The U.S. Constitution

[MC Just]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 02:52 PM'] More like all you crazy religious nutz will kill each other off, and atheist will inherit the earth [/quote]
lol.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 11:39 AM']Funny you mention Jefferson , who was a deist and certainly did not believe in the bible. As far as America being founded as a christian nation, you need only look to the Treaty of Tripoli ,authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
[/quote]
I like the emotive verbage in this account. Stuff like, "...proudly proclaimed it to the Nation..."

It's amazing that the Treaty of Tripoli is so often used as proof for the atheistic position. This "treaty" amounted to a blackmail payment made to placate Muslim pirates who regularly enslaved Christians. Let's see the details. [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=26234"]See this thread for more info (link).[/url] Quoting the thread:
[quote name='Mateo el Feo']I think the context of these words (i.e. Article 11) in the Treaty of Tripoli is interesting. For example, check out "Article 10":
[quote]The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.[/quote]
The US's commercial ships were threatened by pirates. The British Navy stopped protecting American ships after the Revolutionary War--go figure! The new federal government had little money. It couldn't build a Navy. So, they paid the Muslim pirates off-- specifically, the dey (ruler) of the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis--so that his ships (aka pirates) wouldn't attack American ships.

The bribe lasted for less than five years before the dey resumed his attacks on Americans. The Wikipedia has some articles on the US's wars against the Barbary states.

I think that the wording of the treaty (i.e. disavowing a foundation upon Christianity) may have something to do with the fact that the Barbary states regularly enslaved Christians who were captured. I suspect that the Americans didn't want to provide their merchant sailors to the Barbary states as a new source of slaves. It was conciliatory language, used in an attempt to further placate a hostile power who clearly had the upper hand.

A side note: for about twenty years after this treaty was written, the dey continued the practice of enslaving Christians. He had a change of heart in 1816, when the a British and Dutch fleet bombarded Algiers for nine hours.[/quote]

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 3 2005, 02:54 PM'] I like the emotive verbage in this account. Stuff like, "...proudly proclaimed it to the Nation..."

It's amazing that the Treaty of Tripoli is so often used as proof for the atheistic position. This "treaty" amounted to a blackmail payment made to placate Muslim pirates who regularly enslaved Christians. Let's see the details. [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=26234"]See this thread for more info (link).[/url] Quoting the thread:

The US's commercial ships were threatened by pirates. The British Navy stopped protecting American ships after the Revolutionary War--go figure! The new federal government had little money. It couldn't build a Navy. So, they paid the Muslim pirates off-- specifically, the dey (ruler) of the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis--so that his ships (aka pirates) wouldn't attack American ships.

The bribe lasted for less than five years before the dey resumed his attacks on Americans. The Wikipedia has some articles on the US's wars against the Barbary states.

I think that the wording of the treaty (i.e. disavowing a foundation upon Christianity) may have something to do with the fact that the Barbary states regularly enslaved Christians who were captured. I suspect that the Americans didn't want to provide their merchant sailors to the Barbary states as a new source of slaves. It was conciliatory language, used in an attempt to further placate a hostile power who clearly had the upper hand.

A side note: for about twenty years after this treaty was written, the dey continued the practice of enslaving Christians. He had a change of heart in 1816, when the a British and Dutch fleet bombarded Algiers for nine hours.[/QUOTE] [/quote]
Very predictable that you would not want acknowledge a national document , signed by the president at the time. All you have is mere speculation because the facts are on my side. But if you wish, continue to speculate as much as you want.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote]We need only look to history or to modern day theocracies to see the ills of governing a society using religion.[/quote]
This does not prove that religion cannot be a part of government. You attempt to discredit one position that religious viewpoints can be considered with the extreme that not only must religious viewpoints be considered, they are the only positions that can be considered. You've beaten this straw man to death enough times already.

[quote]In regards to murder. It has been wrong long before the 10 commandments have been around. If you need the 10 commandments to show you that murder is wrong, than you have serious problems.[/quote]
So you propose that we don't need the ten commandments? What about governmental laws on murder? Anyone who needs those to know murder is wrong must have something seriously wrong with them. I guess we don't need them either.

