Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights

I support anyone's right not to recite the pledge of allegiance for any and all reasons. For me personally, I will state allegiance to the United States because of its ideals and standards.I am fully aware that this nation has in several instances been hypocritical of its own values. For me personally, it is important to stand up for the ideal, as this boy has done, to make "a more perfect Union."I think compulsory pledge of allegiances is unAmerican. That should be a personal decision that come's from the heart, not state-mandated indoctrination. I for one believe that homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals. The problem is, what "rights" are actually afforded in the Constitution? "Liberty" is subjective to who states what the entailments of liberty should be defined as, and "all" could be inclusive to children too. Marriage has always been a religious institution which should be free from the intrusion of government. In that sense, it should not be up to anyone but the people involved to decide whether or not they are married.For reasons of legality and indemnity, I propose that all secular people, whether homosexual or heterosexual, be recognized by civil union.It is not the right of the government to impose its will on a religion if that religion states that homosexuals cannot marry. It is equally unjust to suppose that a religion get to dictate whether or not people can be legally unified and protected.This is where that wall should be erected to keep the State and Religion from infringing upon each other, which clearly is the case in this instance. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Careful saying that on this thread, as you walk right in to the argument that marriage should not be limited to only consenting adults but that minors should be able to control their own sexuality.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Historically marriage is a religious institution that governments piggy-backed on to give couples rights. The two should be separate. I am aware of that, which is why I propose civil unions for all secular people. Agreed. That's only because of what it means symbolically -- which is a union between two people. But the implications have always been that it is a union under God. I don't want that. I want a declaration between my wife and I that we are joined as a single unit. But it has nothing to do with "gays." My proposal simply seeks to erect a wall between Church and State. No, probably not... I'm simply expressing ideas. I don't believe that it is right that a Christian society be demanded that they have to forsake their roots and their time-honored beliefs to cater to the whims of a minority when it is expressly prohibited. At the same time, I don't think it is right for a single religion to demand on the entirety of ALL of society that we adhere to THEIR beliefs and superstitions. Secular individuals, both gay and straight, should have their own ceremonies and their own legal indemnities in place.Get the government out of religion, and get religion out of the government. The two are incompatible.This is my proposition in true spirit of the Establishment Clause, that Church and State be protected by and separate of each other. That in my opinion is the epitome of what it is all about.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Precisely!

