Freedom of Religion is its Own Enemy

World Wide Web ^ | 5/26/05 | Henry R. Sturman

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Nope. He was having a perverted relationship with a woman and jerking off into the sink. "

Not just the sink, don't forget the dress. It's people like you who only think sex is vaginal intercourse who helped let Bill get off the hook. Let a daughter of yours do what Monica did and see if you agree with her when she says it wasn't sex.

"Pssst... Books are written by men... I do not follow the wisdom of men... "

If not from the bible (which you just admitted was written by men, who you don't follow), what private revelation told you that you had the right to force other people to only have sex acts you approve of?

"Thou protesteth too much... "

Yes, you do. You are obviously obsessed with the sex lives of your neighbors. Your protestations against their actions only show your preoccupation with what you consider perversity. You might try professional help.


"Who is he that is not of woman borne?"

I already told you I don't give a damn, it is completely irrelevant. (I will point out though that this quote was from a book (the Bible) which you have just said was written by men and therefore something you need not follow)

Sex is not just intercourse. Is the caressing of your wife's body preceding intercourse not sexual? Does this caressing by itself lead to procreation? If not, should it therefore be prohibited by law? If not, why not?

You never answered how someone having homosexual sex in any way infringes on your right to life, liberty, or property. Then again, you evaded most of my questions.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

"Who is he that is not of woman borne?"

I already told you I don't give a damn, it is completely irrelevant. (I will point out though that this quote was from a book (the Bible)...

Actually, it was Macbeth in William Shakespeare's Macbeth.

Shows what you know.

They are of a free and open nature, that thinks men honest that but seem to be so, and will as tenderly be led by the nose as asses are.

Who is he that is not of woman borne?

You already know the answer...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

So it was written by Shakespeare. It is still irrelevant and you still have not answered why someone doing a sex act in the privacy of their home in any way infringes on your rights to life, liberty, or property. You still didn't answer by what revelation you received the power to force other people to do what you think is right. You won't answer it because you know it does not affect you. Though you wish it did, because you are obsessed with the sex lives of others.

"and will as tenderly be led by the nose as asses are."

Sounds like you. You'll do anything the mob tells you. You are a mindless sheep. Unable to find one rational reason for anything you believe.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

...you still have not answered why someone doing... in the privacy of their home...

Marriage is a public act... and the original topic of discussion you initiated...

Who is he that is not of woman borne?

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

You are a mindless sheep. Unable to find one rational reason for anything you believe.

Your ad hominem is an informal fallacy in logic, among others you have attempted. I also do not attempt to rationalize with such inductive arguments as you have (appeals to false authority, among others).

Biology does not require belief or human permission.

Simple Socratic questions (even though they may be borrowed from literary masterpieces you have obviously never studied) is a logically valid course of inquiry.

It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of deductive argument and the use of logic, something you have made overt demonstrations to avoid.

As it is with the original topic of this thread:

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices. Congress, state legislatures and public referendums have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.

Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license.

Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function, desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?

The greater question is if the Congress can pass a law defining what lawful marriage is without a Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court has said yes, upholding that power. Congress can pass a marriage definition and enforcement law under the powers conferred to it by Reynolds v. United States...

"…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed..."

[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]

The important aspect is the power of Congress and the state legislatures (not local municipalities or the courts) to legislate, by statute alone, restrictions on marriage. The Congress can either make lawful polygamy and homosexual marriage, or make both illegal based on what the Congress thinks will be beneficial. The Defense of Marriage Act by Congress and constitutional prohibitions by most of the states is consistent with these ends: Reynolds v. United States is legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Activist elements of the judiciary have ignored the case law precedent set by the Supreme Court concerning statutory law regulating marriage practices and corrupted the Constitutional 'separation of powers' by legislating from the bench. It is time legislative and executive bodies of government do their sworn duty to defend the Constitution. Legislators need to impeach and remove judges from the courts (and other officials from public office) who break the law by acting beyond their legal jurisdiction. This is not exclusive to an issue of "states' rights" at all…

[P_A_I]

The U.S. Supreme Court decreed in Reynolds v. United States [1878], that Congress, state legislatures and public referendums can statutorily determine polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages to be unlawful, in an obvious violation of the 1st Amendment.

