NationStates Jolt Archive

:fluffle:Civil Unions are not even a option, i think theres a constituional amendment that says you can't do that, plus gays just want equal rights, mariiage means nothing anymore a lot of straight people married hate each other, plus with all the divorces marriages faces means mariage has become almost meaningless. PLUS gay supporters are not gay so were do they fit in pretty colors vs. death to gays :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:


Right, Civil Unions, even though they would give gays the exact same rights as any straight married couple, are not an option... because it doesn't subvert the religiously-based tradition of holy matrimony, which is what this is ALL about. There are no "rights" being violated here, that is a myth sold to you by Socialists who want to destroy all religiously-based morality within our society.

Please give me an example of any Gay person in America (or anywhere) who has not been given the same opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex, just as we all have? If you can't show me this, how can you continue to claim their "rights" have not been equal? Ohhh... I see, gays aren't allowed to marry the same sex! Well, that is not a "violation of rights" any more than a pedophile's rights are being violated by not allowing them to marry 12-year-olds. Rights are not based solely on what people want to do and aren't allowed to do, and I don't really think you want to live in that world.

...snip....

So, if we were to lock you away in a cell but didn't gag you, would you still have the same freedom of speech that I enjoy?

With a few minor changes, watch what I can do:

Please give me an example of any person in America (or anywhere) who has not been given the same opportunity to marry a person of the their same race, just as we all have? If you can't show me this, how can you continue to claim their "rights" have not been equal? Ohhh... I see, blacks aren't allowed to marry whites!

A few decades ago, the argument was that blacks can marry someone of their race, whites can marry someone of their same race, so they have the same rights!

Didn't work in 1967. Why should the same argument work now?

Constitutional basis? Well, aren't there twenty something states with constitutional amendments that either ban same sex marriages or ban same-sex unions? That seems like a 'constitutional' basis to deny same-sex marriage rights, in those states anyway.

Fortunately, there are these tricksy things in the US Constitution known as Amendments, and they override state constitutions...

As to federal governments reasons, we’ll have to wait and see what the court says, or maybe they will pas a federal amendment to clarify it one way or the other. Currently they have the Defense of Marriage Act that says States don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages, but I don’t think it’s been challenged in the SCOTUS yet, so we’ll have to wait and see.

It has been challenged, but the SCOTUS has yet to actually rule on it. They keep side-stepping it and ruling on technicalities instead. They'll eventually have a case they can't side-step, though.

From my perspective, Marriage is a union between a man and woman, where they make vows to God, so I don't understand what "non-religious" marriage is.
It's just that: a marriage conducted without any religious ceremony. In the UK, it's conducted in a Registry Office. Indeed, in Scotland at least, a marriage ceremony conducted by a reverend in a church has no legal bearing; the couple must also be legally married by a secular authority, though this is usually a very quick formal affair.

One of the central premises of your argument is that marriage is defined as "a union between a man and woman, where they make vows to God". however, this is plainly not the case. Marriage, as understood by most governments and individuals is not merely a religious institution (and a Christian religious institution at that).

If you wish to follow your argument to the end, then not only are you denying marriage to gay men and women, you are denying marriage to anyone not wishing to have a religious ceremony as part of their marriage; a huge amount of people.

Right, Civil Unions, even though they would give gays the exact same rights as any straight married couple, are not an option... because it doesn't subvert the religiously-based tradition of holy matrimony, which is what this is ALL about.

No, they're not an option because they're fucking separate but equal. And that is intolerable. Keep prattling about you inane paranoid fantasies if you want, but they aren't going to change reality.

I will quote each of your paragraphs (not chopping them up as some others might) and address them in turn.

See, here is the problem... Someone like myself presents a perfectly valid and legitimate argument, and liberals come out of the woodwork to proclaim me a bigot and homophobe for my views. Here in this forum, the mods see this and chuckle as the liberals slap themselves on the back for putting the 'redneck' in his place, and if I say anything remotely similar in nature, I am banned from the forum for breaking the rules. So, we get a very biased and slanted presentation of ideas. Being you are a liberal who hangs out here a lot, you have become used to this, and think that your opinions are the most popular and the only ones with relevance. The nasty cycle perpetuates itself, as you bask in the glory of putting down another 'religious nut' or whatever, and never even stop to realize how closed-minded you have been.

Your presented arguments take the debate out of context and attempt to label them as something they are not. I have no problem with conservative views; everyone is entitled to an opinion. I do have a problem with moralistic views being touted as the only correct way to live. I am going to make an assumption here (not baselessly) that you are a conservative. If I am wrong, then please correct me, for my next statement is aimed at conservatives in general but I address it to you:
If you want to live your life according to a moral doctrine, more power to you. But don't try to interfere with MY choice if I decide to live otherwise. That is all I ask. You don't have to get an abortion if it would mean more convenience for you, or even if it would negate a risk to your life - you can do what you want, but let me do what *I* want, within reason.

I do not personally bask in the glory of putting down religious nuts. One of my best friends is a religious nut and we've had several meaningful and thought provoking debates. In those debates I have won, I have not rubbed it in his face; nor has he rubbed in my face those debates he has won.

What you are experiencing is an unfortunate case of people not realising that opinions and views can differentiate without conflict, and that conflict can result in a clear victor without a sense of dominance. I'm sorry you've come across that, but to be fair, see the first part of this portion of my response: You HAVE taken out of context parts of the debate and have attempted to inject meanings that simply are not present into others' posts and into the core of what this debate is. You've made the assumption that we are all anti-religious fanatics, and that is not the case at all.

The Constitutional basis for not allowing same sex marriage would be, no such thing exists. It's like allowing Apple Juice made from Oranges, it doesn't exist, so you can't allow what doesn't exist, it defies logic. Marriage is the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony, meaning, it is a religious ceremony ordained by the church and sanctioned by the state in form of a marriage licence. Marriage is not a right, no one is "entitled" to get married, gay or straight, and they certainly aren't entitled to alter the meaning of the word to fit their needs.

The legal status of 'married' is not something that is strictly religious in nature or indeed, in origin. It is a status granted by the state; however, ordained ministers of recognized religions are given the power to bestow that legal status. That doesn't mean it is religious - it means that you can satisfy your desire for a religious ceremony and a legal contract (which is what marriage in the legal sense amounts to) in one step.

Marriage is the union of two consenting adults in many things, but not holy matrimony. If you look up the definition of 'marriage' you will find many and varied definitions, not all of which even apply to the union of two humans. On dictionary.reference.com, definition 5: any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

Marriage by the church is a privilege given to the church by the state. "By the power vested in me by God and the State of _____, I now pronounce you man and wife." This is a power that can be taken away by the state, or indeed, by the federal government. Marriage IS a right, and in the federal constitution there are no laws prohibiting the union of two members of the same gender.

Furthermore, the ceremony of matrimony can be performed by a judge in a secular process - the inclusion of any religious faction in any marriage is STRICTLY optional. You need not ever hear the word 'God' in your life to be married. The inclusion of religion in your arguments is entirely redundant. In a civil marriage, a marriage which is sanctioned by the government, there is absolutely no necessitation of religion. Period.

The current Gay Marriage issue is the result of Socialist thinking, which seeks to tear down any and all religiously-based morality within the society. Godless Socialism is so much easier to achieve without God getting in the way. You and your liberal friends have unfortunately been brainwashed into thinking this is about Civil Rights or Human Rights, and it is not. I have proven this. Civil Union legislation would remove any and all barriers to homosexual couples, and give them every single right of straight couples. As we can see by the responses, this is not acceptable... WHY? A lot of banter is thrown out here, but the bottom line is, it doesn't destroy the religiously-based morality present in current law. THAT is the goal and objective, it has nothing to do with "rights" either human or civil.

Please direct me to where you have proven the issue is not about civil or human rights. I must have missed that - all I have seen from you is the repeated claim that marriage is solely a religious ceremony that necessitates a difference of gender between the two being wed.

For the rest: I summarised earlier why a civil union is not sufficient, so I will paraphrase myself: A civil union won't do for the same reason a blacks entrance won't do; although both doors let you into the building, it is unwarranted, prejudicial segregation. That is the issue. A civil union does not account for the literally 1,000+ laws and benefits given to married couples. You've used the term 'smoke screen' as a descriptor for the way liberals articulate their points, which given the context seemed to imply that their points were a meaningless facade. Allow me then to use your term to describe civil unions. Civil unions are a smoke screen; a term with no meaning. A couple united by civil union gains none of the benefits a married couple receives. THAT is why gay people want more. Because they've been given nothing but a pair of meaningless words.



