Seriously, if you all want to go to a country that is run by the church, feel free.

Go back in time a few months. It's the Taliban-run Afghanistan.

No it IS NOT a living breathing document. Explain how you could think that way.

We will most certainly not survive another 200 years with judicial abuse of the US and variuos state constitutions.

You just been whining that gay marriage getting legalized in that very world, didnt you? I am merely offering you alternative to escape that fate.

A living, breathing document is allowed to change from time to time when need warrents it.

A Non-living Constitution would have to be completely re-written to be amended.

Did you forget your 11th grade Government class?

Well, Vatican seem to be doing ok

You actually proved my point. I said it only breathes when amended.

In between the abuse by the judiciary cannot be considered "living" and "breathing".

By the way.......Afghanistan is a religious country AGAIN. We mistakenly allowed them to be an "Islamic State" with their new constitution.

You'll do well there, if you're a pedophile.

Now he's comparing Christianity to the Taliban. I've seen it all. This coming from someone who supposedly a Christian himself. Jesus is proud of you my man. (BTW, save the flaming, that comment is for WilMac only).

So you dont like Taliban ruled Afganistan, you dont like Vatican.. I will not ask you about Iran..

There is just no pleasing for some people

Abuse? Just because you disagree with their decision?

So, what you're saying is, it's bad for religion to get in the way of government?

No, I'm saying that not only is a government run by the church a bad idea, it also weakens the church. The church becomes influenced by the state, as well as the state being run by the church. That is why there should be complete and total seperation of chruch and state. Not only for the survival of the country, but also for the survival of the church.

Okay, fine. You don't want to see it.

But why does that mean two kids can't do it?

Are you suggesting they can't because of school policy? Because of some law?

Or simply because some knuckle-dragger like you says they can't, and threatens them?

Get over it. They exist, they don't hurt anyone, and if you have a real problem with it, maybe you need to think about why . . .

And no, I have no problem with two men holding hands. I've seen it before, I'll see it again.
:rolleyes:

What exactly is wrong with that? From the 95% of the Islamic believers that follow it correctly unlike the whacko 5% like Bin Laden & Co. that twist and spin that religion, I see no harm if that's what they want to do.

I am against any country being run by any religion, just as I'm against any religion being influenced by the government. Total seperation.

Well this is very hard, isnt it? I mean face it - people got their beliefs and there is no way you can take it out from them, just b/c they are working for goverment. So they will always influence how goverment acting. On subconsious level at least.

I guess it's how you look at it. I can see why you would think that, but I view it as helping to spread Jesus's word to those who have not properly received it. They may never get it if the government doesn't allow it and that's not fair imho.

"The Constitution is NOT a living document!"

Wrong.

As much as you want to believe it is not a living document, you have to understand the definition of "living document".

A living document is one that is never finished. By definition, the US Constitution is never finished. It is regularly reviewed and interpreted in order to apply current standards and morals to the document. The Constitution is constantly open to interpretation, and when the interpretation is lacking or incomplete or unfavorable, an Amendment is proposed.

What is an Amendment? It is a correction, through parliamentary or constitutional process . . . the Amendments to the Constitution correct oversights in the original document, provide for unforeseen circumstances, and provide updates to the original Constitution to reflect current societal tastes . . .

The US Constitution is alive and well. It might be under attack, it might be misunderstood, it might be awkwardly interpreted, but it is alive and under constant change and review.

I would wager there is no more alive document in the world.

I understand what you are saying. I said it lives and breathes when it is amended. It's going to be taking another breath shortly with this gay marriage issue.

Maybe some clarification is in order. Many on the left use the "living, breathing" document argument to justify their abuses of the constitution. Examples could be things like finding abortion rights, sodomy rights, and racial quotas in the constitution. Totally overlooking what is clear as day and in black and white in another part of the constitution that any rights not found in the document are the domain of the individual states.

I think you get what I am saying here.

Graham,

Why do you have to resolve to using insults? I did not attack you. :rolleyes:

Yes, it should be school policy and law. Regardless of how you feel, homosexuality is not the "norm" and/or the majority in America. It should not be present in schools.

Homosexuality is NOT normal or natural. It can be tolerated, but should not be accepted and allowed to spread as if it is a normal everyday occurance.

Gays do not threaten me. I could care less what they do - as long as it in the privacy of their own homes. Not in public.

They don't hurt anyone? True. But, they hurt the fundamentals of a structured society. Marriage was created as an institution that is supposed to be between a man and woman to procreate. It is physically impossible for two gay people to procreate. So there should not be any gay "marriages". If you want to allow civil unions or partnerships, fine. But not marriage.

Stone

You're right. I apologize.

I assumed you were going to make some bullshit macho dickhead comment that would come dangreously close to a violent overture . . . I could see it coming. I was wrong. Sorry.

Jumping ahead, you talk about "procreation" being a basis for marriage.

I know several couples physically unable to procreate, and one that chooses not to.

Do I suggest to them to turn in their rings and marriage licenses?

Why do they have to call it marriage?

If you let gays marry...

You have to let:

Father marry his daughter.
Mother marry her son.
Brother marry his sister.
Adult marry a minor
Person marry multiple husbands or wives.
Human marry an animal.

They are all just alternate forms of marriage arent they?

Why cant you people see this?! It has already started. Equal Protection they scream!!

I have already been told by those for this that they think it is ok for all these types of marriages to exist. !

Why cant they create guidelines for a civil union and leave it at that. It will accomplish what they set out to do.

We, as a society are going to have to bear the cost of this activism, financially, and emotionally. They say it is none of our business. But it IS!!! We will pay believe me.

I stopped being for this when they started saying all forms of marriage should be allowed. If they dont want to be reasonable, then why should I? I hope for an ammendment.

No. That is physically abnormality.

They should be be allowed to adopt.

I am mixed on gays raising children. On one hand, having two loving people their for you is a great thing. But is the message right? Plus, it just creates a whole mountain of problems as the child grows up.

On the other hand, I just do not agree with the gay couples married thing.

Stone

Let's not forget all the other things they include in their agenda... Bisexuals, Trans-gender, Trans-sexuals.. Transylvanian, whatever...

Men wearing dresses walking around your office, teaching your kids. It's not a joke. It's serious. They want a boatload of "rights" for a wide array of perverse things.

I'm surprised nobody noticed this statement yet. Listen up Dave; this is from the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The difficulty is balancing the free exercise clause and the establishment clause.

As far as the constitution not being a living document, can you (NY Madman) explain why the framers wrote it in such a vague way? For example, why say "Liberty" in the 14th Amendment? Why not simply enumerate exactly what liberty means? Surely that would have been a better way to ensure that the only "liberties" granted by the constitution would have been those accepted in the 18th century. Perhaps the framers were smart enough to know that such a static document could not withstand the changes a society inevitably experiences?