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Because anything less would be discrimination. That way whoever wants to marry by traditional values may do so, and those who still want to publicly declare their love for another individual while having the same protected status, may do so with a civil union.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Right, so let the church handle it and not the government is what I'm saying. Yes they are because it is defiling the sanctity that God instituted. I'm not saying that it isn't a bunch of horse shit, I am simply saying that if everyone respects the role of the other, we might actually find a compromise. And I'm saying that the government never had a right (at least in the US) to start butting its nose in the affairs of the church to begin with. The State should have never got involved in marriage to begin with, as it is a clear intrusion of the Establishment Clause.However I do understand why they did, which is for reasons of civil and legal matters. I see great importance of it which is why I believe that civil unions would alleviate this problem.As I see it the way it is now, civil unions for homosexuals is nothing more than a "separate but equal" policy. Why not get rid of that stigma altogether, let religion have its traditional marriages and let secular society have theirs too? Right, so let the ceremony of whatever religion determine how to marry someone, not the State. Very true, which is why it should be left freely for the religion to decide for itself. Even during Roman rule, the Romans figured out (wisely) that it was more equitable to allow the Jews to have their traditions while still having a separate secular rule. They meddled very little in religious affairs and concerned themselves mostly with social and civil issues. Right, so it would be about respecting the wishes of the church and the wishes of its congregation. Whatever the church decides, I see it as a private enterprise that I have no right in saying what should go on, so long as it does not infringe upon others.If one Christian denomination wants to marry gay people, that's not my problem or concern. If another Christian denomination doesn't want to marry gay people, that's also not my problem or concern. Both should be allowed to worship freely in the manner fitting to their doctrines. That's for them to decide. It doesn't concern me and I honestly don't give a shit what they believe. I don't care if you call it pumpkin fucking pie, I'm just trying to get to the heart of the issue. You wouldn't be, you would still have what a secular marriage is today. The only difference is that religion gets to have their precious sanctity and the secularists get to avoid all the ridiculous pitfalls associated with it. If the religious want to die on that fucking hill, let them them die on it and rot on it to boot I say. If there was as much controversy over either of those things the way it is with gay marriage, then I might consider it, yes. So it all comes down to a word, instead of a principle? If homosexuals want to be married (as in legal recognition of their union) what difference does it make if we call it apple pie? Isn't the basic right what's at heart here?Like it or not, marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman, so if we want to be given over to semantics in defense of a single word, then technically why should we change the meaning of the word?A word is designed to fit the definition, not the other way around.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Taz, for your own comfort please go back and read what I actually wrote before you unleash your scathing criticism.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Non-sequitor, as that's got nothing to do with the topic. Marriage started out as a religious institution and LONG before you become married by a justice of the peace, you had to be married by a pastor, priest, etc.What precisely is wrong with the way Dutch handle it, according to Huntard? It sounds like they've got their affaris in order. More to the point, everyone is happy with the results! Religion is not infringed upon, homsexual rights are respected, secular and religious institutions don't step on each other, etc. Immaterial. Non-sequitor. Any way you cut it, without adhering to my proposal somebody's rights are going to be infringed upon. I am trying to alleviate that. Wouldn't it be optimal to allow all parties to be satisfied with the results?We're trying to die on a hill over a word rather than the vastly more important principle that the word is supposed to represent. I personally think it is wrong to try and stop two people, regardless of sexual orientation, from entering in to a bond and having that bond formally and legally recognized.If you want to call that "marriage" I don't have a problem with it. I am simply saying that the government needs to get out of the affairs of the church, and the church has to stop expecting everyone to bend to their conformity. We don't live in a theocracy, praise the Lord! What's wrong with that if it is proven to work in other nations? Is it that you just want the religious to suffer the way homosexuals have as a sort of retribution? Because that's often what I see from the tolerance police. They're so busy being tolerant to one group that they can no longer see how intolerant they are behaving towards another.The heart of the matter for me is the maximization of rights in accordance with the Constitution. By keeping a wall between church and state, both are free to do as they wish. Religion can have its form of marriage, and secular society can have its version of marriage. What exactly is so egregiously wrong about my proposal that you're referring to it as a pile of shit? I am attempting to give everyone the rights they wish. Religion can worship freely, homsexuals get to be unified, secularists can be separte from religion, etc, etc.Why is that so tragic?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

The Church should have say over the affairs of the church, and the government should have say over the affairs of civil matters the way it is penned in the Constitution. They're not above the law. The Church should have the right to say they don't want to marry homosexuals if it goes against their beliefs. That said, the Church doesn't get to speak for all of America and try to force secular society to conform to their beliefs. Oh, now you're starting to get it. Religion can have their marriage ceremonies and let God consecrate a marriage or refuse to marry homosexuals. Their marriages just shouldn't have any legal authority, Rather, in order to be legally married, one must get a civil union. And civil unions would be open to all regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc. Everything but age would factor in.

quote:

---

Yes they are because it is defiling the sanctity that God instituted.

