Don't give Coolguy's words any thoughts or seriousness. He's just angry because he knows where this country is headed with respect to gay marriage. It's called a tantrum.
Welcome to Debate Politics.
Arrogant?
Arrogant?
Stating that the Founding Fathers new what the Constitution stood for is somehow arrogant?
Not at all, but in fact, is the truth.
Based on your reply, the reply I quoted is far more arrogant in that the person is stating there own belief as if it factual.
I only pointed out that the founding Fathers had a better understanding of what it stood for than we do today. And yes based on there standards of the time they certainly would not say there was any Constitutional violation.
Secondly, I never said what the Constitution stood for, did I?
As for your 'slaves' argument; It is a topic onto itself.
I wasn't calling the founding fathers arrogant, I was calling you arrogant for speaking on behalf of these men. I agree that they had a good idea of what they stood for then. And now, in modern history things have changed. I believe that the word of the constitution should be upheld in most cases, but things DO change. Amendments are proof that the document, while well written, wasn't perfect. My slave argument is just an extreme example easy to relate to. In no way am i putting these issues beside each other. These two things show that its an ever-changing document, to make room for social growth.
There seems to be some misunderstanding here.
No where did I speak for them.
Agreed.
Yes, but not to continue the 'slavery' discussion, some of the Founding Fathers are on record as to not truly supporting it. Which is why, to me, your comparison doesn't fly.
Everything you have just written says you haven't.
A guess is all you have? An assumption?
The problem resided in recognition. Not with the union itself.
I am not big on states rights when it comes to the treatment of the people as a whole. That is when I believe the Fed has a duty to step in and make law.
Not at all.
Yep, marriage used to be a contract of ownership rather than union.
You ask in what relevant way.
The 10th Amendment says you're wrong.
Captain, need I remind you that the position of "no religion" is itself a religious position, and thus, paradoxically, "'NO' religion" is still religion?
Hmm, that's interesting. What source did you use to come to this opinion?
Nor is it justiciable, to borrow Rehnquist's vernacular.
Ah, no. I don't care what the religious say, atheism is not a religion and atheists don't "practice" atheism.
That sounds like xianity. Start with the bearded old man in the sky and add the toppings you desire.
aww, that sounds nice. Too bad it's completely meaningless. It sounds more like faith than religion in any event.
As soon as you put the flour in the bowl?
Would you say that all of those men were as important to the founding of our nation as Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Pain, Alexander and a few others?
IMHO, the important thing to note is that "religion" was so ingrained in the concept of society that they made such statements. Franklin only ASSUMES that society is better to believe in xianity than no religion because he had no actual experience with a society without it. Do you think HE would say the same thing today?
He is not mistaken as a deist, he was a deist who couldn't wrap his mind around a society without those teachings of Jesus. Even though Asia had the most advanced society without the teachings of Jesus. Regardless, it's obvious that he disagreed with the divinity, and miraculous notions in the bible; which is why he created his own bible.
I disagree completely and the vast majority of his writings on the subject paint a clear picture of his belief and it's dilemma.
Exactly... the politician in him forced him to say things to hide his true feelings. His public statements seem to endorse religion while his private correspondence exhibited his disdain for it.