The same thing can be seen in movements to remove "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, and school prayer. It is all part of a greater Socialist plan, and it's working brilliantly because touchy-feely liberal morons are too stupid to realize it, and have become useful idiots for the Socialists. It is now in vogue to bash Christians. I have been bashed in this very thread for my views, even though I have repeated several times, I am not a Christian and do not belong to any organized religion. I do, however, hold the Constitution of the US in great regard, and believe it should always protect the freedom of religion. Gay Marriage is a most direct persecution of religious views, and violates the Constitution in that regard.

God was not originally in the pledge of allegiance. The words "under God" were added to the existing pledge in 1952. As for prayer in schools, what's wrong with removing that? Freedom of religion is a double-edged sword. ;) Socialists don't so much have a plan as they're more concerned with people than with something not all of those people even believe is real. Would you support a movement to teach children in their science classes about magic, as interpreted by Wiccan practices? No? Then why should we put prayer back in schools?

Gay marriage is not a persecution of religious views any more than the existence of a church of Satan is a persecution of Roman Catholic views. Gay marriage does not have to include religion in any way, shape, or form - no one is ordering that Southern Baptist preacher to wed the two gay guys across the street. Religion does not enter into this because it is an entirely separate issue. Civil marriage is NOT religious marriage - religious marriage has absolutely NO legal connotations! For instance, I have a friend who is a preacher's son in Canada. If I go to Canada with my girlfriend and he goes through the motions, pronouncing us man and wife, we are not legally married. The same thing goes if I go visit my great uncle (who is an ordained Methodist minister) and get him to perform the ceremony. Without the papers for a CIVIL marriage, there is no marriage in the legal sense of the word. Do you understand now? The word 'marriage' can describe either of those things - civil or religious marriage. Gay marriage is gay civil marriage. End of story.


If you want to propose we ban the state licence requirements for Marriage, I would tend to agree with this, as Marriage is a religious ritual and the state has no business involving itself with it. If you want to classify Marriage as Civil Unions, and allow gay and straight people to obtain a licence for "Civil Union" instead of Marriage licences, I have no problem with that. It is the subversion of the religiously-based tradition of holy matrimony, being torn down by Socialists, that I am opposed to. Now... some pinhead will undoubtedly turn my words into 'homophobic bigotry' and proclaim me wrong, but I think my view is about as damn moderate as it gets. If I were a homophobic bigot, I would simply say that Gay Marriage shouldn't be legalized because we shouldn't legislate sexually deviant behavior. Have I made that statement or presented that argument? No, I have been more than cordial in allowing something to guarantee gay people have the same rights as straight people, so we can all get along and still respect religious freedom. Of course, this is not good enough for the "non-bigoted" people out there.

I don't have too much to say on this one, since it's pretty close to what I believe is the 'correct' way to handle marriage. "holy matrimony" is meaningless in terms of law - it's very important to me that I make this point very clear. Religious ceremony has nothing at all, in any circumstances, to do with law. You can go stand before a judge and be married, or you can go get a license and see your religious officiator of choice for the religious ceremony. The reason that second option even exists is to allow members of a religion to give some semblance of meaning to the ceremony beyond the spiritual. The state cannot deny anyone freedom of religion, and so those religions which define marriage with religion-specific 'laws' must be recognized by the state, though it is ultimately not the state's responsibility or prerogative to enforce those laws.

Remember: Civil marriage is NOT religious marriage; the two can be separate. Many couples are legally married for months before they have a ceremony.

Because "seperate but equal" is an afront to personal dignity and basic human decency.

I keep hearing your side use this term, but I have never mentioned it. This is part of the campaign to juxtapose Gay Marriage with racial equality, and that is an unfair comparisson to make with regard to same-sex marriage. If anti-gay-marriage folks were suggesting gay people have their own schools and public facilities, you might have a legitimate claim here, but that is not the case, at least not in my viewpoint. I clearly want to afford gay people the same opportunity as straight people, to file taxes together, buy property together, get insurance together, adopt kids together, or even have a freakin' wedding ceremony, have a wedding album, throw rice and celebrate their union in love together... whatever! I am not opposed to that, and I have made that abundantly clear, but I still get called a bigot and my viewpoint is compared to something hideous from our distant past.

No, you don't. If you actually cared what the constitution really said you'd take efforts to learn what it says, not what you think it says. You have had two bar certified, practicing attorneys that have told you, straight out, that your interpretation of the law is incorrect.

You know, my experience on the internet and message boards tells me, you are probably not even out of high school yet. People who know things and are somebody, don't have to tell others, because the others can tell already. Those who have to resort to posting their resume when they present their views, are often not qualified to debate the issue at hand, and have to compensate by doing such a sales job. The Founding Fathers were very clear in stating the First Amendment, I don't need a law degree to understand it.

Many people would prefer just that, myself included. However you are in favor of allowing straight people to have a 100% non religious ceremony and still call it marriage, but not afford the same rights to homosexual partners.

Wow, we agree on something! However, nothing about Marriage is 100% non-religious, as it is a union of holy matrimony between a man and woman. Marriage is what it is, and you can't just alter that because you want your Apples to be Oranges. I'm sorry about that, but it's the truth. You continue to insist this is about "civil" marriage, which, from my view, is the same thing as "civil union" without the use of the religiously-based word for joining of man and woman in civil union of holy matrimony.

My argument is from the point of view of the 1st Amendment, and the freedom from religious persecution. Christians, and religious people, have the right to practice their religious beliefs without them being made a mockery of, and if you do this, you are violating their rights. Gay Marriage does just that, and is not Constitutional because of it. Civil Unions do not infringe on the religiously-based tradition of marriage, and do not violate the 1st.

Which means you support the premise of seperate but equal. Which does make you a bigot. No matter how you try to support it, or argue it, or fight against it, you support seperate but equal.

You should be very careful about calling people "bigot" here. It is a violation of the forum rules and if you are reported, the moderators are supposed to boot you. Of course, you have the advantage of the mods being on your side in this argument, so... no worries, hurl perjoratives at me all day! I don't mind, I am used to it now!

The only "seperation" I endorse, is the seperation of church and state, wheras the state has no authority to change marriage to include anything other than a union of man and woman in holy matrimony. Gay men can still marry women and Gay women can still marry men, and no one can marry their goats, and I can't marry Carmen Electra. Marriage, whether you can give some obscure ancient examples or not, is a very important and sacred religious ritual and ceremony, and protecting the sanctity of it, is what the 1st Amendment is about.

So, I am not saying "seperate but equal" but rather, "equal and seperate" in the terminoligy and state (civil) aspect of this issue. Respect both sides, those who are religious and hold the tradition of marriage sacred, and those who just want to join in union together as life partners. Everyone gets what they want, except the Godless Socialists, which is why we continue to debate this issue. Until the God-haters can tear down every religiously-based moral law we have, they won't be satisfied.

However, nothing about Marriage is 100% non-religious, as it is a union of holy matrimony between a man and woman.
No, it's quite clearly not, as someone can get married without any religious connotations whatsoever, as I and several other posters have noted.

Those married in a registry office, or the US equivalent, are still very much married, without any religious ceremony whatsoever.

The only "seperation" I endorse, is the seperation of church and state, wheras the state has no authority to change marriage to include anything other than a union of man and woman in holy matrimony. Gay men can still marry women and Gay women can still marry men, and no one can marry their goats, and I can't marry Carmen Electra. Marriage, whether you can give some obscure ancient examples or not, is a very important and sacred religious ritual and ceremony, and protecting the sanctity of it, is what the 1st Amendment is about.

Normally I'd wait for you to respond to my post, but I have to reply to this.

If the state has no authority to 'change marriage', then the state should not have the authority to bestow on any couple the status of 'married'. Which means remove all legal connotations for marriage, including the power of priests to marry, the status itself of being in wedlock, et cetera. We must then abolish marriage and let the various religions have their ceremony for whom and how they see fit.

Civil marriage is a term describing the legal aspect of marriage. By state statute, it can be included in religious ceremony if a marriage license is issued beforehand.

Please direct me to where you have proven the issue is not about civil or human rights. I must have missed that - all I have seen from you is the repeated claim that marriage is solely a religious ceremony that necessitates a difference of gender between the two being wed.

Civil and human rights are not infringed either way. It isn't about human or civil rights, and to continue to perpetuate that is a lie. No one is being denied something available to others... I can't marry within my own gender, that isn't what marriage is. You mention various interpretations of "marriage" but the context in which we are discussing, is the religiously-based tradition of marriage.