According to the erroneous & confused Reynolds decision, no Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate such "practices", because marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right" -- [reasoning that contradicts the 1st].
Supposedly all adults are to be granted, by government, the privilege to marry one consenting adult of the opposite gender; -- another contradiction in logic, seeing that government has no power to 'grant' such privileges.


The theory that operating vehicles, marriage, legal and medical practices, etc. -- are not individual rights; - but that they are 'privileged practices' that authorities can deny by requiring limited statutory licensing, is ludicrous in principle, -- in a free republic.



The greater question is, can Congress pass a law defining what lawful marriage is without a Constitutional Amendment? The Supreme Court erroneously said yes, back in 1878, in an attempt to stop polygamy.

However it is clear that Congress cannot pass a marriage definition and enforcement law under the opinion made in Reynolds v. United States:

"…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed..."
[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]

The important line above is the alleged 'power' of Congress and the state legislatures to legislate, by statute alone, restrictions on marriage, even though it is admitted that: "Laws --- cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, they may with practices..."

This 'logic' of the courts opinion is ludicrous, and a direct violation of the 1st.

The Congress cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the Congress thinks will be beneficial to society.

It is time judicial, legislative, and executive bodies of government do their sworn duty to defend the Constitution.
Legislators need to impeach and remove judges from the courts (and other officials from public office) who break the law by acting beyond their legal jurisdiction.
This is not exclusive to an issue of "states' rights" at all…

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

This 'logic' of the courts opinion is ludicrous...

Of course it is...

The point is, in reference to this thread and this topic of the mythical "separation of church and state," is cramming it right back down their leftist throats.

If the Left wants "separation of church and state," then why should they also be allowed to insert phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law?

Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in secular law based on idolatrous fetishes?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

P.S.

Your improved html formatting would greatly benefit your message...

There are several instructional threads here on FR...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in secular law based on idolatrous fetishes? (i.e. homosexual monogamy)

This is an establishment of religion... Homosexuals cannot be monogamous... they cannot reproduce...

[P_A_I]

-- improved html formatting would greatly benefit your message...

What html problems do you see in the formatting of my post? -- It looks just fine on my screen.

Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in secular law based on idolatrous fetishes? (i.e. homosexual monogamy)

Canonizing? How are queers who legalize their living arrangements with marriage contracts 'canonizing' anything?

This is an establishment of religion...

What is?

Homosexuals cannot be monogamous... they cannot reproduce...

Why should I care?

[jwalsh07]

The Congress cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the Congress thinks will be beneficial to society.

Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do. The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woma if they so choose.

But current jurisprudence considers marriage a "fundamantal right" which is why the government can't force your spouse to testify against you. So while government can regulate marriage any way they please they can not abridge the right to marry. That right to marry has traditionally been between a man and a woman. I would hope it would stay that way in the preponderance of states. We'll see.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Marriage is a public act... and the original topic of discussion you initiated... "

No, it is a PRIVATE RELIGIOUS ACT.

"Your ad hominem is an informal fallacy in logic, among others you have attempted. I also do not attempt to rationalize with such inductive arguments as you have (appeals to false authority, among others). "


That you can say that with a straight face only shows what a hypocrite you are. You have repeatedly used ad hominy attacks against me ("your religious fetish for an idolatry of perversion with human anatomy, Thou protesteth too much)
As to appeals to false authority, that would be you. I appealed to reason and the Constitution, you to some unidentified higher power who tells us what to do. Or to the will of the mob. When I called you a mindless sheep, I was just telling the truth. You really can't find one rational, non-mystical reason for any of the axioms that make up your moral code.

"The greater question is if the Congress can pass a law defining what lawful marriage is without a Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court has said yes, upholding that power"

The 1st amendment says that we have the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof. You have repeatedly asserted that marriage is a religious rite, yet you want the government to regulate it. You have also claimed that this religious rite is somehow *public*, which is absurd. Like any other religious rite it is a private matter. You keep confusing what is private and what is public.


