More politics

[Shill]

I'm glad Vulpes brought this up. In Indiana gays are attempting to legally sue pastors and Christians for refusing to ackowledge their legal status as married. You can be married in Caesar's eyes all you like, that does not however declare you married in other jurisdictions, be they religious or temporal. Lets say they win their lawsuite, you now have to force them to violate their religious belief to ackowledge your legal standing? This is a bluring of the lines at best. I see sodomy as a moral problem, not a legal one. To me it is no different than lying, or stealing or murdering, or raping. All moral issues.

Reasoning:

When I violate the Law, and commit a moral wrong. Who do I stand before? The religious powers, or the temporal powers? Last I checked, I always end up in front of the temporal ones, who have guns, cells, and beds.

Now you see the heart of the issue. Bluring the lines.

With Regards,

Shill the Thief

[Amour_Vulpes]

-Scissors.-

Primarily the main point of that entire social-issue. People upholding their moral beliefs, which is expected, against what they see to be immoral. I can't blame them as it is good to stay true to your morals least you be a hypocrite. Yet, in the legal standing of our Constitution and the proceeding amendments in-which follow there is a fine, and blurred, line of neutrality. Really it is not specified anywhere that any form of marriage is a right. You'd have to peruse the multiple Supreme Court of the United States rulings for how marriage is handled (Mainly seen in the forum of what type of taxation will be implied now days.). Morals, ethos, and so on and so forth are important, but once they cross the legal-line of who, or who not, can do this or that and contradict previous legal formalities then they become a problem. I like to just think people lack the ability to view differing, and morally-outraging, view-points other than their own. That is just my opinion though.

Honestly if you throw all social issues out of the window we have a clear cut case to where a majority of all marriages are legal per-say the Constitution, following Amendments, and rulings with only moral/social opinionists holding them back. The only real thing counting being the age in-which you can legally enter a marriage of sorts towards any person or persons. I'd feel sorry for the poor bastards who would have to sit through a think-tank to figure out the tax-codes for that though.

[MagicManICT]

lying, or stealing or murdering, or raping

Not really sure where your reasoning is here. Are you arguing some of these should be legal on a basis of "reason" or what? Murder can be proven to be justified (and thus found not guilty of any crime) but theft or rape? And being truthful is only a moral issue (and not even necessarily that) unless it is in one of the few situations when where one can get into legal trouble, such as lying under oath in a court of law.

[Shill]

-Scissors.-

-Razor-Blade-

I have no problem with gays having a legal standing to be married in the eyes of the State, as silly as I find it to be. Have at it! But to demand somehow that you have some sort of concocted "right" to enter into a Christian Church, and before God Almighty be deemed married, you simply just...don't. Even though you lack a legal standing to make a case that you would....why would you even want to?

-Razor-Blade-

I wasn't arguing anything of that nature. The only case I made was how the "gay whatever" movement always try to blur the lines to justify their acts. Sodomy is sodomy, call it what you like. I had one guy tell me I was on the side of Hitler supporting mass murders because I don't support his standing on being gay. When in fact, committing sodomy in my eyes is a moral wrong, no different than lying, cheating, stealing, rape, murder, etc etc etc. To say it is not a moral issue is to be on Hitler's side, not the other way around. All stand guilty, all have done wrong. And that is just more proofs of our imperfect nature, how we so choose to assign "seriousness" to one moral or another. You find in the framework of a personal and perfect deity, such simply cannot be so. Then you would be justified by your good deeds, something else, that cannot be so. So yes, in terms of perfect and absolute justice, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with Hitler before a Judge, equally guilty, equally deserving. The gay guy would be there as well, the liar too. Anyways we are drifting from politics into theology here, which usually is what happens when one takes the position to single out a religious person in any given argument.

With Regards,

Shill the Thief

[Amour_Vulpes]

-Scissors.-

The way I'm interpreting it is as if he is seeing the moral issues standing behind the act(s) in-which may or may not have legal repercussions. As where you may marry out of the norm of the community you are in; you're bound to have people who disagree with your choice, yet shall face no legal repercussions engaged in punishment. Compared towards the moral repercussions behind theft and murder. You can not be legally, most-times, charged for self-defense in-which left the attacking party injured/dead. Yet morally you can argue that the person who used self defense committed murder from your moral bias.

Legally you're fine in the eyes of the law. Yet the family of the injured/dead attacking party will most likely disagree. The best example, closest to most recent and public, being the Trayvon Martin case. Self-defense was used, and proved, yet the moral-outrage (I'd love to debate how stupid and out-of-proportion this case was thrown due to the actions of the media.) was still there for obvious reasons. Most people tend to get pissed off if you kill their family member, and that is even when the courts rule it was justified.

The real trick is finding how you can keep the concept of justice in play as a neutral party while also taking in the moral considerations. That is very tricky.

-Scissors.-

-Razor-Blade-

-Scissors.-

I can agree with that actually. Legally a religious establishment has no legal bounds to intervene in the law and prevent any one, or more, person(s) from being denied their rights described, or not, within the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, as well as Supreme Court, and lesser court, rulings. Yet, that goes both ways. A person has no legal standing to force another person, nor group, in-which has no government, nor state, funding (Which none should yet I suspect some do sadly.) and only acts to promote its beliefs. Though it gets fuzzy along the political lines where who can "donate" to who. Now that is something worth debating heavily.

Though no religious, political, etc. institution in-which does not engage in private business, nor government funding, has to accept, promote, or even slightly give a damn about anyone. They can only accept white, male, Christian (Generalized.) people from Utah and be legally sound. That is their choice. Though can not be forced to marry any one they so choose.

To answer the question though: You wouldn't. It would be the same as someone calling pineapples a holy being, and that no one can eat pineapples. Well, I personally like pineapples on most things. Why shouldn't I just outlaw their religion? No legal standing on either sides. Just a waste of time.

[Shill]

The first amendment is not absolute but it doesn't apply here. You can be banned from privately owned places, forums, and games for expressing racist, homophobic and misogynistic ***** at people. That this game doesn't have a reporting function for that behavior says a lot about the dev's.

The document you seemingly ignore within context of the argument, aside from all cherry picking...is the Supreme Law of the Land, last time I checked. I don't know how much more absolute you could get...



Meanwhile, in a distant land called Leftopia, sits a Claeyt, reading this as he begins to faceplant his keyboard and realizes he is an American citizen.



P.S.

Pras Darwoth.

With Regards,

Shill the Thief

[Amour_Vulpes]

-Scissors-
-Paste.-
-So True.-

[Potjeh]

If the Constitution is so absolute, explain how the 4th Amendment and NSA can coexist.

[Amour_Vulpes]

-Scissors.-

They can not. The Patriot Act allows the NSA, other acts in the past did similar things during the Cold War, to exist on the scale it is today. It is an organization that should be abolished among a many other in-which attempt to go against our Constitution and the Amendments in-which follow. The Constitution is absolute. People are not. Hypocrites from both major parties pushed it through and should be tried for treason; for that is exactly what that act, and following acts/rulings supporting it, are. I'm still waiting for the Supreme Court to destroy it and everything attached to it. Not likely to happen anytime soon.

[Shill]

If the Constitution is so absolute, explain how the 4th Amendment and NSA can coexist.

It is as you would say, de facto, or of fact. It merely exists in fact but not by de jure means, or of Law. The Supreme Law of the Land forbade such acts by Congress. This is not a first case in History where someone begins ignoring the Law, and making up new Laws that are expressly forbidden. Generally the result is rebellion, revolt, after more peaceful means are met without success to have the law nullified. However just because you make a Law, doesn't mean those under that law will enforce said law. You find this especially true in local jurisdictions. There are plenty of elected sheriffs in office who have vowed and sent letters to the President stating the following laws will not be enforced in their county:

I forget the name, but some act struck down the doctrine of Posse Comitatus which expressly forbade the military from serving as a domestic police force in times of Peace.
Patriot Act
National Defense Authorization Act
National Security Act
et cetera

Citing grievous wanton violations of the Constitution and the enforcement of these Laws would be blatant violations of their Sworn Oaths and Duties to uphold that Constitution. They also warned that federal agents caught in their jurisdictions enforcing these illegal acts, would be met with force, arrested and taken into custody. People like Claeyt assume that the power system of our government is top to bottom, with the federal level having the most power. Which can't be any further from the truth. Our forebears, left us a bottom to top "upside down pyramid" power scheme where the Power derives from the people and the local level, and works its way down to the federal government. Under the 10th Amendment, you see this heavily expressed, as each and every State is treated as its own Sovereign Nation, with concurrent powers.

With Regards,

Shill the Thief