---

God. I believe it is important to honor religious beliefs, just like the Founding Fathers did. I just don't want religionists intruding in my affairs. If their God says that homosexuality is an abomination, fine whatever. I don't care as long as the State recognizes their union.Why give the church any precedence or power? If you can't tell, I am stripping them of ANY legal power. Hello?!?!?! Why am I the enemy here? Every human being is afforded their right to believe whatever the fuck they want. You seriously can't see how I am alleviating all of that in my proposal?Who gives you the right to smear your secularist beliefs all over thousands of years of tradition by forcing them to conform to society rather than Almighty God? Answer: you don't.What gives them the right to smear their antiquated, superstitious nonsense all over a society who does not want to participate in their beliefs? Answer: they don't.SO.... Why not let religion marry whoever they want in accordance with their beliefs BUT strip them of any and all legal authority to officially recognize people in unions?Why not give only justices of the peace the authority to legally marry people?Do you understand what I am saying? No, the State does not get to control what religion does and religion does not get to dictate what the State does. Jesus fucking Christ, has anyone heard of a little document called the Constitution?!?! Exactly!!!! Now we're on the same page. They infringe upon each others beliefs without my proposal in place. My way lets them all have their cake and eat it too! Exactly. Marriages were intended to be unions under God anyhow, right? So they still get to have their god marry who it wants to marry. But as far as legality goes in civil matters, the government handles that. Religious marriges shall have no legal authority. Civil unions (secular marriages) will. That's silly. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Apparently it's you having thoughts of performing sexual acts with a minor if that's what you extracted from post!I suspect that's one of your canned responses. It's a reflexive reaction you have, isn't it? Would it now? There is a reason why I generally avoid conversing with you. Your flair for the dramatic and outrageous assertions prevent you from having a decent conversation. Let me spell it out for you: I am FOR homosexual rights, Rrhain, as in, PRO homosexual rights.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Yes, I agree as far as they envision it. I am going a radical step further which actually strips them of ANY legal authority. What precedence gives the church any authority in the civil sector? Why should they have any power to decide what constitutes legal marriage (civil unions).I say that since secular marriage, as far as legality goes, makes more sense to refer to it as a civil union, because definitionally, that's what it is. Whatever fundamentalists want has absolutely NOTHING to do with my proposal. The only thing my proposal shares with them is the phrasing (civil unions). Beyond that they and I are at opposites. That's funny, are you? My way is fair and more importantly, Constitutional. Your way just wants all the chips, which makes you no better than the fundies. You want to praise homosexuals but demonize religion. They want the opposite. I want to give respect to each belief and keep them separate from one another.I think you first need to erase from your mind what the fundamentalist version of a civil union is to really appreciate what I am proposing.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