Since marriage in and of itself does not harm anybody else (your disgust with it is not sufficient claim to harm), it is outside the bounds of civil authority according to the Constitution. The fact that the Court has ruled otherwise in no way changes the fact that laws regulating marriage are an unconstitutional infringement on religious expression. The Court is not infallible. It has recently ruled to uphold campaign finance laws too, which are another obvious 1st amendment infringement. Your false claim to the authority of the Court doesn't change the text of the Constitution. Dred Scott used to be used as case law precedent too. Unlike you, I do not yield blindly to the authority of the Supreme Court.

"It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of deductive argument and the use of logic, something you have made overt demonstrations to avoid."

Would that be like how you avoid almost every question I have given you?

"Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together"

I already crushed this one. It matters not if you insist on rewriting the definitions of what monogamous is, or what sex is. Your definitions are not the accepted definitions, they are just your creation. Saying A=B does not change the fact that A=A. Sex is not just intercourse.

" Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. "

I also showed this to be false to, but of course you never answered any of my points. The Constitution does not *grant* us our rights. Our rights do not have to all be enumerated in it. The Constitution in affect says what privileges the government has, and says that if a government power is not enumerated, it is not legitimate. Licenses for practicing law and medicine are only meant to protect existing lawyers and doctors from competition, it's a big racket. They have no constitutional merit. Private certification would work just as well or better, and would get the government out of the legal and medical business.


"Who is he that is not of woman borne? "

Here we return to your other big obsession (your main one is your obsession with the sex acts of others. I take your choice of a FR name as an example of your fetish with acts you find depraved and perverted). I don't care who is not of woman borne. It doesn't have anything to do with the constitutionality of the regulation of religion and marriage. Which is why you add it, to change the subject.

Again I say, we don't need a Christian taliban in the USA.

[P_A_I]

The Congress cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the Congress thinks will be beneficial to society.

Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do.

States cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Same principle, - neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such powers.

The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woma if they so choose.

They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.

But current jurisprudence considers marriage a "fundamantal right" which is why the government can't force your spouse to testify against you. So while government can regulate marriage any way they please they can not abridge the right to marry.
That right to marry has traditionally been between a man and a woman. I would hope it would stay that way in the preponderance of states. We'll see.

Yep, we could live to long enough to see government doing anything "they please", but I doubt it.

[Rhadaghast]

Your very right. A historian that I heard recently states that the phrase separation of church and state is not found in any of the original American historical documents, including personal correspondence. It is found in the communist manifesto.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Again I say, we don't need a Christian taliban in the USA....

Pssst... I'm an atheist... ad hominems are the art of the smear, typical Marxist, as you are...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

No, it is a PRIVATE RELIGIOUS ACT.

We don't need a religious Taliban in the U.S.A. inserting the esoteric pantheon of fantasies that establishing a religion, as with the idea of homosexual monogamy incorporated into law, is in any way a secular, biological attribute of human existence.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

You really can't find one rational, non-mystical reason for any of the axioms that make up your moral code.

I have no "morals." Again, morals and all of the associated concepts are from the belief some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior. Any atheist saying someone is immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi saying I am a sinner...

I just gave you your non-mystical logic on that...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Why as a matter of secular law, should homosexual monogamy be sanctified and exalted by government for reception of tax dollars, Social Security, tax deductions, etc.? It is an establishment of religion in the law (violating the 1st Amendment) since it is not a reproductive biological component of the human species.

Thou protesteth too much... (more Shakespeare)

Who is he that is not of woman borne?

Surely, the angel that thou must serve would have told thee... that thou was't borne of woman...

Sex Education, Biology 101:

Lesson #1... Human Beings are mammals

Lesson #2... Male + female = baby

Lesson #3... Female gives live birth to baby

Lesson #4... Baby is either male or female

Lesson #5... Baby becomes adult, finds a mate of opposite sex

Lesson #6... It all starts over with Lesson #2

I'll de-mystify it for you in more basic terms...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.

