The proper wording of the 1st amendment is



The founders were very specific with the language they used in the consitution to prevent problems just like this from becoming an issue. That is why our constitution has survived this long.

The wording in the constitution is distinctly different from the one you gave, which would in effect outlaw the government from making any law whatsoever as to religious institutions. The correct wording of the amendment however, makes very clear that the congress may not make laws that would effectively "establish" any religion as a state religion. This has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court

The constitution only requires that the government equally respect all religions, thereby precluding them from establishing one as the "state" religion by default or by preference.

Giving federal funds to religious charities who did non-religious charity work, would not violate the first amendment, so long as all religious charities were treated equally in the eyes of the government.

the only difference in wording is government > congress. by govt i meant congress. the law making branch of our govt, of course.

but no, the 1st amendment isn't just to prevent the government from saying "We are officially Christian." Read it word for word. By definition, the fed govt cannot make any laws for/against/about religious organizations. They have to follow the same generic laws that anyone else has to follow, but there can be no laws that single out one religious group, or even all religious groups. State govts can. But not fed govt. They've done a somewhat decent job so far, with the exception of the "In God We Trust" on currencies, the "One Nation, Over God" in the pledge, and Bush's faith-based initiatives also known as "Army of Compassion." The Moment of Silence however does not conflict with the religion portion of the 1st amendment. Forced silence has its constitutional issues but religion technically isn't one of them.

Where does the constitution state the government must equally respect all religions? lol the 1st amendment itself says the government isn't supposed to respect any. please quote the constitution. thanks

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

DELETED BECAUSE I WAS FUCKING STUPID

You're going to tell me, stait faced, that gay marriage is pro-creative? It is, by it's very nature, anti-creation. And "philospohical" points of view are clear. Name one country that successfully held an empire up while support gay marriages. Rome had it, rome is gone. Greece had it, Greece is gone. England never had it, England is here.

I'm pro-unions, because if they want to be together, fine. They should have rights to put each other in a hospitol, and share ownership of property. They should not have TAX BREAKS intended for healthy families.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

Actually we were founded on "WE FUCKING HATE YOUR RELIGIOUS BITCHING, GET THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.", money, and bad politics. No one came here to escape religious prosecution, they came here because they were ejected from Europe because they were too strict and pissing everyone off.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

The founder's original intentions were for such matters to be held on a state level. That's how it should be. In my state, there was a near unanymous vote to ban on Gay Marriage, and we're not anti-gay here. We hold the largest Gay festival in the states. We just don't agree with marriage. We shouldn't be forced by other states to agree with it.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

If a church runs a charity, the government shouldn't give them money to support it? Who cares if it's a church, it's all there to HELP PEOPLE.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

Not equal treatment, no treament period. No law, ergo an absense of law, respecting, in respect to, an establishment of religion, sic. religious organization. Thus no law could be made that specifies that religious organizations can be in reciveal of federal funds based on the fact that they are religious organizations.

If such an organization wishes to get funds, they would have to establish thier charity as autonomous and should be required to respect the rights of others by not pushing thier beliefs because they can help people. Violation of that should be grounds for a cease of participation in the federal programme. Charitable organizations should be able to get federal dollars on the basis that they are charitable, not because of thier religious practices.

gay peoples' marriages shouldn't have a different name (unions)
their marriages may not procreate our species but they would be beneficial to our society by making gay people gay (happy).also it would help gay people get whatever financial benefits marriages are supposed to have (thats called equality). and what does it hurt? who does it hurt? i agree with the gay people that they should have equal rights, but im more concerned because i find it to be just another example where peoples' religious views are imposed on others

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

They get tax breaks to help them have kids, etc. in a "normal" family. Gay marriages don't have that.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

yea

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

of course gay marriages have children -- adoption

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

DELETED BECAUSE I WAS FUCKING STUPID

Ponuh, read the thread. Everything you posted is complete bullshit, and it's been handled already.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

'Pro-creation' huh? No, homosexual couples can't have kids by themselves, which should be obvious. Why does this have an impact on whether or not they should be able to wed? Where is it stated in a marriage licence that the couple must bear offspring? Its not. There is no requirement for child bearing. Classically, to seal the deal as it were the couple only need to have sex post-nuptuals.

