Did I say all? No. And in any case, when was the last time a Notre Dame player claimed that God wanted them to win? The point is, the examples you gave do not point to what you think it points to, and it's insulting to the majority of the religious population to assume that they think what you think they think. Respect, pass it on.
We agree on very little, but you are so right about this. I couldn't care less what political position Paul Allen and his crew hold on anything. All I want from him is a Blazer team that will win another title. Period.
Julius, I post with Kingspeed. I know Kingspeed. Kingspeed is a friend of mine. Julius, you're no Kingspeed. (I don't count the season following the title simply because until Walton went down that was the best basketball ever played by a team in the NBA.)
When Seattle voted on funding a shiny new stadium for the Seahawks, was that not meddling in politics? When sports teams put on celebrations of U.S. military power, is that not politics? There is no such thing as a sports team NOT involved in politics.
No. The first is private citizens investing their tax money in a business. The second is the team promoting the military industrial complex, which is the biggest business of all.
Marriage was around way before religion was so why have it as a religious covenant? A marriage is a contract between two people that doesn't require a church at all. Also Civil Unions carry over 1000 less rights than marriages do. 2 gay people getting married will not affect anyone's marriage so why deny them the right to pursue the ultimate happiness? Equal Marriage is covered by the constitution. DOMA has been struck down. People need to just accept it and move on.
Right on almost everything, dviss, except that while people pairing off and producing children is literally as old as our species (and of course predates our species) "marriage" as a legal contract is quite new. In fact "religion" as defined as a belief in supernatural beings predates a legal marriage contract. As for the private citizens in Seattle, does Maris really believe the team did not run PSAs? Have flyers at games? Contribute money to the initiative?
Mods: does this have anything to do with basketball? Can it be moved to OT like the previous thread on the same subject?
I'd say you've managed to provide a synopsis of the problem in your post. For people who aren't "religious", marriage is just a contract between two people who want to live together and have their relationship identified as having the legal and social benefits accorded married couples in our society. For those who have a life centered around their faith, marriage is viewed as a commitment that is made before God and is in accordance with the principles of their faith. They're not likely to "just accept" and "move on" with a substantive change in the very definition of something that is at the core of the principles by which they live . "Equal marriage" is not, in fact, covered by the Constitution. Marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or any of the subsequent Amendments. The closest you'll come to a constitutional argument on the subject would be that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (which states, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") somehow means that same-sex couples have to be afforded the right to marry if heterosexual couples have that right. So far no federal court decision has been made that would make that interpretation so individual states presently have the power to make laws either way relative to marriage. I think that the move towards same-sex marriage is doubtless going to continue its march across the country. There may eventually be a Supreme Court decision on the topic that will decide it, but I think that many people of faith are coming around to the notion that same-sex marriage should be allowed as a civil right, even if they don't find that it fits within the theology of their religion. My bet is that when the matter is brought before the people of Oregon again, it will pass this time. As I said yesterday, I think that Christians should feel free to have an additional ceremony within the church that recognizes the religious implications of their marriage vows, but I don't think that denying a civil right to marriage for same-sex couples will continue in the near future. At least, that's the way I feel. There will be hard core fundamentalists who will continue their opposition, but I think that they will be in the minority.
"We hold these truths to be sacred, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And God was around way before Marriage. I can accept that the United States has turned it's back on God and what God has proclaimed is right, and I'll continue to love and respect everyone regardless, as Jesus commands. But respect is a two way street, and by coming out in favor of what the Blazers deem is "right," they're making a side of their fan base wrong, and that IMHO is a tactless thing for a sports franchise to do.
And it was rhetorical. The implication is we're born with rights, not given rights by some king who's authority comes from "God."
" I understood it was rhetorical, but it could have been misconstrued as a comment on the constitutional argument that was in my previous post, which is why I said I was posting for the sake of clarity.
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
He was a deist and that in any of his writings, the term "Creator" does not mean "God", be it a christian, muslim, or jewish one, etc. My quibble isn't with you. I'm clarifying for anyone who cares about it.
