Marriage, Government, and Religion In Our Time...

[Bob]

Marriage has always been defined by government even though it has always been a religious ceremony.

And this is for good reason. Religion DOES NOT need government. Government needs religion. As such religion doesn't need protection from government, but government does need protection, from time to time, from religion.

Thus our wise Founders, who were mostly all devoutly religious, wanted to be sure that the FEDERAL government, not states, but the FEDERAL government did not pick one religion over another and ESTABLISH it as THE national religion above all others.

Of course they were only thinking about Christian denominations being so chosen, and only about Protestant denominations. The very idea that other religions had any protection of any sort was considered absurd, or that even Catholics were deserving of any protection, by states or the federal government. In the colonies and early states nobody but Protestants could even run for office, or vote.

In any case this was all to be left to the states, and if a state wanted to ESTABLISH a denomination of Protestantism as its state religion then that was fine and many states did so. They were only concerned that the new FEDERAL government should be prevented from ESTABLISHING some particular Protestant denomination as the official national religion. Or that the FEDERAL government would legislate for or against the freedom of the various Protestant denominations to freely worship.

It was a million miles from the Founders thoughts that Moslems, Jews, or even Catholics were involved one way or another as far a the FEDERAL government was concerned.

They just wanted to be sure that the Anglican Church of Virginia or the Puritan Church of New England did not get the FEDERAL government to give it a preferential place NATIONALLY. That is what the entire concern was about. There is not one word in the Constitution about separation of Chruch and State.

Now as to marriage it was the exclusive province of the states, and no one could be married in these states unless they were married in a Church, and certainly no one in their wildest insane imaginations could ever have imagined any such thing as Gay marriage. The very idea of a Federal Judge sticking his long nose into the subject of marriage would have been unimaginable. It is not that there were not Gays. There have been Gays since at least the Garden of Eden. Satan was likely Gay, or at least bisexual, and probably had sex with both Eve AND Adam, producing Cain in the process. I don't know as I wasn't there but it seems reasonable.

The whole idea behind Gay marriage is MONEY. It is all about MONEY and POWER.

If Gays get married they will get LOTS OF MONEY from the rest of us, and be able to go overseas and "marry" some man and bring him back home as a "bride" and then be able to bring in his whole family and so and and so forth. This is a scam and a sham involving money, money and money. These "couples" will be in line to get hundreds of subsidies and other breaks that currently go only to married people.

THE COST OF THESE BENFITS MAY COME CLOSE TO BANKFUPTING US FINANCIALLY, NOT TO SPEAK OF BANKRUPTING US IN A DOZEN OTHER WAYS. IT IS NOTHING LESS THAN A COUP BY A SMALL ORGANIZED GROUP TO TAKE OVER THE NATION.

[PatrickHenry]

Any sources for your allegations, Bob?
The subtitle of this place is not "heated opinions", it is "heated debate..."

[Bob]

The Sources Of My Allegations

My source is my brain, what is your source, somebody else's brain? Likely that is the case, which is why I suffer so much envy. Everyone wants to be like me, but don't have the right stuff, and so they constantly wail, "What is your source?" Books with footnotes do not sell well, and wouldn't sell at all if students were not forced to buy them by stupid professors for stupid classes. Only these mindless geek instructors want each other to provide SOURCES to each other. Nobody else gives a damn.

[RickSp]

If Gays get married they will get LOTS OF MONEY from the rest of us, and be able to go overseas and "marry" some man and bring him back home as a "bride" and then be able to bring in his whole family and so and and so forth. This is a scam and a sham involving money, money and money. These "couples" will be in line to get hundreds of subsidies and other breaks that currently go only to married people. THE COST OF THESE BENFITS MAY COME CLOSE TO BANKFUPTING US FINANCIALLY, NOT TO SPEAK OF BANKRUPTING US IN A DOZEN OTHER WAYS. IT IS NOTHING LESS THAN A COUP BY A SMALL ORGANIZED GROUP TO TAKE OVER THE NATION.

Get a grip Bob. Gay folks are 3-5% of the population. Your grand conspiracy theories are simply bizarre and at the very least arthimatically unlikely. If the Fundamentalists haven't manged to take over the country, I doubt that gay folks have much of a chance.