What I am saying is that the government should never have given the church power to legally marry people in the first place. This is merely a throwback from monarchies when the Church and Royal families were under the same umbrella of power. The Founding Fathers, remembering the travails of that dictatorship had the foreknowledge to keep religion and government separate. That was the goal from day one.The government should never be able to decide who is married in the eyes of God. Religion is a private practise and should be respected as any individual rights. And because the government gave religion legal authority to marry people, the religious views then get to dictate how secular people should marry, who they can marry, and in what manner they can marry. It's the Church of England all over again, which is what we sought to flee from in the first place!So what we have is two forms of marriage that are trampeling on one another. Why not then distinguish between the two? That is the heart of my proposal.If marriage started out as a religious institution, then let the religions decide for themselves what God consecrates as a marriage. It's just a formal ceremony anyhow! That's all it really is to God, right? So let them have that formality.Meanwhile there are those of us who want to formally declare a union between two people but also to have legal status as a couple. There are certain priviledges and indemnities in place to protect married couples, recognizing them as a single unit. We want that.This is done "civilly," as it has nothing to do with God. Since it is a civil matter, not a religious matter, I just assumed that defining it as a civil union makes more sense definitionally. I really don't care what we call it though.So in the spirit of erecting a wall between church and state, the two should remain separate, neither telling the other what to do.A religion does not get to dictate that homosexuals cannot be legally united. That's not their place, its not their right. They don't get to say, "We can't allow gay people to marry because it's a sin." A sin to YOU, not to US. We don't want any part of your religion.Likewise the government can't all of a sudden tell religion, which has been in practice far longer than this government, "Oh, sorry everyone. The US government trumps God. You now have to perform sin."As Huntard says it is with the Dutch, the two are separate. One is a formality for the religious. A marriage ceremony between the two people getting married and God.The other is a legal contract between two people professing their love for one another.I never intended on the words "marriage" or "civil union" to overshadow the vastly more important message behind it. I really honestly don't care what anyone calls it.I just want the two separate the way it was intended. And had we followed through from the beginning, we may not have had all this controversy. We could say, this government recognises homosexual marriage, civil unions, or whatever.Honestly, this has less to do with gay marriage than it does with separating church and state.I hope this clarifies what I mean.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Yes I agree, but the problem is that there needs to be an amendment made to the Constitution in order for homosexual marriage to be federally protected. The Constitution is silent on many issues, and it says that anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution has to be left for the States decide for themselves. That is why in certain states gay marriage is legal, but not in others. Again, I don't care if you want to call it pumpkin pie, it's the principle behind it that I stand for. White Power movements are allowed to dismiss equal rights. Anyone has the right to think whatever they want. It's not a crime to be a bigot. All I mean is that if we do finally separate religion from government, it just makes more sense to call it a civil union, because that's what it is. But I really don't care what anyone calls it, I'm just saying it makes more sense so as to not confuse religious marriage with civil marriage. Yes, really. It's called the freedom of speech and if you'd like to have a free society it means sometimes putting up with bigoted views. No, not anything. You still can't physcially harm people, but you can believe whatever you want. I wouldn't agree with it, but I would respect it. Racists have a right to be racist. They just don't have a right to hurt other people because they're racist. Exactly, society... Society weeds these people out, not government. Society has done more to change people's opinion than government force, coersion, or programs have ever done. The civil rights movement was started by a few people and it literally changed the world. The government didn't do anything to facilitate that. It was the People.It used to be illegal for black people to go to a school that white people went to. It took society, operating independent of the government to change things. Government has to conform to society, not society conforming to government. Yes I know. It doesn't matter. People are allowed to have whatever beliefs they want. And the people that don't like it are allowed to protest their beliefs in order to cahnge things. That's how free societies work. What??? That's exactly how it should work. Anything less is fascism, communism, or any other ism that threatens free society. Show me the law where it is illegal to think it is wrong for a church marry gay people, albino people, black people, etc, and I'll show where it is illegal to insist that people cannot be believe as they wish. It's not for no reason. They have a reason, written in their bible. In their minds it is more important to obey God than to obey man. Yeah, that's what I'm saying! That's it, man. You nailed it on the head. You just summarized my entire argument. To them it isn't discrimination. To them it's like you saying that rapists be allowed to rape whomever they want. That's how they see things. Is it wrong in my opinion? Yes, absolutely! But they are free to believe it. What is important is getting the message out there that it is not acceptable behavior. With time, just like in the civil rights movement, society will change. THAT's how you get things done. Its all relative. Religious people want their union before God. So let them. Secular people, both homosexual and heterosexual, want their union declared before man and to have that union legally protected. So let them. I don't tell churches how to run their congregation. If I think it's stupid, I'll say something. But we can't force people to change. You have to convince people to want to change of their own accord.If you haven't noticed, the very people who want the change the most tend to sabotage their own agenda by creating this false dichotomy and culture war. The second you start going for the jugular, people shut down and go into attack mode and then you end up in a worse position than when you started. But if you do what Dr. King did, unlike Malcolm X, you start to make real change. Its removing religion from marriage. I never denied that they weren't. They are, and in my opinion it is wrong. But do you see the critical difference? You can either fight fire with fire, or you can fight fire with water. Which makes more sense?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I thought that was clear?Further clarification: Without my proposal in place, in either direction it is discrimination to one or both groups.If we leave things the way they are, either religion gets to discriminate against homosexuals or secular society gets to discriminate against religious beliefs.I am trying to alleviate ALL discrimination.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

The First Amendment of the Constitution, but more specifically the Establishment Clause.By forcing a religion via the government to go against its own governing laws and beliefs is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.This is why religion and government need to be completely separate so that homosexuals can marry/unify (whatever you want to call it, I don't give a shit) without hindrance from a religious belief, and religious practices can go on only marrying boys and girls together to appease little baby Jesus.I think that you are misinterpreting what I am saying.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams