ssj12 said: if you want either of them you are insane and should go burn all your video game now.

Clearly, since we all know that those who disagree with you politically are insane.

Honestly, who cares if the founding fathers intended the seperation of church and state or not? The constitution has been amended several times, so there's obviously room to improve on the original document.

Church and state should be seperated because it's a Good Idea, and pretty damn important for a free society. You can't have a state religion without diminishing freedom of religion. Whether or not the founding fathers realized this is purely academic.

I think this has been spinned pretty badly.

I agree with the bill of defineing marriage as it literally means bond (can't think of better word at the moment) between man and a woman.

outlawauron said: I think this has been spinned pretty badly. I agree with the bill of defineing marriage as it literally means bond (can't think of better word at the moment) between man and a woman.

 I disagree with it. I have plenty of lesbian friends that love eachother. Saying they cant have a bond between eachother is wrong. Hopefully it DOESNT pass as it goes against the morals this country was founded on mainly FREEDOM. 

I'm pulling for Huckabee or Romney because Democrats will have a hard time with McCain or Guillani.  Well, McCain anyway because Rudy is out of it.

Final-fan, you're a fool, and you need to quit taking things out of context. Nobody is trying to "break down" the wall of separation. They are only trying to put the wall back where it has always belonged.

Constitutional separation of church and state has nothing to do with supporting the concept of faithsets and everything to do with supporting one specific faithset over another. The Founding Fathers were very open about their personal beliefs, and they were very clear on how that affected their actions. I sincerely doubt that would have been the case if they wanted the government and religion to have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

And I guess everybody that supported the twenty-seven previous Constitutional amendments had "unconstitutional goals" too, then.

thetonestarr said: Final-fan, you're a fool, and you need to quit taking things out of context. Nobody is trying to "break down" the wall of separation. They are only trying to put the wall back where it has always belonged. Constitutional separation of church and state has nothing to do with supporting the concept of faithsets and everything to do with supporting one specific faithset over another. The Founding Fathers were very open about their personal beliefs, and they were very clear on how that affected their actions. I sincerely doubt that would have been the case if they wanted the government and religion to have absolutely nothing to do with each other. And I guess everybody that supported the twenty-seven previous Constitutional amendments had "unconstitutional goals" too, then.

Yeah. The faithset of the Bible. Being supported specifically and given preference over others.

Constitutional separation of church and state has nothing to do with supporting the concept of faithsets and everything to do with supporting one specific faithset over another.
What the fuck do you think "change the Constitution to be in line with the Bible" means?

Nobody is attacking "the concept of faithsets" but the constitutional separation of church and state guards against state endorsement of ANY religion, which includes endorsing the Bible. How can you not grasp that? I suppose arguments might be made on either side for the endorsement of religion in general, but Huckabee is proposing something much, much more specific.

As for your "sincere doubts":

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to J. Moor, 1800).

So yes, I think he wanted the two as far away as reasonably possible for two entities administering (or ministering to) the same population. And I think many of the others felt the same way.

If you actually think I was trying to say that all proposed constitutional amendments are/were bad, then you are the fool. I was only trying to preemptively point out to any morons thinking he's not trying to do anything contrary to the Constitution that he must be if he wants to amend it.

The claim that I am taking things "out of context" is hilarious. I quoted about a third of that entire letter. Here's the rest. What did I take out of context? What is the proper context?

Or perhaps you meant that Huckabee was taken out of context. When a man says that the Constitution should be changed to include more stuff from the Bible, is it really "out of context" to suggest that maybe that would put a fucking stop to any "wall of separation between church and state"? How separate can they be if the Constitution gets its marching orders from the Bible? What kind of context do you claim exists that would allow the Bible to get put into the Constitution and yet not violate "separation of church and state"?

How do they know which parts of the Bible to go by? The bloody Old Testament stuff, the REALLY bloody Old Testament stuff, the bloody New Testament stuff, or the nice New Testament stuff? Oh, oh, I know! Let's ask an expert! Who are the experts? Priests! Oh wait...

In all seriousness, as the article points out, Biblical law obviously isn't so clear that people don't disagree on its interpretation.  Priests versus reverends versus lawyers. 

But all of that, while valid criticism, is secondary to the larger objection that I initially stated:  favoring the Bible is in and of itself favoring specific religions over others.  

Did I say I was defending Huckabee? Again, you're proving that you're a fool and taking things entirely out of context.

Good job. You just wasted a half-hour of your time typing up a whole mess of nonsense to prove a point that nobody gives a shit about.

Pay better attention next time, kid.

Then what the hell are you even talking about?

Huckabee is the only person I've talked about, aside from a single sentence directed at Ron Paul, so I don't think it's "foolish" to presume that when you accused me of falsely accusing "them" of things, you referred to something I said of Huckabee. If you meant Ron Paul you should have specified, since I only mentioned him once, in passing.

Talk plainly next time, "kid".

But I suppose I am being a little foolish in wasting my time on you.

ssj12 said: outlawauron said: I think this has been spinned pretty badly. I agree with the bill of defineing marriage as it literally means bond (can't think of better word at the moment) between man and a woman. I disagree with it. I have plenty of lesbian friends that love eachother. Saying they cant have a bond between eachother is wrong. Hopefully it DOESNT pass as it goes against the morals this country was founded on mainly FREEDOM.

You have a common misunderstanding of this issue.  Anyone can marry anyone else or multiple someone elses or have any other arrangement they want.  There is no law that says or ever will say someone can't have whatever arrangement they want in a relationship, so long as it is between consenting adults. 

The real issue is whether the government recognizes this arrangement as a legal status, thus giving certain legal rights.  The argument is over whether the government should extend these legal rights to same-sex marriage, not whether to outlaw someone going to a new age church and having a same-sex marriage performed.