[Section 8]

Marriage has always been defined by government even though it has always been a religious ceremony.

Really? I don't suppose you might have any sources to support that claim.

And this is for good reason. Religion DOES NOT need government. Government needs religion. As such religion doesn't need protection from government, but government does need protection, from time to time, from religion.

Incorrect, government and religion are mutually exclusive, and when the two are combined, the results are extremely volatile. How does government need protection from religion? Once again, sources.

Thus our wise Founders, who were mostly all devoutly religious, wanted to be sure that the FEDERAL government, not states, but the FEDERAL government did not pick one religion over another and ESTABLISH it as THE national religion above all others.

First of all, not all of them were, including some of the most influencial ones such as Thomas Payne, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. Also, they recognized that the government (states too) can't promote a certain religion.

Of course they were only thinking about Christian denominations being so chosen, and only about Protestant denominations. The very idea that other religions had any protection of any sort was considered absurd, or that even Catholics were deserving of any protection, by states or the federal government. In the colonies and early states nobody but Protestants could even run for office, or vote.

Well, I don't know what they were thinking, and I'm sure that you don't either. The consitution doesn't say that only Christians have the right to practice religion freely without government interference, it says ALL religions, which includes Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc.

In any case this was all to be left to the states, and if a state wanted to ESTABLISH a denomination of Protestantism as its state religion then that was fine and many states did so. They were only concerned that the new FEDERAL government should be prevented from ESTABLISHING some particular Protestant denomination as the official national religion. Or that the FEDERAL government would legislate for or against the freedom of the various Protestant denominations to freely worship.

It says government, federal otherwise. Your claims are without sources, and thus without substance.

Now as to marriage it was the exclusive province of the states, and no one could be married in these states unless they were married in a Church, and certainly no one in their wildest insane imaginations could ever have imagined any such thing as Gay marriage. The very idea of a Federal Judge sticking his long nose into the subject of marriage would have been unimaginable. It is not that there were not Gays. There have been Gays since at least the Garden of Eden. Satan was likely Gay, or at least bisexual, and probably had sex with both Eve AND Adam, producing Cain in the process. I don't know as I wasn't there but it seems reasonable.

There should be no government involved in marriage, and it should be up to whomever conducts the ceremony and the participants.

If Gays get married they will get LOTS OF MONEY from the rest of us, and be able to go overseas and "marry" some man and bring him back home as a "bride" and then be able to bring in his whole family and so and and so forth. This is a scam and a sham involving money, money and money. These "couples" will be in line to get hundreds of subsidies and other breaks that currently go only to married people. THE COST OF THESE BENFITS MAY COME CLOSE TO BANKFUPTING US FINANCIALLY, NOT TO SPEAK OF BANKRUPTING US IN A DOZEN OTHER WAYS. IT IS NOTHING LESS THAN A COUP BY A SMALL ORGANIZED GROUP TO TAKE OVER THE NATION.

Whoa, any sources for these wild allegations. The truth is, that it wouldn't cost us more than letting heterosexual couples marry. I don't agree with the government handing out any subsidies, tax breaks, etc. to any married couple, so in a way, I agree with you. Also, I suggest you take into account the fact that we're not a democracy. Even if the smallest minority is being denied their rights (in this case the pursuit of happiness) they are allowed to fight back no matter the size of the opposition.

[m5lange1]

PH Any sources for your allegations, Bob? The subtitle of this place is not "heated opinions", it is "heated debate..."

AKKKK PH. Don't ask Bob for sources.

Here are some of his responses to my request for sources in response to some outright LIES he was telling on the "What is Terror anyway" thread.

Bob It's Hard To Argue With A Snake... This forum is not a court of law. Therefore, rules of evidence are not in place. We are not conducting trials here. Here we are discussing and debating ideas, and that is all. To constantly ask for evidence is inappropriate, and silly and inutile.

Bob (regarding requests for sources) It is a device of those who cannot deal with the ideas being presented by counter argument, and instead scream for evidence, like any evidence in any amount would ever please them. They want no evidence they just want their way.