Rome also controled at its peak a territory spanning the entire Mederterainian, North Africa, Turkey, Central Europe, Britannia, and other territories. Rome fell as a consequence of poor politics, greed, and zealous imperialisim.

*Edit*
England in constrast controled less square kilometers of land, but had the advantage of several hundred years of technology when they entered thier imperialistic age. Vastly superior ships, weapons, communication, and medicine were at the disposal of the British Empire, which I might add has been losing control of its former imperialist claims.
*End Edit*

I am shady on my grecian history, but I venture to guess it was at the hands of the local barbarians.

The fact that these two civilzations existed, fell, and happened to have gays is irrelavent. With such reasoning one might conclude that Americans have the global opinion they do because we have mint flavored dental floss. The two issues are mutually exclusive.

Healthy families? With a rising rate of divorce, child abuse, and domestic violence what exactly constitues a healthy family?

Edit: European History

no no dont shut it down, if u dont like it dont read it~
there is some good to come out of it, we get to come up with new ideas and opinions of our own even if they aren't switching sides, as well as maybe someday down the road something said here might affect someone. just everyone be careful not to make fun of another person's posts

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

DELETED BECAUSE I WAS FUCKING STUPID

DELETED BECAUSE I WAS FUCKING STUPID

This topic will not close! If someone is hugely offended by anything they see, pm me and I will edit/delete it.

That being said, from now on I will delete all the posts of people complaining about this topic. I've already started, and it feels good!! I am hugely annoyed by people that cannot tolerate controversy.

For the record, this topic has given me a lot to think about. Like, initially I would have disagreed to money going to church charities, and now I am confused. But it is a valid question, and debate on the issue is helpful in forming an opinion.

Also, I just want to mention that when people say they disagree with gay 'marriage' but agree with 'civil unions,' it seems like now we are just arguing semantics. Really, what is the difference? I seriously want to know.

If you delete my post, i'll.....

_________________

princess, i think that this thread, which i started some time ago, was originally started to discuss the first presidential debates. i'm kinda dismayed that the topic has lost its coherency and at this point in the game i'd rahter have it that another thread be started to discuss matters of political opinion and that this thread be left free to discuss the original topic. i have no problem in any form with what is being said here. i just think that a properly named topic would suit these kind of discussions better....

_________________
OMG!

watch out squints, eva braun of the Msg boards is lurking!

:P

It's a moot point that it's not a fair comparison. Your argument had nothing to do with facts. You want a psychological standpoint. Gays = destruction. Sodom, Gamorra, Greece, Rome. It's been implimented psychologically that an area where Gays are accepted is destroyed.

If you want facts, I can simply state that children growing up in gay households have a lower quality of life, lack strong father figures, and have problems associating socially with those of both the opposite and same sex.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

Dinav, your arguement has nothing to do with psychology, it has to do with the Bible. There is no psychological evidence that shows that homosexuality leads to destruction.

Also, I don't think that there are enough gay couples with adopted chidren to say whether or not it has been demonstrated that such a lifestyle harms children. I think the biggest problem facing children with gay parents would be social isolation, but that's just a guess. Time will tell whether or not there is an effect of this lifestyle on children, and I think there will be some differences. Whether they are negative or not, though, is a different story.

Tooyooo was saying, in his post princess deleted from page 3, that there's no point discussing this stuff because no one will change anyone's mind. Something along those lines. I'll say I changed my stance on one thing: I shouldn't hold it against Bush if he really does believe he was chosen by god to lead the nation through disaster. He said it in private anyway. It's his business and he has the right to believe that.

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya