RunRyder RC
WATCH
 4 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3      4     NEXT    >> ] 2414 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Marriage
06-01-2012 07:48 PM  6 years agoPost 21
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Satan will aleviate you for fine some cultivating, "and if you don't mind
i can't be you show time,for your soul is desolving faster than
snow ball passing trough hell; 'yike"
Five dollars to anyone who can translate this for me........

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 08:12 PM  6 years agoPost 22
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Without
The Holy Spirit CB :

It would be Impossible For You to Understand anyway : Sorry

$5.00 Wouldn't cover it - The price Was already paid -In Advance

Without the Spirit it is Fruitless :

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 08:14 PM  6 years agoPost 23
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

SSN Pru
What harm is it to you if someone marries a snake or some other object? I'm neither condonding this behavior or condeming it. Just asking the question - what harm is it to you?
Doesn't mean do wa diddley to me if somebody marries their big toe.

Our laws insist equal to all without discrimination (exceptions being AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and the 6 for 1 voting decision).

That being said, our stupid tax laws are so goofy, it is impossible to make everything exactly equal for everybody.

I think it would be very easy to cure this nonsense about taxes concerning married versus unmarried versus non traditional unions. Simply stop any benefits to married/unmarried/non traditional unions. Allow deductions for each HUMAN period. NO deductions for non humans.

It would only take a congress with half a brain to solve this. Unfortunely for us, we have stuck with a congress that collectively has less than half a brain.

It's stupid that the American people have to put up with simple crap like this.

Bizare decisions have been for the sake of equality. Example: little school children were bussed across large cities to fulfill desegregation requirements. Without ANY thought about what would happen next, white flight occurred leaving the inner cities to crumble...look at Baltimore.

But changing this tax law is not as complicated as desegregation and would have virtually no impact on anybody.

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 08:27 PM  6 years agoPost 24
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I think it would be very easy to cure this nonsense about taxes concerning married versus unmarried versus non traditional unions. Simply stop any benefits to married/unmarried/non traditional unions. Allow deductions for each HUMAN period. NO deductions for non humans.
See.....we can agree on something!

"Hell DilbertE......I like you...You can come over to my house and **** my sister"

(Before somebody gets their panties in a bunch....its a quote from Full Metal Jacket...)

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 08:44 PM  6 years agoPost 25
pctomlin

rrVeteran

Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Why is it that we itemize and dissect the constitution with all of the quotes and clauses that benefit our causes.....but ignore the ones that dont....i.e. Separation of Church and State
Hey CB, show me in the Constitution where this is stated. I believe you need to do a little research on this. Start by googling the Danbury Baptist Association and go from there. The "modern" court has perverted the intent of the letter written in reply.

How much more are we willing to accept and compromise on?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 09:24 PM  6 years agoPost 26
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hey CB, show me in the Constitution where this is stated. I believe you need to do a little research on this. Start by googling the Danbury Baptist Association and go from there. The "modern" court has perverted the intent of the letter written in reply.
How much more are we willing to accept and compromise on?
I dunno....seems fairly clear to me....

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state" ) is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 10:00 PM  6 years agoPost 27
pctomlin

rrVeteran

Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hey CB,
Great Wikipedia answer. The website that anyone can write revisionist history to and represent as the truth. Go back to the original writings and see what they really say.

The original question posed by the Danbury Baptist Association was about whether the Federal government would ever consider the establishment of a national religion similar the Europe's Church of England and Catholic state practices.

Jefferson's reply letter:

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

So where in this letter did we get the perversion we have now? The reply clearly says that a separation of State from Church will always exist in America by the non-establishment of a state religion. It nowhere says that Church will be separated from State, or who you are and what you believe and the defining principles of the State. You can't put the state into the church, but you can put church into the state. This liberal perversion of 'church and state' from Jefferson's letter is one of the problems of why we are where we are now.

Back to the original question, where in the US constitution does it state that there will exist a separation of Church and State?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 10:09 PM  6 years agoPost 28
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here it is....the first amendment....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Religious wacko's can interpret this in many ways but it clearly says that congress will make no law respecting the establishment of religion.....ANY RELIGION or NON-RELIGION. No part of the "State" shall endorse or require religion. I'm sorry you dont interpret it this way but the Supreme Court has...several times and they are alot smarter than either you or I.

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 10:18 PM  6 years agoPost 29
es1co2bar3

rrKey Veteran

winnetka california

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

RELIGION or NON-RELIGION. No part of the "State" shall endorse or require religion.
Dude you 're seriously a snub,your butt must be in pain from
all those batty secession. I recomend {tramodal} for ya
it is stonger than ibuprofen. Try that'
dont take out your batty pain on us here.

I was waiting on some honey but there aren't no Queen bee,

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 10:25 PM  6 years agoPost 30
pctomlin

rrVeteran

Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
So where in that sentence does it say that there shall be a separation of "church and state" as it is being played out today. Where in Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptist Association does today's interpretation come from. I would like to know since you are so much smarter than me.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 10:30 PM  6 years agoPost 31
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I dont think I ever said I was smarter than you.....I dont even know you. What I said was the Supreme Court.....who has interpreted this very short sentence to mean what it does....is smarter than both of us....

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 10:34 PM  6 years agoPost 32
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Dude you 're seriously a snub,your butt must be in pain from
all those batty secession. I recomend {tramodal} for ya
it is stonger than ibuprofen. Try that'
dont take out your batty pain on us here.
Awwee sweetie....I know you crave attention from me but I'm just not up to it today. I'll try to pay some attention to you another time. You have fun....I'm sure you'll find someone who will listen to you....

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 10:37 PM  6 years agoPost 33
pctomlin

rrVeteran

Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I don't know that they are smarter than both of us. If that was the case it would not be such a big deal who the President is and what his political leanings are when a new justice comes up for nomination. This is how you try to influence your political agenda for many years to come, through the Supreme Court.

Separation of church and state is something interpreted without taking into account the historical context of the letters. The Constitution says the government will not establish a state religion. Trying to separate "church and state" is trying to separate us from our founding principles. Why did the people on the Mayflower come over here in the first place?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 11:04 PM  6 years agoPost 34
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Separation of church and state is something interpreted without taking into account the historical context of the letters. The Constitution says the government will not establish a state religion. Trying to separate "church and state" is trying to separate us from our founding principles. Why did the people on the Mayflower come over here in the first place?
The Mayflower transported several entities....Mostly English and Dutch Separatists, Folks fleeing religious persecution, and some adventurers called "The Strangers".

Again....the "founding principals" are your interpretation vs someone elses.....nearly all of the founding fathers owned slaves, is this part of our "founding principals"?

The Second Amendment wording is crystal clear in the minds in the minds of it's supporters (of which I am one).....It's interpretation as the establishment of a well REGULATED militia is also crystal clear in the minds of the anti-gun people.....

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 11:34 PM  6 years agoPost 35
pctomlin

rrVeteran

Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

.....nearly all of the founding fathers owned slaves, is this part of our "founding principals"?
Yes it was, historically at that point in time this was an accepted practice, a social norm and had been for thousands of years previously. But go back to the original writings on this and you will see a divide about slavery too, an awakening based on the founding principles if you will. Why do you think we had the 3/5 compromise in the Articles of Confederation in 1783. This was the shot across the bow to end slavery in this country. It took a civil war to finally put an end to it.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 11:40 PM  6 years agoPost 36
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Yes it was, historically at that point in time this was an accepted practice, a social norm and had been for thousands of years previously. But go back to the original writings on this and you will see a divide about slavery too, an awakening based on the founding principles if you will. Why do you think we had the 3/5 compromise in the Articles of Confederation in 1783. This was the shot across the bow to end slavery in this country. It took a civil war to finally put an end to it.
And, over 500,000 Americans died in that civil war.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 11:41 PM  6 years agoPost 37
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

OK....so this has been a fun discussion regarding the constitution and it's interpretations however......
Why does the government need to be involved in marriage? It's a simple question.

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-01-2012 11:56 PM  6 years agoPost 38
es1co2bar3

rrKey Veteran

winnetka california

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Awwee sweetie....
Go somewhere you little batty boi, dont adress me as no dam sweetie
my sweetie is at work
"you bright and out of order, 'dude i dont digg and i dont get digg.
you just storm up into a national podium trying to invoke our policy
on the ryder here; "you are a free man free to make any decision in your life,.."but" you need to understand that you did not fall from the sky in to your mother womb,
someone created your nasty 'butt talking about you gay's
desrespecting your maker and how he want you to live.

I was waiting on some honey but there aren't no Queen bee,

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-02-2012 12:18 AM  6 years agoPost 39
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Why does the government need to be involved in marriage? It's a simple question.
The states need to be because tax, estate and insurance laws are tied into marriage. Thats the way it is.

The fed government needs only one law concerning marriage. They already have that. It denies marriage as between one man and one woman.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-02-2012 12:19 AM  6 years agoPost 40
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Go somewhere you little batty boi, dont adress me as no dam sweetie
I see sweetie has his panties in a wad again.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 4 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3      4     NEXT    >> ] 2414 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Marriage
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 6  Topic Subscribe

Monday, September 24 - 10:20 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

The RC discussion world needs to consolidate. RR is now one choice for that. Its software is cutting edge. It hosts on-topic advertising. Help RR increase traffic buy making suggestions, posting in RR's new areas (sites) and by spreading the word.

The RunRyder Difference

• Category system to allow Rep/Vendor postings.
• Classifieds with sold (hidden) category.
• Classifieds with separate view new.
• Answer PMs offsite via email reply.
• Member gallery photos with advanced scripting.
• Gallery photo viewer integrated into postings.
• Highly refined search with advanced back end.
• Hosts its own high end fast response servers.
• Hosts thousands of HD event coverage videos.
• Rewrote entire code base with latest technology.
• No off-topic (annoying) click bait advertising.
Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online