[quote]We know things to be wrong often by the fact that they harm people.[/quote]
Do we? In other species harming other animals of the same species is an inherent part of survival. Abortion harms people too (the babies who move away from the abortion instruments). But we'll save that debate for another thread. This notion of harming people as a matter of moral judgement is unfounded. Prove that "harming people" is a necessary and sufficient condition of "wrong" and that things that not "harming people" is a necessary and sufficient condition to make something not "wrong."

[quote]The fact is, that there isnt a good reason why homosexuals should not be able to be in a relationship, engage in sex in a free society.[/quote]
I never said that they shouldn't be in a relationship. You still haven't given a good reason why the should be MARRIED.

[quote]All of your reasons are purely religious. Because your myth regards it as an abomination.[/quote]
How do you know that? In fact, I haven't even given you a single reason why it's wrong. How about that I believe that, at least on a low level, that marriage is an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in which all property becomes shared. I didn't even mention God in that. I did mention man and woman and I don't believe that is a trivial point in my brief and incomplete characterization of marriage.

[quote]Luckily, society has advanced to recognize that indivuals should be afforded equal rights, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.[/quote]
Any man can marry any woman who isn't closely related or already married and any woman can marry any man who isn't closely related or already married. That goes for anyone of any race, religion, or sexual orientation. What you're asking for is a new right to be given to everyone whereas I believe that right should not be given to anyone. The government has the right to keep the people from having certain rights as long as it applies that to everyone consistently.

[quote]In your society, homosexuals who engage in sex would be carted off to prison and serve time with killers and such. Welcome to New Saudi Arabia.[/quote]
I don't care if they're having gay sex. Frankly, I'll let God be the judge of them.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 03:52 PM'] More like all you crazy religious nutz will kill each other off, and atheist will inherit the earth [/quote]
Crazy religious people reproduce. Atheists don't. Darwin's natural selection can work!

[Socrates]

Mel, people might take you more seriously if you'd actually address the arguments made on this thread, rather than just rant.

No one's arguing that homosexuals must be killed or shipped off to prison camp.
Read back over my earlier posts on this thread.

All I'm saying is that the Federal Government has no constitutional power to force the states to accept "gay marriage" and that homosexual activity is not a constitutional right.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Socrates

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jun 3 2005, 03:02 PM'] Any man can marry any woman who isn't closely related or already married and any woman can marry any man who isn't closely related or already married.  That goes for anyone of any race, religion, or sexual orientation.  What you're asking for is a new right to be given to everyone whereas I believe that right should not be given to anyone.  The government has the right to keep the people from having certain rights as long as it applies that to everyone consistently.

[/quote]
Ok, well the problem I see with this is that it seems to imply that gay marriage is a separate institution from marriage. We know from Brown v. Board of Education that separate is not equal.

From Merriam Webster we get this entry for marriage:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

So we have to specifically define marriage as "between persons of the opposite sex" if your argument is going to work. I'm not sure that definition isn't as modern as the idea of gays getting married


Edit: Sorry, PM somehow took half of my post and put it in as a quote from you....weird...

Edited June 3, 2005 by KizlarAgha

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 3 2005, 03:11 PM'] Mel, people might take you more seriously if you'd actually address the arguments made on this thread, rather than just rant.

No one's arguing that homosexuals must be killed or shipped off to prison camp.
Read back over my earlier posts on this thread.

All I'm saying is that the Federal Government has no constitutional power to force the states to accept "gay marriage" and that homosexual activity is not a constitutional right. [/quote]
I still say that outlawing sexual activity definitely impinges on the "pursuit of happiness."

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 3 2005, 03:16 PM'] I still say that outlawing sexual activity definitely impinges on the "pursuit of happiness." [/quote]
Outlawing [b]absolutely anything whatsoever[/b] could be argued to impinge on "pursuit of happiness."

And, besides "pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution. That's from the Declaration of Independence.

All-round weak argument.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 04:00 PM'] Very predictable that you would not want acknowledge a national document , signed by the president at the time. All you have is mere speculation because the facts are on my side. But if you wish, continue to speculate as much as you want. [/quote]
I'm sorry if my post offended you. I provided a context for the statement you quoted. In particular, this "Treaty" involved a payoff to a maritime power that had a long history of enslavement of Christians.

A triumphal proclamation that "the facts are on your side" isn't persuasive. Let others decide what "the facts" of this Treaty mean.

[Melchisedec]

[quote]This does not prove that religion cannot be a part of government.  You attempt to discredit one position that religious viewpoints can be considered with the extreme that not only must religious viewpoints be considered, they are the only positions that can be considered.  You've beaten this straw man to death enough times already.[/quote]

The point is not to legislate based purely on religious views. Straw man, I dont see a straw man nearby.

[quote]
So you propose that we don't need the ten commandments?  What about governmental laws on murder?  Anyone who needs those to know murder is wrong must have something seriously wrong with them.  I guess we don't need them either.
[/quote]

Laws proposed by some sky daddy and laws created by human beings to govern society are two different things altogether. I believe in government and its laws. I dont believe in governing based off religious views.

[quote]
Do we?  In other species harming other animals of the same species is an inherent part of survival.  Abortion harms people too (the babies who move away from the abortion instruments).  But we'll save that debate for another thread.  This notion of harming people as a matter of moral judgement is unfounded.  Prove that "harming someone" is a necessary and sufficient condition of "wrong" and that things that not "harming someone" is a necessary and sufficient condition to make something not "wrong.[/quote]

Its simple. Do you want someone to take a knife and put it through your heart? Do you want someone to do the same to your mom? If you seek out most of what society deems wrong, you will often find an element which harms people.

[quote]

I never said that they shouldn't be in a relationship.  You still haven't given a good reason why the should be MARRIED.


How do you know that?  In fact, I haven't even given you a single reason why it's wrong.  How about that I believe that, at least on a low level, that marriage is an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in which all property becomes shared.  I didn't even mention God in that.  I did mention man and woman and I don't believe that is a trivial point in my brief and incomplete characterization of marriage.


Any man can marry any woman who isn't closely related or already married and any woman can marry any man who isn't closely related or already married.  That goes for anyone of any race, religion, or sexual orientation.  What you're asking for is a new right to be given to everyone whereas I believe that right should not be given to anyone.  The government has the right to keep the people from having certain rights as long as it applies that to everyone consistently.


I don't care if they're having gay sex.  Frankly, I'll let God be the judge of them.[/quote]

We are talking about GAY RIGHTS, not marriage specifcally. But the right to be gay and to live the lifestyle of a homosexual.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 3 2005, 03:14 PM'] So we have to specifically define marriage as "between persons of the opposite sex" if your argument is going to work. I'm not sure that definition isn't as modern as the idea of gays getting married
[/quote]
Marriage was [b]always[/b] defined as "between persons of the opposite sex" until "gay rights" activists, moved to institute "gay marriage" a few years ago.

Prior to a couple years ago, there were no "marriages" between people of the same sex. My old Merriam Webster dictionary (from the early nineties) defines marriage as between two people of the opposite sex, with no "same-sex" definition.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 3 2005, 03:14 PM'] Ok, well the problem I see with this is that it seems to imply that gay marriage is a separate institution from marriage. We know from Brown v. Board of Education that separate is not equal.

...

So we have to specifically define marriage as "between persons of the opposite sex" if your argument is going to work. I'm not sure that definition isn't as modern as the idea of gays getting married [/quote]
A straight man can marry a woman. A gay man can marry a woman.
A straight man can't marry a man. A gay man can't marry a man.
Where is there a violation of the 14th ammendment or the ruling in Brown v. BOE?

The definition of marriage only between a man and a woman may be new, but the idea certainly isn't. As the limits of what is right and wrong keeps getting tested, we have to continually define things.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 3 2005, 03:29 PM'] I'm sorry if my post offended you. I provided a context for the statement you quoted. In particular, this "Treaty" involved a payoff to a maritime power that had a long history of enslavement of Christians.

A triumphal proclamation that "the facts are on your side" isn't persuasive. Let others decide what "the facts" of this Treaty mean. [/quote]
Not offended at all. My statement denotes that this nation was not founded as a christian nation and is factually supported by a national document, endorsed by a president. While you speculate that the document was created out of blackmail and should be discarded. Which is an opinion, but not a fact.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote]The point is not to legislate based purely on religious views. Straw man, I dont see a straw man nearby.[/quote]
You don't see the straw man because by now there is no straw left in him after how many times I've seen the "such and such theocracy is bad therefore any religious involvement in government it bad." Secularists use this argument all the time and all the while the Christians have been patiently waiting on the playing field while you beat the straw man on the sidelines and raise your hands and scream VICTORY!

[quote]Laws proposed by some sky daddy and laws created by human beings to govern society are two different things altogether. I believe in government and its laws. I dont believe in governing based off religious views.[/quote]
What does what you believe have to do with anything? I can believe something else and by your reasons stated my beliefs are equally as valid as yours. Maybe not to you, but to a hypothetical objective point of view they would be.

[quote]Its simple. Do you want someone to take a knife and put it through your heart? Do you want someone to do the same to your mom? If you seek out most of what society deems wrong, you will often find an element which harms people.[/quote]
What if you hate your Mom? I guess it would be okay for someone to kill her. If I define right and wrong as what I would and wouldn't want then morality is based on a selfish point of view. "Want" is not a part of determining right and wrong. Also you didn't provide a necessary and sufficient condition. You've essentially said some A are B and some B are A where A is "things that are wrong" and B is "things that are harmful." It pretty much is a worthless in an argument because one can always argue that something that is in the wrong group is in the group that is not harmful or something in the harmful group is in the group that is not wrong. You need better criteria for determining what is wrong because the one you've listed is pretty much worthless in a logical argument.

[quote]We are talking about GAY RIGHTS, not marriage specifcally. But the right to be gay and to live the lifestyle of a homosexual.[/quote]
Where is it in the Constitution that laws must be passed to cater to everyone of every lifestyle? "Lifestyle" is not a protected status in the constitution and really the word is so vague that you should come up with a better definition of what gays are really after. I can define "working the night shift and sleeping during the day" as a lifestyle or "being Catholic" as a lifestyle.

Besides, gay people already have the rights that heterosexual people have. And by calling them gay rights you're really stigmitizing the group. We don't call civil rights "black rights" because by the fourteenth ammendment we all receive those rights. Homosexuals are asking for something that no one has the right to. The laws in America apply equally to everyone.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 3 2005, 03:25 PM'] Outlawing [b]absolutely anything whatsoever[/b] could be argued to impinge on "pursuit of happiness."

And, besides "pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution. That's from the Declaration of Independence.

All-round weak argument. [/quote]
Well it's a stronger argument in that the founders of the constitution believed in the philosophy that men have the right to life liberty and property.

[Melchisedec]

[quote]You don't see the straw man because by now there is no straw left in him after how many times I've seen the "such and such theocracy is bad therefore any religious involvement in government it bad."  Secularists use this argument all the time and all the while the Christians have been patiently waiting on the playing field while you beat the straw man on the sidelines and raise your hands and scream VICTORY![/quote]

You are just rambling at this point. I didn't say any religious involvement, I said creating legislation based off a particular scripture, religious text. Why shouldn't theocratic governments serve as an example against the very idea?

[quote]What does what you believe have to do with anything?  I can believe something else and by your reasons stated my beliefs are equally as valid as yours.  Maybe not to you, but to a hypothetical objective point of view they would be.[/quote]

It has everything to do with this particular issue. If homosexuals were seen in the same way as heterosexuals in Gods eyes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[quote]What if you hate your Mom?  I guess it would be okay for someone to kill her.  If I define right and wrong as what I would and wouldn't want then morality is based on a selfish point of view.  "Want" is not a part of determining right and wrong.  Also you didn't provide a necessary and sufficient condition.  You've essentially said some A are B and some B are A where A is "things that are wrong" and B is "things that are harmful."  It pretty much is a worthless in an argument because one can always argue that something that is in the wrong group is in the group that is not harmful or something in the harmful group is in the group that is not wrong.  You need better criteria for determining what is wrong because the one you've listed is pretty much worthless in a logical argument.[/quote]

I never said 'want' is a criteria for right and wrong. I said harm. If you harm your mother cause you don't like her, it doesn't make it right. She has as much right to live as you do. You say my argument is illogical. Yet your argument is, that my God tells me whats right and wrong, so my argument is nil. Very logical eh. This is just another rehash of the subjective vs objective morality debate. If you want to open up yet another debate on this , be my guest.


[quote]Where is it in the Constitution that laws must be passed to cater to everyone of every lifestyle?  "Lifestyle" is not a protected status in the constitution and really the word is so vague that you should come up with a better definition of what gays are really after.  I can define "working the night shift and sleeping during the day" as a lifestyle or "being Catholic" as a lifestyle.[/quote]

Lifestyle is your words. Being rich is a lifestyle. Being homosexual is an intrinsic part of who that person is.

[quote]Besides, gay people already have the rights that heterosexual people have.  And by calling them gay rights you're really stigmitizing the group.  We don't call civil rights "black rights" because by the fourteenth ammendment we all receive those rights.  Homosexuals are asking for something that no one has the right to.  The laws in America apply equally to everyone.[/quote]

You accuse me of straw men, but you continously puts words in my mouth just to blow them down. I never said gay rights. I said this thread is about whether gays should be afford rights. I say yes. Its part of their civil rights in a free society.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Melchisedec

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 04:28 PM']
You are just rambling at this point. I didn't say any religious involvement, I said creating legislation based off a particular scripture, religious text. Why shouldn't theocratic governments serve as an example against the very idea?



It has everything to do with this particular issue. If homosexuals were seen in the same way as heterosexuals in Gods eyes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.



I never said 'want' is a criteria for right and wrong. I said harm. If you harm your mother cause you don't like her, it doesn't make it right. She has as much right to live as you do. You say my argument is illogical. Yet your argument is, that my God tells me whats right and wrong, so my argument is nil. Very logical eh. This is just another rehash of the subjective vs objective morality debate. If you want to open up yet another debate on this , be my guest.




Lifestyle is your words. Being rich is a lifestyle. Being homosexual is an intrinsic part of who that person is.



You accuse me of straw men, but you continously puts words in my mouth just to blow them down. I never said gay rights. I said this thread is about whether gays should be afford rights. I say yes. Its part of their civil rights in a free society. [/quote]
Awww man...I agree with the atheist...

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote]You are just rambling at this point. I didn't say any religious involvement, I said creating legislation based off a particular scripture, religious text.  Why shouldn't theocratic governments serve as an example against the very idea?
[/quote]
Theocratic governments are one extreme of religious involvement in the government, far more so that what I want. Also, not everything in theocratic governments are totally evil. I'll drop talking about this issue unless brought up again.

[quote]It has everything to do with this particular issue. If homosexuals were seen in the same  way as heterosexuals in Gods eyes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.[/quote]
Indeed they are seen the same in God's eyes. However, we admonish homosexual behavior. Huge difference. We don't like homosexuality (a property of an individual). This does not translate to hatred of individuals who have that property.

[quote]I never said 'want' is a criteria for right and wrong. I said harm. If you harm your mother cause you don't like her, it doesn't make it right. She has as much right to live as you do.  You say my argument is illogical. Yet your argument is, that my God tells me whats right and wrong, so my argument is nil. Very logical eh. This is just another rehash of the subjective vs objective morality debate.  If you want to open up yet another debate on this , be my guest. [/quote]
Okay, I'll bust out an example to prove your 'harm' is a bad criterion for wrong. If I attack someone in self defense and harm them, have I done any wrong?

[quote]Lifestyle is your words.  Being rich is a lifestyle. Being homosexual is an intrinsic part of who that person is. 

You accuse me of straw men, but you continously puts words in my mouth just to blow them down. I never said gay rights.  I said this thread is about whether gays should be afford rights. I say yes. Its part of their civil rights in a free society.[/quote]

This last one is just too easy.

[quote name='Melchisedec on Jun 3 2005' date=' 03:29 PM']We are talking about GAY RIGHTS, not marriage specifcally. But the right to be gay and to live the lifestyle of a homosexual. [/quote]

I must be really good at putting words in your mouth then. I'm using my Catholic psychic superpowers.

[KizlarAgha]

Though I must say:

I would prefer a theocracy.