Attempt to override the constitutional amendment process

[Joe DeFuria]

The difference, of course, is that my quote is relevent to what motivates the Bush administration and the Christian right to want the Constitution amended...

Of course, this means that it's only Chirstians who seem marriage as that between a man and a woman, rather than a concept that transcends different religions, and is bigger than religion in general?

So, like I said:

"I like cake."

 

[John Reynolds]

Of course, this means that it's only Chirstians who seem marriage as that between a man and a woman, rather than a concept that transcends different religions, and is bigger than religion in general?

So, like I said:

"I like cake."

Oh, yes, we certainly see the moderates with no religious persuasion whatsoever declaiming gay marriage the loudest. Yeah, that's been on the news like wild fire. Score the first semantic dodge ball dodged by team DeFuria, and let them eat their cake as a bonus.

A related side story was that I got to listen to my work fundie launch into another shrill diatribe about how God would unleash His wrath upon America if we let the faggots marry. Ahhh, the love of the Lord Jesus just flowed within his words.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oh, yes, we certainly see the moderates with no religious persuasion whatsoever declaiming gay marriage the loudest.

Oh, yes, the facts don't matter....just point fingers at one person or religion. Do it enough, and some idiots might be impressed? I mean, is Clinton a "religious nut?" And his signing of DOMA is not "loud enough" for you?

A related side story was that I got to listen to my work fundie launch into another shrill diatribe about how God would unleash His wrath upon America if we let the faggots marry. Ahhh, the love of the Lord Jesus just flowed within his words.

Is this the 3rd or fourth time you repeated this today? Are you purposely trying to convince us all of your own bigotry?

Or are you just trying to associate this guy at work with Pres. Bush? Because Bush has said anything remotely similar?

Really John, this isn't becoming of you.

 

[Natoma]

The difference, of course, is that my quote is relevent to what motivates the Bush administration and the Christian right to want the Constitution amended...

Of course, this means that it's only Chirstians who seem marriage as that between a man and a woman, rather than a concept that transcends different religions, and is bigger than religion in general?

So, like I said:

"I like cake."

You do realize the christian religion used to sanctify gay marriages?

 

[Legion]

The difference, of course, is that my quote is relevent to what motivates the Bush administration and the Christian right to want the Constitution amended...

Of course, this means that it's only Chirstians who seem marriage as that between a man and a woman, rather than a concept that transcends different religions, and is bigger than religion in general?

So, like I said:

"I like cake."

You do realize the christian religion used to sanctify gay marriages?

ummm, i will start by saying you are full of shit and then ask for an explanation for such a historically inaccurate perception. at what point in christian history were gay marriages sanctified.

 

[Natoma]

Where do you think I got my quote from?

Um, from the thread that I linked? Which is why I suggested people go back to it, because it's pretty funny watching you try and make your arguments.

As I said before, it's pretty obvious I was talking about the spirit and principles of the constitution and this country throughout that discussion, mainly because I stated so on several occassions. And I think anyone reading it would come to that conclusion, as The Baron did when we were arguing a completely separate point, but still on the spirit vs letter theme. Anywho, it's water under the bridge. Whenever people ask me about your sig I just point them there and they come back saying "Is Joe just trying to get a rise out of you or something?"

 

[Natoma]

You do realize the christian religion used to sanctify gay marriages?

ummm, i will start by saying you are full of shit and then ask for an explanation for such a historically inaccurate perception. at what point in christian history were gay marriages sanctified.

Well thank you for starting off saying I'm full of shit. Such a great way to get a conversation going eh?

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You do realize the christian religion used to sanctify gay marriages?

"Which" christian religion is that, and what difference does it make, other than to pole more holes in John's "Bush is just pushing christian values on America" horseshit?

 

[John Reynolds]

Is this the 3rd or fourth time you repeated this today? Are you purposely trying to convince us all of your own bigotry?

Or are you just trying to associate this guy at work with Pres. Bush? Because Bush has said anything remotely similar?

Really John, this isn't becoming of you.

2nd time, and it's a clear example of the fundamentalism of a portion of the Christian right, large or small I really don't know, that thinks it's adhering to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, yet clearly are not.

Personally, I think someone who'd utter such nonsense should be deeply ashamed. Personally, I think anyone who would draft something like the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 should be deeply ashamed.

What's truly unbecoming is the thinly-veiled bigotry that's the motivation behind all this would-be reformative legislation. But, then again, you don't exactly have a problem with that, do you Joe.

 

[John Reynolds]

"Which" christian religion is that, and what difference does it make, other than to pole more holes in John's "Bush is just pushing christian values on America" horseshit?

Silly me, here I thought it was Scientology.

Wow, you really are willing to let your partisan biases blind you, aren't you Joe. How very unbecoming. Neo-cons are mystical in spite of major publications printing articles and books on the movement, Bush absolutely does not pander to the Christian right, etc. 'Tis sad, really.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As I said before, it's pretty obvious I was talking about the spirit and principles of the constitution and this country throughout that discussion...

And the "spirit" of the constitution is completely open for debate on any given subject, so what would be the point of bringing that up? And why would anyone consult a "legal" authority on the "spirit" of anything?

And this is despite the fact that the entire issue came up because I said "what if Bush proposes a Constitutional Amendment?", (which of course, is exactly what happened.) Which in reponse you said "Nevertheless, amendments to the constitution can certainly be unconstitutional. " Which makes no sense to say from a "spirit" point of view.

But yeah...water under the bridge, right?

 

[Natoma]

You do realize the christian religion used to sanctify gay marriages?

"Which" christian religion is that, and what difference does it make, other than to pole more holes in John's "Bush is just pushing christian values on America" horseshit?

Used to. It doesn't anymore, unless of course you're a unitarian. hehe. Bush is pushing his christian values onto America. That much is true.

 

[John Reynolds]

Used to. It doesn't anymore, unless of course you're a unitarian. hehe. Bush is pushing his christian values onto America. That much is true.

Sorry, but I'm just not comfortable with the thought of you poling holes in me. No offense.

In other news, God recently stated that He's finally caught up on His smiting workload and is even now preparing the hurricane that He promised His good servant, Pat Robertson, some ten years ago with which to strike Orland, FL, for the city's officials allowing a gay parade.

Yes, Pat Robertson said that God told him He would do this. Ahh the love of those who follow the words of Lord Jesus.

 

[Natoma]

As I said before, it's pretty obvious I was talking about the spirit and principles of the constitution and this country throughout that discussion...

And the "spirit" of the constitution is completely open for debate on any given subject, so what would be the point of bringing that up? And why would anyone consult a "legal" authority on the "spirit" of anything?

And this is despite the fact that the entire issue came up because I said "what if Bush proposes a Constitutional Amendment?", (which of course, is exactly what happened.) Which in reponse you said "Nevertheless, amendments to the constitution can certainly be unconstitutional. " Which makes no sense to say from a "spirit" point of view.

The point would be to show that enshrining something such as a gay marriage ban would be going against what the constitution and this country have stood for since its inception, i.e. the rights and privileges of the minority in the face of the overwhelming majority. We haven't always adhered to that (see slavery, anti-miscegenation, anti-women's rights, jim crow, DOMA, etc etc etc), but we have moved in that direction historically. That's why it makes sense from the point of view of someone looking at the spirit and principles of the constitution and this country.

But yeah...water under the bridge, right?

Pretty much. You're a great flame baiter, and frankly I've learned to ignore it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

What's truly sad and unbecoming John, is a moderator who is blinded to his own hypocricy, who then uses his "power" to delete posts of others that "offend him", and at the same time refuses to apologize for his own offenses.

(On that note, it's time I uninstalled this Alexa toolbar, BTW).

But go ahead...keep telling the world that Bush is a "Fundie Christian Neo-Con" if that's what helps you sleep at night.

You don't think marriage between a man and a woman is a concept that the founding fathers believed in as a foundation for society? Irrespective of religion? I'll tell you what, I would guess that it was, but I don't really know.

And you know what? Neither do you. So give that anti-Christian crusade of yours a rest, and try and at least Criticize Bush based on what he SAYS, rather than lumping him in with the other idiots at your workplace.

 

[Legion]

You do realize the christian religion used to sanctify gay marriages?

ummm, i will start by saying you are full of shit and then ask for an explanation for such a historically inaccurate perception. at what point in christian history were gay marriages sanctified.

Well thank you for starting off saying I'm full of shit. Such a great way to get a conversation going eh?

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

I will reply by stating this article is full of shit.

 

[Paul]

IMO, Bush is pushing his religion(a false one,when you die you rot in the ground, accept it) on the country.

IMO

 

[Natoma]

Legion,

Can you refute what it's saying rather than just "it's full of shit?" I'm pretty interested in this tbh.

 

[John Reynolds]

What's truly sad and unbecoming John, is a moderator who is blinded to his own hypocricy, who then uses his "power" to delete posts of others that "offend him", and at the same time refuses to apologize for his own offenses.

(On that note, it's time I uninstalled this Alexa toolbar, BTW).

But go ahead...keep telling the world that Bush is a "Fundie Christian Neo-Con" if that's what helps you sleep at night.

You don't think marriage between a man and a woman is a concept that the founding fathers believed in as a foundation for society? Irrespective of religion? I'll tell you what, I would guess that it was, but I don't really know.

And you know what? Neither do you. So give that anti-Christian crusade of yours a rest, and try and at least Criticize Bush based on what he SAYS, rather than lumping him in with the other idiots at your workplace.

And speaking of hypocrites, who was the first to start talking down to someone in this thread? Instead of asking what I was getting at by quoting the Treaty of Tripoli you get cute with the cake bit. Speaking of hypocrites, you repeatedly insult me and when you're finally able to twist something that clearly was not intended as an insult into one, you launch into a very immature tirade that I told you I'd delete (and had to delete, what, 6-7 times?). I have no problems with you, or anyone disagreeing with me (how many names have I been called by Vince without dropping to his level?), but the personal attacks I've consistently maintained do not belong. Oh, I use ad hominem attacks, some so far stretched they're obviously intended as sarcasm, yet you think knee-jerk insults directed at other board members appropriate and fair. Guess what, not in my book. Public figures, especially political ones, are often fair game in press and water cooler-side discussions, and the same goes here. Turning around because someone says something negative, even in jest, about your preferred political figure or party does not grant you the right to talk down to or insult the person. Because I'm affiliated with this site also does not mean I have to take it. I have for weeks and I've also repeatedly warned certain people that their behavior will change or else. Fair warning?

And I'm hardly anti-Christian as a Christian myself. I'm anti-fundamentalism, period.

 

[Tagrineth]

A related side story was that I got to listen to my work fundie launch into another shrill diatribe about how God would unleash His wrath upon America if we let the faggots marry. Ahhh, the love of the Lord Jesus just flowed within his words.

Amusing: Tell him it's already happened, and that you're still patiently waiting for said wrath.