But the one he gave here is probably even better.

Bob The Sources Of My Allegations My source is my brain, what is your source, somebody else's brain? Likely that is the case, which is why I suffer so much envy. Everyone wants to be like me, but don't have the right stuff, and so they constantly wail, "What is your source?" Books with footnotes do not sell well, and wouldn't sell at all if students were not forced to buy them by stupid professors for stupid classes. Only these mindless geek instructors want each other to provide SOURCES to each other. Nobody else gives a damn.

His source is his brain.

So if he thinks it.... it has to be true. :rolleyes:

Bob Everyone wants to be like me, but don't have the right stuff, and so they constantly wail, "What is your source?"

This poor guy is in serious need of some reality.

You should really read that post. He is totally ignorant of the constutution, much less the founding fathers and what their intentions were.
He is probably not even aware that "freedom of religion" was addressed.

Remember, his source is his Brain so he sort of IS the founding father. Whatever he says is the way it was.

[PatrickHenry]

Bob, you have been reported for the troll you are. I warned you before in the Butterface thread. You got away with your cavalier treatment of the member of volconvo there.but out here in the open you are REQUIRED

[PatrickHenry]

Bob, you have been reported for the troll I believe you to be. I warned you before in the Butterface thread. You got away with your cavalier treatment of the members of volconvo there. But out here in the open you are REQUIRED to follow the etiquette. Your politics are objectionable to me, true. But I don't threaten my debate opponents for having opposing views. You however, have showed your lack of respect for this board and won't be with us much longer, IMHO. You need to reform and comply with the rulez.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Bob, The Sources Of My Allegations My source is my brain, what is your source, somebody else's brain? Likely that is the case, which is why I suffer so much envy. Everyone wants to be like me, but don't have the right stuff, and so they constantly wail, "What is your source?" Books with footnotes do not sell well, and wouldn't sell at all if students were not forced to buy them by stupid professors for stupid classes. Only these mindless geek instructors want each other to provide SOURCES to each other. Nobody else gives a damn.

Read the etiquette before you post again.

[PA28 Pilot]

Patrick Henry, you seem to be of the opinion that your opinion is the only valid opinion. You don't like Bob's ideas so you want to shut him down. Is that your idea of debate?

Bob may be wrong on a lot of things, but he has the right to say what he wants to.

[bishop]

THE COST OF THESE BENFITS MAY COME CLOSE TO BANKFUPTING US FINANCIALLY, NOT TO SPEAK OF BANKRUPTING US IN A DOZEN OTHER WAYS. IT IS NOTHING LESS THAN A COUP BY A SMALL ORGANIZED GROUP TO TAKE OVER THE NATION.

cheers to bob for the most ignorant post of the week.

talking about people taking over the nation.. how about all those illegal immigrants, who steam into our country illegally - who bush wants to grant anmesty to? how about the billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars that he's given to other countries like columbia, israel, egypt, etc.?

you say that your source is your brain... heh, that definitely says a lot..

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: PA28 Pilot Patrick Henry, you seem to be of the opinion that your opinion is the only valid opinion. You don't like Bob's ideas so you want to shut him down. Is that your idea of debate? Bob may be wrong on a lot of things, but he has the right to say what he wants to.

Sorry if you are offended by my comments to Bob(banned member), PA28 Pilot. I am regarded here as polite by most folks. At least I hope so, for I try to be. I don't understand how you have concluded those things about me from on day on this board, but maybe you will change your mind if you keep coming here.

You had to know Bob to understand how profoundly he violated the rules at Volconvo. His opinions were execrable, true. But I have no problem debating opponents whose views are detestable. However, Bob would not conform to the few simple things the administrator asks of us to keep it civil here. Yes, Bob has the right to say what he wants, but it is Sean's board, and ultimately he is the one who says who must be silent. In a sense, what I was doing was giving Bob some friendly advice which could have helped him remain a member here. He wasn't listening.

Does that explain my behavior to you?

[belverron]

I just wanted to say that though I agree with Section 8's opinion for the most part, the states were not, by my understanding, bound by the first amendment or others prior to the fourteenth amendment.

[tinybear]

Is Bob still banned?