the Government, not you the surviving partner.

Make everything a Civil Union across the board, hetero or homo, and let the instiution of faith marry people in their place fo worship, marriage is a contract under God anyway.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 02:10 PM   #122
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,722
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
The cow would have to consent.



Actually in a case where a man died from having sex with a horse, they didn't charge him with animal cruelty because they couldn't prove the animal was harmed by the incident....
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 02:20 PM   #123
sisterhellfyre
Some days it's not worth
 
sisterhellfyre's Avatar
 
fighting the clowns under my bed.

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
The argument follows that homosexuals are consenting adults and have rights to marry. That's fine. Logic follows polygamists should have the same right under that criterion.
Under the same rules, that adults consent to join in multiple marriage relationships, the problem is.... what, exactly?
sisterhellfyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 02:22 PM   #124
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
Because "traditional marriage" is a ****ing absurd notion based on religion. Allowing gays to marry hurts NO ONE except for hypocrites that hold some sort of odd moralistic standard to their life. Its about equal rights. Should we dial back the civil rights movement too?

Oh the irony of conservatives, its vast and unquenchable.
But my moral vitues are absolute, and it should be legally imposed on everyone.... in a free country


duh!
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 02:24 PM   #125
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sisterhellfyre View Post
Under the same rules, that adults consent to join in multiple marriage relationships, the problem is.... what, exactly?
right, why does anyone care what other consenting adults do as long as they are law abiding>
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:09 AM.


Denver Broncos