Who could rule a Constitutioal Amendment Un-Constitutional? Would that be anything like how liquor contracts were once prohibited by Constitional Amendment?

We can amend anything we like and there is nothing anyone could do to overturn it except by amendment...

The Court certainly cannot...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

A historian that I heard recently states that the phrase separation of church and state is not found in any of the original American historical documents, including personal correspondence.

Thomas Jefferson. That "historian" is full of it.

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly, it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices (as far as the court is concerned).

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Pssst... I'm an atheist... ad hominems are the art of the smear, typical Marxist, as you are... "

I don't believe in the government ownership of the means of production, so I am not a Marxist. I am a capitalist. Learn what words mean before you use them. You on the other hand believe in government control of other people's property (in this case, their bodies), making you a fascist. Not sorta like one, but a true fascist.

So you aren't claiming a divine source for your arguments. That just makes them even more hypocritical.

"I have no "morals." Again, morals and all of the associated concepts are from the belief some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior. Any atheist saying someone is immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi saying I am a sinner"

Our reason is where we get our moral concepts from. If as you say, you have no morality, where DO you get idea that anything is *perverse* or *against nature*? Certainly not from biology. Homosexual acts are common among almost every species. The function of homosexual sex acts in humans is to give pleasure to oneself and to someone else. There is more than one purpose to sex acts, and more than one function for our anatomy. What you are saying is ONLY vaginal intercourse is to be allowed. Clearly anything else two adults do to each other will not result in a baby. Please enlighten us as to what acts, specifically, you think are to be allowed. Oral? Finger penetration? Use of nipples as an erotic zone? Caressing?

"I just gave you your non-mystical logic on that"

No, you gave a non-rational appeal to amorality. You did not say where your beliefs come from.

"Why as a matter of secular law, should homosexual monogamy be sanctified and exalted by government for reception of tax dollars, Social Security, tax deductions, etc.? It is an establishment of religion in the law (violating the 1st Amendment) since it is not a reproductive biological component of the human species. "

Because it is a religious rite and therefore outside the bounds of state interference, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone's life, liberty, or property. It does none of these things, no more than heterosexual marriage (i think ALL marriage should be outside of state control; no licenses, and so on).

"Thou protesteth too much... (more Shakespeare) "

I knew. Your implication is that I am gay and am just trying to justify my actions. I am not. I find gay sex acts disgusting. All that means though is I am not gay. If I was born gay I would have no aesthetic problem with gay sex. Your ad hominem attack does nothing for your argument.

"Who is he that is not of woman borne?

Surely, the angel that thou must serve would have told thee... that thou was't borne of woman...

Sex Education, Biology 101:

Lesson #1... Human Beings are mammals

Lesson #2... Male + female = baby

Lesson #3... Female gives live birth to baby

Lesson #4... Baby is either male or female

Lesson #5... Baby becomes adult, finds a mate of opposite sex

Lesson #6... It all starts over with Lesson #2

I'll de-mystify it for you in more basic terms..."

I am aware how babies are made. I knew what the answer was, but it is STILL completely irrelevant to the point at hand. It's your obsession, not mine.

So you are not a Christian taliban. You are a secular taliban. No real difference.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

where DO you get idea that anything is *perverse* or *against nature*

Human anatomy at Stanford University...

You are truly a jerk-off...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

And a troll who came here in late 2004, probably from the DUmmies...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"where DO you get idea that anything is *perverse* or *against nature*
Human anatomy at Stanford University...

You are truly a jerk-off..."

Human anatomy does no say what acts are perverted or not. It is not the source of right and wrong. And your ad hominem attacks do show your maturity level.

"And a troll who came here in late 2004, probably from the DUmmies..."

Nice try at a smear. I can see you are running out of arguments as I smash your previous ones to little bits. That you have been here longer only means you have been subjecting others here to your irrational crap for a long time. Tell me what sex acts you deem to be *natural* and to be sanctioned by civil laws, and which ones you think need to be prohibited. If you refuse to answer this yet again, it shows you are not serious.