It's not that marriage is "solely" a religious ceremony, it is because marriage is exclusively important to religious belief and freedoms. This is what "sanctity" means, it is very important to religious philosophy and belief. You wouldn't think of endorsing a law which mandated that all crosses displayed in public, must be painted red, to pay homage to Satan... would you? Hell, maybe you would??? Perhaps, a bad example. The point is, Marriage, as we know it to be, is a religious thing, like Baptism or Christmas. To attempt altering it or changing it to include something that, honestly, is a sexual behavior not endorsed or embraced by the church, is sacrilegious and violates the 1st.

See, here is the problem... Someone like myself presents a perfectly valid and legitimate argument,

What "valid and legitimate argument"? All I've heard is you continually stating that homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens by the law and that failure to enforce religion on all citizens is a breach of religious freedoms.



I don't know about anyone else, but I would hardly be termed "liberal" by most people, nor do self-identify by that term.

Your views are bigoted and homophobic. Either that, or simply ignorant. You can't blame people for calling a duck a duck.

[quote]The Constitutional basis for not allowing same sex marriage would be, no such thing exists.

Legal marriage exists. Legal marriage is currently being granted in a discriminatory manner. Suggesting that the fact that most governments do not currently recognize same-sex marriage is a Constitutional reason to continue doing so is logically equivalent to the following statement:

"The Constitutional basis for not allowing people of different ethnicities marriage would be, no such thing exists."

It's like allowing Apple Juice made from Oranges, it doesn't exist, so you can't allow what doesn't exist, it defies logic. Marriage is the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony, meaning, it is a religious ceremony ordained by the church and sanctioned by the state in form of a marriage licence.

If it is a religious ceremony, the state has no business sanctioning it.

Luckily, civil marriage has nothing to do with any religious ceremony.

Marriage is not a right, no one is "entitled" to get married, gay or straight, and they certainly aren't entitled to alter the meaning of the word to fit their needs.

According to the US Supreme Court (and the universal declaration of human rights), marriage is a right and everyone is entitled to it.

The current Gay Marriage issue is the result of Socialist thinking, which seeks to tear down any and all religiously-based morality within the society.

Hardly. The gay marriage issue is the result of a governmental system that is supposed to treat all citizens equally under the law, but does not. Ensuring religious freedom is not the same thing as tearing down religiously based morality within society, although there certainly should be no laws made on such a basis.

You and your liberal friends have unfortunately been brainwashed into thinking this is about Civil Rights or Human Rights, and it is not. I have proven this.

You have done no such thing.

Civil Union legislation would remove any and all barriers to homosexual couples, and give them every single right of straight couples.

No, it wouldn't.

As we can see by the responses, this is not acceptable... WHY? A lot of banter is thrown out here, but the bottom line is, it doesn't destroy the religiously-based morality present in current law. THAT is the goal and objective, it has nothing to do with "rights" either human or civil.

Freedom of religion is not a human or civil right?

I do, however, hold the Constitution of the US in great regard, and believe it should always protect the freedom of religion.

If only this were actually true. But you have not been arguing for the protection of freedom of religion. Instead, you have been arguing in favor of the state picking certain religious views over others, and enforcing them on everyone - the exact opposite of freedom of religion.

Gay Marriage is a most direct persecution of religious views, and violates the Constitution in that regard.

It is no such thing.

Civil marriage is a term describing the legal aspect of marriage. By state statute, it can be included in religious ceremony if a marriage license is issued beforehand.
And this is the nub of the argument Dixieanna.

You seem to be arguing that gay men and women should not only be prevented from taking part in a religious ceremony -- which is perfectly fine, if a bit petty; if a religion wants to bestow a ceremony only on heterosexual couples, then fair play to them -- but also be prevented from being legally married.

Creating a separate, secular, institution for homosexuals is completely unnecessary and rather derogatory.

Normally I'd wait for you to respond to my post, but I have to reply to this.

If the state has no authority to 'change marriage', then the state should not have the authority to bestow on any couple the status of 'married'. Which means remove all legal connotations for marriage, including the power of priests to marry, the status itself of being in wedlock, et cetera. We must then abolish marriage and let the various religions have their ceremony for whom and how they see fit.

Civil marriage is a term describing the legal aspect of marriage. By state statute, it can be included in religious ceremony if a marriage license is issued beforehand.

If the State wanted to pass a law that made church baptismals into public swimming pools open to the general public, and argued that the general publics rights were being violated because they didn't get to use the baptismal for public swimming, would you think that was a good law to pass?

Let me cut to the chase, because I really have to run... Civil Marriage... Civil Unions... What is the difference? Seems to me, it is a word. This word, and the meaning it holds for a large segment of the religious and conservative public, is what this issue is about. Perhaps it is a valid argument, that the state should not licence "marriage" but rather, "unions" or "partnerships" and let "marriage" forever belong to religious groups, or whoever wants to define it by their own standards?

Civil and human rights are not infringed either way. It isn't about human or civil rights, and to continue to perpetuate that is a lie. No one is being denied something available to others... I can't marry within my own gender, that isn't what marriage is. You mention various interpretations of "marriage" but the context in which we are discussing, is the religiously-based tradition of marriage.

It's not that marriage is "solely" a religious ceremony, it is because marriage is exclusively important to religious belief and freedoms. This is what "sanctity" means, it is very important to religious philosophy and belief. You wouldn't think of endorsing a law which mandated that all crosses displayed in public, must be painted red, to pay homage to Satan... would you? Hell, maybe you would??? Perhaps, a bad example. The point is, Marriage, as we know it to be, is a religious thing, like Baptism or Christmas. To attempt altering it or changing it to include something that, honestly, is a sexual behavior not endorsed or embraced by the church, is sacrilegious and violates the 1st.

Let me ask one very simple quesiton. Who would force a church or any other religious entity to perform gay marriage?

What would require a religion to perform gay marriage against their beliefs?

Who would mandate a church or other religious group do anything? Seriously, where in holy hell do you get this extraordinarily misguided viewpoint that if we allow gay marriage that sudenly churches would be forced to perform them?

As I said, you don't respect the law. How could you? you have no fucking clue what it says.

Civil and human rights are not infringed either way. It isn't about human or civil rights, and to continue to perpetuate that is a lie. No one is being denied something available to others... I can't marry within my own gender, that isn't what marriage is. You mention various interpretations of "marriage" but the context in which we are discussing, is the religiously-based tradition of marriage.

No, it is not. The context that we are discussing is the legal one, which would be civil marriage. The legal term for the secular union of two individuals, granting the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of a married couple, is "civil marriage". You can't pretend it doesn't exist, surely? Here's an external link.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

Just scroll down to "definitions" for a nice little summary of the differences between the types of marriage. While you're at it, look up the etymology of marriage. It is a secular concept. The word 'marry' is relatively new - its beginnings are about 1530.

It's not that marriage is "solely" a religious ceremony, it is because marriage is exclusively important to religious belief and freedoms. This is what "sanctity" means, it is very important to religious philosophy and belief. You wouldn't think of endorsing a law which mandated that all crosses displayed in public, must be painted red, to pay homage to Satan... would you? Hell, maybe you would??? Perhaps, a bad example. The point is, Marriage, as we know it to be, is a religious thing, like Baptism or Christmas. To attempt altering it or changing it to include something that, honestly, is a sexual behavior not endorsed or embraced by the church, is sacrilegious and violates the 1st.

No, sir or madam. Marriage is not exclusively important to religious belief and freedoms. It is exclusively important to couples and their desire to be together in every sense of the word.

Your comparison to crosses being painted red is...yes, a bad example, to say the least. Marriage is not a religious thing. Christmas is a federal holiday. Baptism is a shared concept between several religions. Anything else to throw at me?

See, here is the problem... Someone like myself presents a perfectly valid and legitimate argument, and liberals come out of the woodwork to proclaim me a bigot and homophobe for my views. Here in this forum, the mods see this and chuckle as the liberals slap themselves on the back for putting the 'redneck' in his place, and if I say anything remotely similar in nature, I am banned from the forum for breaking the rules. So, we get a very biased and slanted presentation of ideas. Being you are a liberal who hangs out here a lot, you have become used to this, and think that your opinions are the most popular and the only ones with relevance. The nasty cycle perpetuates itself, as you bask in the glory of putting down another 'religious nut' or whatever, and never even stop to realize how closed-minded you have been.
No, the problem is, you IGNORE AT LEAST HALF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOU BECAUSE THEY CHALLENGE YOUR BIGOTED BELIEFS.
Sorry for the large colored text, but at least now he can't even plausibly claim that you did not see it.

The Constitutional basis for not allowing same sex marriage would be, no such thing exists. It's like allowing Apple Juice made from Oranges, it doesn't exist, so you can't allow what doesn't exist, it defies logic. Marriage is the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony, meaning, it is a religious ceremony ordained by the church and sanctioned by the state in form of a marriage licence.

I know you'll just ignore this point again, but it must be brought up YET AGAIN.
Romans had gay marriage, and used the same word for it that they did for straight marriage. There were gay marriages in medieval Europe. In pre-Columbus North America. All those have had gay marriage. Therefore, your premise that marriage has ALWAYS been a man and a woman has been disproven, yet I know you will cling to it and not even attempt to refute this evidence-- because there is no refutation!


Marriage is not a right, no one is "entitled" to get married, gay or straight, and they certainly aren't entitled to alter the meaning of the word to fit their needs.

Loving v. Virginia has been quoted at you MANY times, yet you ignore it. The number of times it's been quoted indicates that you are intentionally ignoring it. You are so damn intellectually dishonest, that you make Bill O'Reilly look like a paragon of objective thought.


The current Gay Marriage issue is the result of Socialist thinking, which seeks to tear down any and all religiously-based morality within the society. Godless Socialism is so much easier to achieve without God getting in the way. You and your liberal friends have unfortunately been brainwashed into thinking this is about Civil Rights or Human Rights, and it is not. I have proven this.

Yeah, equal rights are a conspiracy to destroy capitalism and religion, despite the fact that some religious capitalists support gay rights. Put on your tin foil hat, buddy.


Civil Union legislation would remove any and all barriers to homosexual couples, and give them every single right of straight couples. As we can see by the responses, this is not acceptable... WHY? A lot of banter is thrown out here, but the bottom line is, it doesn't destroy the religiously-based morality present in current law. THAT is the goal and objective, it has nothing to do with "rights" either human or civil.

Actually: while countries have treaties and practices in which they recognize each others' marriages, they do NOT have such practices for civil unions. So that means that if a gay couple gets a civil union, and moves to another country, it's very possible that their union will not be recognized by their new country.

The same thing can be seen in movements to remove "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, and school prayer.

No, it's because telling students that they are required to pray or pledge to a nation "under God,"--even if they don't believe in another god(s) that might get mad at praying/pledging to the wrong one-- is unconstitutional. Besides, in this case, removing "under God" is actually traditionalist-- it didn't used to be in there until it was added in the 1950s. Weren't you the one that said tradition is a good thing? You damn hypocrite.


It is all part of a greater Socialist plan, and it's working brilliantly because touchy-feely liberal morons are too stupid to realize it, and have become useful idiots for the Socialists. It is now in vogue to bash Christians. I have been bashed in this very thread for my views, even though I have repeated several times, I am not a Christian and do not belong to any organized religion. I do, however, hold the Constitution of the US in great regard, and believe it should always protect the freedom of religion. Gay Marriage is a most direct persecution of religious views, and violates the Constitution in that regard.


Yes, it's religious discrimination to not discriminate against the groups that the majority want to discriminate against. :rolleyes:


If you want to propose we ban the state licence requirements for Marriage, I would tend to agree with this, as Marriage is a religious ritual and the state has no business involving itself with it.
Then why can atheists get married? Why can you get married in places that aren't churches, and why are you not required to have a priest of some sort?

If you want to classify Marriage as Civil Unions, and allow gay and straight people to obtain a licence for "Civil Union" instead of Marriage licences, I have no problem with that. It is the subversion of the religiously-based tradition of holy matrimony, being torn down by Socialists, that I am opposed to.

If a church doesn't want to approve of gay marriages, they don't have to. They don't have to recognize the gay couple as married. But the government should. Separation of Church and State.

Now... some pinhead will undoubtedly turn my words into 'homophobic bigotry' and proclaim me wrong, but I think my view is about as damn moderate as it gets.
Possibly, but that's irrelevant. Moderate != always right.

If I were a homophobic bigot, I would simply say that Gay Marriage shouldn't be legalized because we shouldn't legislate sexually deviant behavior. Have I made that statement or presented that argument? No, I have been more than cordial in allowing something to guarantee gay people have the same rights as straight people, so we can all get along and still respect religious freedom.

If I were a racist bigot, I would simply say that interracial marriage shouldn't be legalized because we shouldn't legislate sexually deviant behavior. Have I made that statement or presented that argument? No, I have been more than cordial in allowing something to guarantee black people the same rights as white people, so we can all get along and still respect religious freedom.

Wow, doesn't sound so great now, does it? Furthermore, you DON'T want to give gays the same rights-- you want to deny them their marriage rights.


Of course, this is not good enough for the "non-bigoted" people out there.
Go figure. Non-bigots don't like discrimination. :rolleyes:
Right, Civil Unions, even though they would give gays the exact same rights as any straight married couple, are not an option... because it doesn't subvert the religiously-based tradition of holy matrimony, which is what this is ALL about. There are no "rights" being violated here, that is a myth sold to you by Socialists who want to destroy all religiously-based morality within our society.
LOVING V. VIRGINIA.
LOVING V. VIRGINIA.
LOVING V. VIRGINIA.
LOVING V. VIRGINIA.
LOVING V. VIRGINIA.
LOVING V. VIRGINIA.
LOVING V. VIRGINIA.
LOVING V. VIRGINIA.
Marriage is a right, according the SCOTUS.

Please give me an example of any Gay person in America (or anywhere) who has not been given the same opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex, just as we all have? If you can't show me this, how can you continue to claim their "rights" have not been equal? Ohhh... I see, gays aren't allowed to marry the same sex! Well, that is not a "violation of rights" any more than a pedophile's rights are being violated by not allowing them to marry 12-year-olds. Rights are not based solely on what people want to do and aren't allowed to do, and I don't really think you want to live in that world.
Pedophiles can't marry 12-year-olds because 12-year-olds cannot give consent to marry. Totally different situation.

Because "seperate but equal" is an afront to personal dignity and basic human decency.

I keep hearing your side use this term, but I have never mentioned it. This is part of the campaign to juxtapose Gay Marriage with racial equality, and that is an unfair comparisson to make with regard to same-sex marriage. If anti-gay-marriage folks were suggesting gay people have their own schools and public facilities, you might have a legitimate claim here, but that is not the case, at least not in my viewpoint. I clearly want to afford gay people the same opportunity as straight people, to file taxes together, buy property together, get insurance together, adopt kids together, or even have a freakin' wedding ceremony, have a wedding album, throw rice and celebrate their union in love together... whatever! I am not opposed to that, and I have made that abundantly clear, but I still get called a bigot and my viewpoint is compared to something hideous from our distant past.

First of all, you think segregation is our distant past? :headbang: Your school was a failure, or you didn't pay attention. Anyway, your sexuality is just as much a part of you as your race, and the arguments against gay marriage are often exactly the same as those against interracial marriage.


No, you don't. If you actually cared what the constitution really said you'd take efforts to learn what it says, not what you think it says. You have had two bar certified, practicing attorneys that have told you, straight out, that your interpretation of the law is incorrect.

You know, my experience on the internet and message boards tells me, you are probably not even out of high school yet. People who know things and are somebody, don't have to tell others, because the others can tell already.

Oh dear. You're way off. Hang around these boards a bit longer, you'll see.

Those who have to resort to posting their resume when they present their views, are often not qualified to debate the issue at hand, and have to compensate by doing such a sales job. The Founding Fathers were very clear in stating the First Amendment, I don't need a law degree to understand it.

No, you don't need a law degree to understand it, but you clearly don't. The first amendment doesn't mean that we have to base all our laws off Christianity, as you seem to think it does.

Many people would prefer just that, myself included. However you are in favor of allowing straight people to have a 100% non religious ceremony and still call it marriage, but not afford the same rights to homosexual partners.

Wow, we agree on something! However, nothing about Marriage is 100% non-religious, as it is a union of holy matrimony between a man and woman. Marriage is what it is, and you can't just alter that because you want your Apples to be Oranges. I'm sorry about that, but it's the truth. You continue to insist this is about "civil" marriage, which, from my view, is the same thing as "civil union" without the use of the religiously-based word for joining of man and woman in civil union of holy matrimony.

Then why is a priest of some sort not required for a marriage? Why is religious affiliation of some sort not required for a marriage? It's a LEGAL issue, not just a religious one. Two atheists can get married. Should we ban atheist marriage, because they don't have a religious ceremony for it?

My argument is from the point of view of the 1st Amendment, and the freedom from religious persecution. Christians, and religious people, have the right to practice their religious beliefs without them being made a mockery of, and if you do this, you are violating their rights. Gay Marriage does just that, and is not Constitutional because of it. Civil Unions do not infringe on the religiously-based tradition of marriage, and do not violate the 1st.

No, the 1st amendment does NOT say that we have to follow Christian law, or even give it special consideration when making laws.

Which means you support the premise of seperate but equal. Which does make you a bigot. No matter how you try to support it, or argue it, or fight against it, you support seperate but equal.

You should be very careful about calling people "bigot" here. It is a violation of the forum rules and if you are reported, the moderators are supposed to boot you. Of course, you have the advantage of the mods being on your side in this argument, so... no worries, hurl perjoratives at me all day! I don't mind, I am used to it now!
Maybe you get called a bigot so often because... you have the same views as do a lot of bigots? You defend the bigoted side of the argument?


The only "seperation" I endorse, is the seperation of church and state, wheras the state has no authority to change marriage to include anything other than a union of man and woman in holy matrimony.
No, that's not what seperation of church and state means. Sure, the state can't tell churches what marriage means to them, but in the same way, churches can't tell the state what marriage means to it. It goes BOTH ways.


Gay men can still marry women and Gay women can still marry men, and no one can marry their goats, and I can't marry Carmen Electra.
Bestiality is entirely different from homosexuality. Animals cannot consent. And you could marry Carmen Electra if you were both unmarried (and thus it would not be a violation of earlier contracts) and you both consented. By saying the fact that you can't FORCE her to marry her means that you equate homosexual marriage with rape, showing how bigoted you are.


Marriage, whether you can give some obscure ancient examples or not, is a very important and sacred religious ritual and ceremony, and protecting the sanctity of it, is what the 1st Amendment is about.

So... you think that ancient Rome was an obscure example? :eek: You really DID fail history.


So, I am not saying "seperate but equal" but rather, "equal and seperate" in the terminoligy and state (civil) aspect of this issue. Respect both sides, those who are religious and hold the tradition of marriage sacred, and those who just want to join in union together as life partners. Everyone gets what they want, except the Godless Socialists, which is why we continue to debate this issue. Until the God-haters can tear down every religiously-based moral law we have, they won't be satisfied.

Well you're right about one thing. I want to get rid of all laws that have no basis but religion, because those are a violation of the Seperation of Church and State. But the rest of that was some of the stupidest shit I've ever read.

Perhaps it is a valid argument, that the state should not licence "marriage" but rather, "unions" or "partnerships" and let "marriage" forever belong to religious groups, or whoever wants to define it by their own standards?

That's a great argument, and one I am very much in favor of. In fact, I would very much like the government to not use the word "marriage" as any legal structure what so ever.

However, it does. And as long as it continues to do so, arguing for gay "civil unions" and straight "marriages" is nothing more than insisting that gays should just accept that they're "different" and don't get to call their union a marriage while someone who pops into a chapel in vegas and drunkenly marries a stranger does, because of the "sanctity" of marriage.

If the State wanted to pass a law that made church baptismals into public swimming pools open to the general public, and argued that the general publics rights were being violated because they didn't get to use the baptismal for public swimming, would you think that was a good law to pass?
You're highlighting the ridiculousness of your position with these bizarre and inaccurate analogies.

No religious organisation has a monopoly on marriage; marriage is a legal institution which some religious organisations hold ceremonies to, in their eyes, 'sanctify'. The religious part is optional (although not if one is religious, obviously). To define marriage as a soley religious ceremony is an example of the No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) fallacy.

No-one is trying to ban religious ceremonies that, in the faithful's eyes, sanctify marriage; no-one is trying to change fonts into swimming pools, to go back to your poor analogy. They are trying to get equal legal rights, and to enjoy the same ceremony as every heterosexual couple -- religious or not -- enjoys when they get married.

If the State wanted to pass a law that made church baptismals into public swimming pools open to the general public, and argued that the general publics rights were being violated because they didn't get to use the baptismal for public swimming, would you think that was a good law to pass?
I've stated many times already that religion plays no part in marriage unless you want it to. So unless that congregation wanted their baptismal to be a swimming pool open to the public and blessed every morning at 8 AM sharp...no, I would not think that would be a good idea. The key here is freedom - something that I'm starting to doubt you understand, or at the least, believe in.


Let me cut to the chase, because I really have to run... Civil Marriage... Civil Unions... What is the difference? Seems to me, it is a word. This word, and the meaning it holds for a large segment of the religious and conservative public, is what this issue is about. Perhaps it is a valid argument, that the state should not licence "marriage" but rather, "unions" or "partnerships" and let "marriage" forever belong to religious groups, or whoever wants to define it by their own standards?

The difference can be found in my previous post, which contains a link to those definitions. The word 'marriage' does not originate in a religious context, so the various religions have no right to monopolize the term. Sorry, but they don't.

Christians, and religious people, have the right to practice their religious beliefs without them being made a mockery of, and if you do this, you are violating their rights.

Wait...what? Are you fucking shitting me? Relgious people have the right not only to practice their belief, but to prevent the government from passing laws they don't agree with?

Are you fucking shitting me?

Right, Civil Unions, even though they would give gays the exact same rights as any straight married couple, are not an option... because it doesn't subvert the religiously-based tradition of holy matrimony, which is what this is ALL about. There are no "rights" being violated here, that is a myth sold to you by Socialists who want to destroy all religiously-based morality within our society.

:rolleyes: Where to begin...

Marriage is a government institution. Any random man in a bathrobe chanting hymns in a ritual can perform a ceremony, but it doesn't mean it is recognised. Anyone can be "married" in a place of worship but in order to be recognised as married, one must possess a certificate from the government, hence, it is a GOVERNMENT controlled institution. This is a fine case of institutionalised discrimination based on sex.

You can claim your religion allows for you to be married but the marriage will be invalidated if the proper sources aren't used to validate the legality of the marriage. Just because you married in a ceremony doesn't make you married, you still have to register with the government.

Lastly, how are socialists going to destroy the moral fabric of society? Nice little bit of utter bunk you got there.

Please give me an example of any Gay person in America (or anywhere) who has not been given the same opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex, just as we all have? If you can't show me this, how can you continue to claim their "rights" have not been equal? Ohhh... I see, gays aren't allowed to marry the same sex! Well, that is not a "violation of rights" any more than a pedophile's rights are being violated by not allowing them to marry 12-year-olds. Rights are not based solely on what people want to do and aren't allowed to do, and I don't really think you want to live in that world.

No one is disputing the rights of breeders.

But here's the thing, they want to marry someone they love. Sex is merely an assignment based on physical characteristics. It tells you nothing about what the person feels inside. Sure everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex. But then why not the same? It's still monogamous. It still follows the same rules about consent and all that legal jazz. The only difference is what's in the pants and that is pure discrimination because it takes away from people's right to HAPPINESS. Isn't that a tenent of the American Constitution?

How can you compared non-consensual activity with a minor to the desires of two consenting adults of the same sex who want to forge a marriage union to solidify and validate their live to the world?

How futile. How typical. You're grasping at straws if you think that there is any relevance in your comparison, which doesn't line up with logic. You're comparing sentient life to a rock!

Assumption.

Um, valid? How does a gay couple engaging in sex in their home or a gay couple being married effect anyone else?

Um, valid? How does a gay couple engaging in sex in their home or a gay couple being married effect anyone else?

[Jesus-Fan-Club]Because innocents live in that city, and they'll be collateral damage when Gawd sends the flood/volcano/hurricane/other natural disaster against the gayz! It's self defense![/Jesus-Fan-Club]

Be that word our sign of parting, Dixieanna...

***Ladies and Gentlemen, especially to Dixieanna, The Beatles, with a slightly changed version of their hit, "Tell Me Why"!***

( To the melody these cover band gentlemen are playing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2524cdG2Yc )

***Requiem***

Tell me why you cry
About the gay grooms-to-be
Tell me why you cry
About the gay grooms-to-be

Well it's none of your goddamn beeswax
Which doesn't keep you from prattling on!
Why do you just wish them oh so bad
Equality causes you to moan?

Tell me why you cry
About the gay grooms-to-be
Tell me why you cry
About the gay grooms-to-be

It's not something they have said or done
So it's not theirs to apologize
Your prejudices just carried on
Might as well hate someone for their eyes

Tell me why you cry
About the gay grooms-to-be
Tell me why you cry
About the gay grooms-to-be

Well, you're begging on your bended knees
Mixing State with Church through all your pleas
Hoping to pass legislation through
Cause you just want the government
Catering for you

Tell me why you cry
About the gay grooms-to-be
Tell me why you cry
About the gay grooms-to-be

Aww, I came late. Nice job everyone and you all get a pat on the back for the vanquishing of Dixieanna. At least for the time being.

From my perspective, Marriage is a union between a man and woman, where they make vows to God, so I don't understand what "non-religious" marriage is. Maybe it's like a Civil Union? Huh?
From your perspective. That, right there, Dixieanna is the whole problem with your argument. You have been claiming to present established facts that exist in law and in society, but in reality all you have been doing is giving us your perspective -- in other words, your opinion. Your opinion is not the majority opinion, nor does it amount to a set of facts that no one can argue with it. It is just your thoughts, based on your perspective, and it is entirely subjective. If you cannot see the inherent unfairness in trying to push your perspective as a standard that everyone must conform to, then I really don't know what else to say to you.

Um, valid? How does a gay couple engaging in sex in their home or a gay couple being married effect anyone else?hey, sex for fun without possible procreation is a sin.

hey, sex for fun without possible procreation is a sin.

Indeed. God hates sex specifically and happiness in general.

Click Stand;13200092']Aww, I came late. Nice job everyone and you all get a pat on the back for the vanquishing of Dixieanna. At least for the time being.

Roll credits, preview the castle of Heterovania appearing in the fog once more?

This is a bit uncalled for. Dixieanna's opinions might not be too popular in this thread, but we need not badmouth him/her. Besides, s/he did say s/he had to leave in his/her last post. =p

Roll credits, preview the castle of Heterovania appearing in the fog once more?

This is a bit uncalled for. Dixieanna's opinions might not be too popular in this thread, but we need not badmouth him/her. Besides, s/he did say s/he had to leave in his/her last post. =p

I take my undeserved wins where I can get them. Plus that was all in jest, and I hope he/she comes back for another go so I can be there.

Indeed. God hates sex specifically and happiness in general.Yep, and a childless person is a murderer.

Roll credits, preview the castle of Heterovania appearing in the fog once more?

This is a bit uncalled for. Dixieanna's opinions might not be too popular in this thread, but we need not badmouth him/her. Besides, s/he did say s/he had to leave in his/her last post. =p
True, I came too late, or perhaps just late enough. I won't get a chance to participate in the re-run of the Dixieanna Show. But perhaps, if this thread continues, we'll get a third opportunity to post all the exact same posts with Dixieanna tomorrow. (Sometimes I wonder about people's debate tactics, I really do.)

Whatever. *hums "Tell Me Why" while waiting for next bigot to show up*

Whatever. *hums "Why You Cry" while waiting for next bigot to show up*

Awww, I got noticed. :D

Yep, and a childless person is a murderer.

Well,
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate.
:D

Awww, I got noticed. :D

By someone who is so out of it, she had to go back and look up the song title again, a whole two minutes after first reading it. :)

By someone who is so out of it, she had to go back and look up the song title again, a whole two minutes after first reading it. :)

Did I do well? :D

snip

*sigh*

I'm not going to bother responding to your "arguments" this time because you (a) keep ignoring most of the arguments made against you, (b) keep repeating the same things even when they've been disproven, (c) primarily argue with strawmen, etc, etc.

If your backwards view of the First Amendment really were the law of the land, I'd move.

*sigh*

I'm not going to bother responding to your "arguments" this time because you (a) keep ignoring most of the arguments made against you, (b) keep repeating the same things even when they've been disproven, (c) primarily argue with strawmen, etc, etc.

If your backwards view of the First Amendment really were the law of the land, I'd move.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. No more pig's in zen.

What have you done?

Yep, and a childless person is a murderer.

Hmm? What do you mean?

Did I do well? :D
Well enough that I'm still humming. :D

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. No more pig's in zen.

What have you done?
He got drunk at a Pogues concert, which reminded him of how Fucking Awesome they are.






(CT, notice how I minutely embellish your concert story every time I mention it. By New Year's, I'll have you bearing Shane McGowan's love child. I do this because I'm still jealous! ;))

By New Year’s, I’ll have you bearing Shane McGowan’s love child.
Ewwwww.

Worst. Copulation. Ever.

Hmm? What do you mean?
Occasionally, those who are anti-gay marriage put forward the (ridiculous) argument that marriage is solely about reproduction, and thus homosexuals shouldn’t be able to marry.

But, if we follow this argument on, it suggests that those who can’t or don’t have children shouldn’t get married, and/or that childless married couples are somehow wrong. Some strange folks hold the last part to be true regardless of their stance on gay marriage.

UB seems to be parodying such a view. There was a thread on it a while back.

Ewwwww.

Worst. Copulation. Ever.

Probably. So I won't tell you about the confession I made in CT's "I just saw the Pogues and you didn't - neener-neener" thread, in which I mentioned just how much of a whore to talent I could potentially be...

I'll just say, Shane writes very good songs.

He got drunk at a Pogues concert, which reminded him of how Fucking Awesome they are.






(CT, notice how I minutely embellish your concert story every time I mention it. By New Year's, I'll have you bearing Shane McGowan's love child. I do this because I'm still jealous! ;))

You say that like he didn't. :p

Though to be perfectly clear, I'm not a fan. Never could get into the Celtic fusion stuff.

Well enough that I'm still humming. :D

Good. :D

Oh no...this thread is dying out.
We cannot let it die, if not just so it becomes the most ironic thread in NS history.

Alright..
*consults panel of bigots*

Here we go:
Homosexuality is a choice and the whole issue could be resolved if they just stopped being so deviant.
There is no such thing as "gay marriage" and there never should be. Ever. Like totally.

Homosexuality is a choice and the whole issue could be resolved if they just stopped being so deviant.

Deviant from what?

From God clearly.
Is it not obvious God is a heterosexual...?
He makes Eve with a rib. A rib.
There is obviously a significance to that, which the authors of the Bible forgot to make up... I mean.. write.

Could you also argue that they're deviant from the norm?

*Watches as a fat guy enters the bar*

NORM!!!

Deviant from what?

From God clearly.
Is it not obvious God is a heterosexual...?
He makes Eve with a rib. A rib.
There is obviously a significance to that, which the authors of the Bible forgot to make up... I mean.. write.

From your perspective. That, right there, Dixieanna is the whole problem with your argument. You have been claiming to present established facts that exist in law and in society, but in reality all you have been doing is giving us your perspective -- in other words, your opinion. Your opinion is not the majority opinion, nor does it amount to a set of facts that no one can argue with it. It is just your thoughts, based on your perspective, and it is entirely subjective. If you cannot see the inherent unfairness in trying to push your perspective as a standard that everyone must conform to, then I really don't know what else to say to you.

Yes, from MY perspective! Just as you are presenting things from YOUR perspective. The problem is, I can see things from your perspective and you refuse to even try to see things from my perspective. Instead, my perspective is intentionally mis characterized and compared to bigotry, as you try to hoot me down for what I have said. I have presented well-established facts, these are the basis for my perspective. My opinion is the overwhelming opinion of most American voters, according to the avg. 70% vote against Gay Marriage in the last elections. Now, last I checked, our form of representative republic democracy allows the prevailing vast majority to make and establish the laws through their elected representatives, and the overwhelming minority has to suck hind tit, as they say. So, we can quickly dismiss the whole Gay Marriage thing and forget about your lame attempts to legalize and normalize it in America, if you insist on going with what the majority thinks. Just as you claim I am trying to force my viewpoint down your throat, you aren't allowed to force your viewpoint down mine! (Disregard the fact that my viewpoint as stated, is to allow Gay people to have the exact same rights and opportunities as everyone else, in Civil Unions.) Now, go back to your corner, and try to figure out a way to bash someone who agrees with you in principle on gay rights, but disagrees with changing a well-established religious tradition for the sake of smearing feces on religion. Maybe you can come up with a pejorative besides "bigot" to throw at me?

Yes, from MY perspective! Just as you are presenting things from YOUR perspective. The problem is, I can see things from your perspective and you refuse to even try to see things from my perspective. Instead, my perspective is intentionally mis characterized and compared to bigotry, as you try to hoot me down for what I have said. I have presented well-established facts, these are the basis for my perspective.

Your perspective is based on provably wrong premises; the facts that you present have been refuted, yet you ignore every post against it.

You assert that no major society has ever had gay marriage.
Somebody presents Roman gay marriage.
You ignore it.

You claim that the 1st amendment means that we can't do anything that offends a church.
The actual interpretation is presented.
You off-handedly dismiss it without good reason.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.


My opinion is the overwhelming opinion of most American voters, according to the avg. 70% vote against Gay Marriage in the last elections. Now, last I checked, our form of representative republic democracy allows the prevailing vast majority to make and establish the laws through their elected representatives, and the overwhelming minority has to suck hind tit, as they say. So, we can quickly dismiss the whole Gay Marriage thing and forget about your lame attempts to legalize and normalize it in America, if you insist on going with what the majority thinks.
But we also have protection for minorities. Majority rule with minority rights. Otherwise, only white people would have rights in America.

Just as you claim I am trying to force my viewpoint down your throat, you aren't allowed to force your viewpoint down mine! (Disregard the fact that my viewpoint as stated, is to allow Gay people to have the exact same rights and opportunities as everyone else, in Civil Unions.) Now, go back to your corner, and try to figure out a way to bash someone who agrees with you in principle on gay rights, but disagrees with changing a well-established religious tradition for the sake of smearing feces on religion. Maybe you can come up with a pejorative besides "bigot" to throw at me?

Allowing gay marriage isn't forcing anything down your throat; you don't have to get a gay marriage. However, by banning gay marriage, you are FORCING gay people not to get a marriage. You can call "civil unions!" all you want, but they aren't quite legally equivalent: the civil union you get in one country might not be valid in another, but your marriage almost certainly will be! Indeed, the civil union you get in one state might not be valid in another, if people who tend to argue against gay marriage get their way.


But you're going to ignore that point, because it's inconvenient, right? Just like you've ignored every other point counter to your claims.

Fact: Canada has legalised gay marriage several years ago.

Fact: Canada has not ceased to exist.

Deduction: Gay marriage will not unravel the very fabric of your society or destroy your country.

Yes, from MY perspective! Just as you are presenting things from YOUR perspective.

The difference is that your perspective is based on objectively and demonstrably false input. Marriage is not purely religious. If it were, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the government would have absolutely nothing to do with it. Religion is not a necessity for marriage.

In addition, your contention that marriage has always been a certain way is patently and demonstrably wrong. Even a cursory glance at history would demonstrate this.

In addition, your contention that "civil unions" can grant all of the same rights as civil marriage is incorrect - given the international implications.

In addition, your constant statements that, in order to preserve religious freedom, we must allow certain religions to control the government is not only incorrect, but is patently absurd.

I have presented well-established facts, these are the basis for my perspective.

Yes, facts well-established to be objectively and demonstrably incorrect.

Fact: Canada has legalised gay marriage several years ago.

Fact: Canada has not ceased to exist.

Deduction: Gay marriage will not unravel the very fabric of your society or destroy your country.

Fact: Religion still exists in Canada and those who wish to practice their religion can do so freely.

(figured I'd add that one in)

...
You assert that no major society has ever had gay marriage.
Somebody presents Roman gay marriage.
You ignore it.
...

I'm extremely interested in which 'Roman' same sex marriages are being brought up as a defense and example for modern same-sex marriages?

Something like a Nero example would really, really be inappropriate and susceptible to counter arguments, I think...

Nero: seduced by his mother
Nero's reported sexual activities range from being seduced by his mother Agrippina to forcing his unwanted attentions on married women and boys. Famously, he takes two homosexual lovers, Pythagoras and Sporus, in 'marriage'. Nero is said to behave as the wife to Pythagoras and husband to Sporus, whom he has had castrated. Taken together with his 'artistic' performances (see The arts), when he will often take on a female part and dress accordingly, Nero's behaviour scandalises Rome and plays an important part in his downfall.
link (http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/guide03/part10.html)

Or maybe Elagabalus?:
But even more shocking in the eyes of respectable Roman society is his 'marriage' to a slave named Hierocles. Elagabalus likes nothing better than to dress as a woman and go around with his 'husband', who is even encouraged to beat the emperor as if he is his real wife. Sometimes Elagabalus plays out scenes in which Hierocles finds him with another man and punishes him for his 'infidelity'.

It seems that the only reference I can find are people saying something like, it is well known that the Romans had same sex marriages, and other statements like that, but the ones I have found are not backed up with the “when and where and who's”, and the statement itself seems to be mainly found on pro same-sex websites/authors, and not historical Roman scholarship or websites.

Perhaps someone here has some samples that they can share about Roman same sex marriages that are ‘good’ examples for modern day comparison. From my understanding, the Roman government didn't even have official unions at all, you simply got married and told them on the next census how many people were in your family. No marriage licenses etc.

Your perspective is based on provably wrong premises; the facts that you present have been refuted, yet you ignore every post against it.

No, my perspective is based on provably right premises, you just refuse to acknowledge them or allow them to prevail.

You assert that no major society has ever had gay marriage.
Please quote where I have EVER said that!

Somebody presents Roman gay marriage.
You ignore it.

Because obscure ancient customs have nothing to do with modern understanding of marriage. Most of these obscure customs were the result of religious persecutions of the time, and governmental attempts to ordain religion and morality from the throne, something I hope we have grown past.

You claim that the 1st amendment means that we can't do anything that offends a church.
Again, point me to the exact quote where I said this!

The actual interpretation is presented.
You off-handedly dismiss it without good reason.
No, your interpretation was presented, and I doubt you are a religious scholar or authority.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Apparently, a rule you need to follow yourself!

Fact: Religion still exists in Canada and those who wish to practice their religion can do so freely.

(figured I'd add that one in)
Point.

Might as well mention that Churches are still free to refuse to marry according to their doctrine and beliefs.

So the Catholic Church still refuses to marry two men and/or two women, just like they refuse to remarry people who have had a divorce.

But the state, however, cannot deny gays and/or previously divorced persons a license.

Point.

Might as well mention that Churches are still free to refuse to marry according to their doctrine and beliefs.

So the Catholic Church still refuses to marry two men and/or two women, just like they refuse to remarry people who have had a divorce.

But the state, however, cannot deny gays and/or previously divorced persons a license.
Seems reasonable to me :)

No, my perspective is based on provably right premises, you just refuse to acknowledge them or allow them to prevail.

Ok, prove that marriage is 100% religious. We'll just start with that one.

You assert that no major society has ever had gay marriage.
Please quote where I have EVER said that!

You have continually stated that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Guess what that means?

Somebody presents Roman gay marriage.
You ignore it.

Because obscure ancient customs have nothing to do with modern understanding of marriage. Most of these obscure customs were the result of religious persecutions of the time, and governmental attempts to ordain religion and morality from the throne, something I hope we have grown past.

Wait, what happened to "marriage has been this way since ancient times, so we should continue doing it this way"? Who made that argument? Oh, it was you!

You claim that the 1st amendment means that we can't do anything that offends a church.
Again, point me to the exact quote where I said this!

Your only argument against extending equal marriage rights to homosexuals is that you claim a particular religious viewpoint should control civil marriage - that a particular religious viewpoint should be enforced upon all of society.

Of course, that is the exact opposite of the actual meaning of the 1st Amendment, but who wants to split hairs, right?

The actual interpretation is presented.
You off-handedly dismiss it without good reason.
No, your interpretation was presented, and I doubt you are a religious scholar or authority.

Since when is a religious scholar or authority the person you go to when you want to interpret the law? Last time I checked, you go to a lawyer or a judge. And, since the US Supreme Court has made it pretty clear what the 1st Amendment means....

The difference is that your perspective is based on objectively and demonstrably false input. Marriage is not purely religious. If it were, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the government would have absolutely nothing to do with it. Religion is not a necessity for marriage.

Marriage is purely religious, it is the holy union of man and woman in matrimony, and has been for centuries. I have agreed, the government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business, but you don't seem to care that we agree on that point, you want to insist on changing marriage and have the government mandate how it is defined, instead of getting the government out of it. The only difference between your view and that of a religious zealot, is Government is YOUR God!

In addition, your contention that marriage has always been a certain way is patently and demonstrably wrong. Even a cursory glance at history would demonstrate this.

Man, you people sure like to put words in my mouth... again, I never said this. You interpreted my comments to mean this, but it isn't what I said. Marriage has been a religious custom for over 8000 years, and has never been defined by any church as anything other than the union of a man and woman.

In addition, your contention that "civil unions" can grant all of the same rights as civil marriage is incorrect - given the international implications.

There are no international implications, and yes... Civil Union legislation would grant gay couples every single right of their straight counterparts. The only thing that is missing is the opportunity to smear feces on religious beliefs in this country. Something you shouldn't have the right to do through legislation.

In addition, your constant statements that, in order to preserve religious freedom, we must allow certain religions to control the government is not only incorrect, but is patently absurd.

Dear God, where do you people come up with this crap? WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT????? Yes, it IS patently ABSURD! I have not even said anything remotely close to this, that you might have misconstrued to mean this, I have no idea where you came up with this from my comments.

Under the 1st Amendment, we do have an obligation to protect religious freedom, which includes the traditions and customs practiced by religion.

Seems reasonable to me :)

It is. On top of that, now the actual cool Churches, like the United Church of Canada, who aren't backwards on questions related to homosexuality, are now able to deliver legal marriage licenses. As opposed to performing a blessing ceremony without having the right to put the legal weight behind it as well.

I see he has once again not actually read any of our posts.

Marriage is purely religious
That's bullshit, but I'll humor you for a while. Even if this statement was true(which it is not) there are religions (and Churches) who have no compunction about marrying two men or two women.

If you want to respect the most basic notion of freedom of religion, you have to legalize gay marriage otherwise you are infringing on the rights of the religions who wish to perform said marriages. And they are many. Protestant, Anglican denominations around the world have taken this step.

To outlaw gay marriage does not protect freedom of religion. It is merely enforcing YOUR religion on everyone else.

I wonder if I should bet 20$ that you disregard this post without answering it.

No, my perspective is based on provably right premises, you just refuse to acknowledge them or allow them to prevail.

If you think your belief in how the 1st amendment works is anywhere even close to being right...that's....sad.

I asked you a question before, you ignored it, I will ask again. If gay marriage were made legal today, who would it be that forces churches to perform gay marriage against their will? Who will it be that requires churches to recognizes gay marriages as legitimate in their religion? Who will it be that requires churches to perform ceremonies they do not wish to perform.

In short, answer me these, if you can, a yes or no will suffice. If gay marriage were allowed, would churches:

1) be legally required to perform gay marriages?

2) be legally required to recognize gay marriages as legitimate in their religion?

3) be subject to penalties if they refuse to perform gay marriage?


Now, keep in mind, that you said it was the "godless liberals" that was trying to shut down religion. Also keep in mind, gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 4 years now.

Massachusetts is in the 1st circuit, one of the most liberal circuits in the nation. So, if any of these things were to happen, because of the "liberals", then it probably would have happened in the last 4 years within massachusetts? I mean, if your premise was correct, and any of these things would occur, they would certainly occur in massachusetts already.

So, if you answer "yes" to any of those questions, please provide appropriate citations to when they have occured in Massachusetts please. To repeat my questions:

1) be legally required to perform gay marriages?

2) be legally required to recognize gay marriages as legitimate in their religion?

3) be subject to penalties if they refuse to perform gay marriage?

If your answer is yes, please provide proof to substantiate your claims. If your position is demonstrably provable, you should have no problems what so ever actually proving it. You say that you have proven that gay marriage would violate the first amendment rights of churches. Fine, gay marriage has been legal in massachusetts for four years now. Please prove that churches first amendment rights have been violated.

Go ahead, you said it was proveable? How hard could it possibly be to prove it? You made your claim, said it was provable. Prove it. Gay marriage has been legal in a (very liberal) state for four years now. You said that it would violate church rights? prove it.

Marriage is purely religious, it is the holy union of man and woman in matrimony, and has been for centuries.

And, once again, a patently and obviously incorrect statement. If marriage were purely religious, and had been for centuries, there wouldn't be any legal issues associated with it. There wouldn't be a legal definition of marriage to discuss. Since there are, and have been for centuries, it is quite obvious that marriage is not and has not been purely religious.

Religion is not necessary to obtain a civil marriage. Atheists get married. Religious people get married, but choose not to have church weddings and get married simply by the justice of the peace. Sometimes, churches perform weddings that the state does not recognize.

It is more than obvious that religion is not, and has not been, purely religious.

I have agreed, the government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business, but you don't seem to care that we agree on that point,

We don't agree on that point. I think that the government absolutely should be in the marriage business. I think that the protections the government provides for civil marriage should be provided to those who decide to live their lives together and act as a single legal entity.

you want to insist on changing marriage and have the government mandate how it is defined, instead of getting the government out of it.

Only the government can mandate how it defines its own constructs.

The only difference between your view and that of a religious zealot, is Government is YOUR God!

Hardly. God is my God. The government is the source and enforcer of the law I live under. I expect that law to treat everyone equally, no matter what their religion, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, economic background, etc., etc., etc. may be.

Man, you people sure like to put words in my mouth... again, I never said this. You interpreted my comments to mean this, but it isn't what I said. Marriage has been a religious custom for over 8000 years, and has never been defined by any church as anything other than the union of a man and woman.

....which is patently and demonstrably wrong. Various pagan religions recognized same-sex marriage. Even some early Christian churches appear to have recognized it. The history is there.

Meanwhile, "Marriage has always been 'x'" is exactly what you just said you didn't say. But then you said it.

There are no international implications,

Wrong again. There absolutely are international implications. Either by treaties or by convention, one nation will generally recognize the marriages of another. This is generally a mutual agreement between the two nations. No such agreements have been made concerning "civil unions." As such, all of the protectionss granted by civil marriage cannot be granted by civil unions.

Dear God, where do you people come up with this crap? WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT????? Yes, it IS patently ABSURD! I have not even said anything remotely close to this, that you might have misconstrued to mean this, I have no idea where you came up with this from my comments.

Every single time you have claimed that making civil marriage equal is "nothing but an opportunity to smear feces on religion," you have made it clear that you think a particular religious viewpoint should dictate the civil definition of marriage.

You have made it clear that you think religious viewpoints which include same-sex marriage should be trivialized by the law - which should instead enforce the contrary religious viewpoint upon them.

Under the 1st Amendment, we do have an obligation to protect religious freedom, which includes the traditions and customs practiced by religion.

Indeed. But we do not have an obligation to enforce any particular religious traditions and customs in the law. We do not have the obligation to make law based upon any particular religious traditions and customs. Indeed, we have the exact opposite obligation - as freedom of religion can only be preserved when the government does not elevate or enforce any religion.

I wonder if I should bet 20$ that you disregard this post without answering it.

No, she'll just claim that she didn't say that - despite saying exactly that.

I just want one very simple question answered. You say the religious rights of churches would be violated. In what way. SPECIFICALLY in what way, would they be violated?

What would churches be obligated to do, or not do, that would violate their rights? Give me specific examples.

Then, having given specific examples, please find proof that this has occured in Massachusetts, where we have had gay marriage for 4 years.

No, she'll just claim that she didn't say that - despite saying exactly that.

Saying it immediately after saying he didn't say it, what's more.

Marriage is purely religious, it is the holy union of man and woman in matrimony, and has been for centuries. I have agreed, the government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business, but you don't seem to care that we agree on that point, you want to insist on changing marriage and have the government mandate how it is defined, instead of getting the government out of it. The only difference between your view and that of a religious zealot, is Government is YOUR God!

According to you. My atheist friend is a big supporter of the idea of marriage, and she's not religious at all. Would you deny her the right to marry because she is non-religious?

Maybe government shouldn't be in the business of marriage, but the fact is that it is, and always has been since the first common law case was decided in england a millenium ago. You can't have your cake and eat it too; either you support a discrimination of homosexuals, or you can allow them the same rights as anyone else.

Man, you people sure like to put words in my mouth... again, I never said this. You interpreted my comments to mean this, but it isn't what I said. Marriage has been a religious custom for over 8000 years, and has never been defined by any church as anything other than the union of a man and woman.

So the fuck what? What gives churches the right to decide what marriage is to the exclusion of minorities? If religion overwhelmingly said that marriage between people of different skin colors was wrong, would you support that too? Would you deny religions that do support gay marriage (Reform Judaism, Unitarians, Buddhists, Catholic splinter groups) the right to marry homosexuals?

There are no international implications, and yes... Civil Union legislation would grant gay couples every single right of their straight counterparts. The only thing that is missing is the opportunity to smear feces on religious beliefs in this country. Something you shouldn't have the right to do through legislation.

Not all civil union legislation does. In fact, most do not provide equal rights. And religious groups do not have the right to not be offended. It seems to me that you'd be the type that is opposed "liberal political correctness", yet you're supporting your own form of PC as it applies to religions. And if they're offended, they can grow the fuck up, and come into the 20th century. Religious texts do not give anyone the justifications to discriminate against their fellow human beings.

BTW, i reserve the right to make a mockery of religion any time I please. I refrain out of respect, but you're seriously making me think twice about my restraint.

Dear God, where do you people come up with this crap? WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT????? Yes, it IS patently ABSURD! I have not even said anything remotely close to this, that you might have misconstrued to mean this, I have no idea where you came up with this from my comments.

Under the 1st Amendment, we do have an obligation to protect religious freedom, which includes the traditions and customs practiced by religion.

That's what you're implicitly saying. Since your religion doesn't believe in gay marriage, you don't want anyone to be able to do it because *gasp* your church doesn't condone it. If that isn't religious tyranny, I don't know what is.

Ok, prove that marriage is 100% religious. We'll just start with that one.

It can't logically be anything other than a religious ritual, there is no inherent reason for the state to require men and women join in holy union together. If it weren't for religion, marriage would never have existed. It originated and existed as a religious ritual long before Romans perverted it, or liberals were born.

You have continually stated that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

The religious custom of marriage has always been recognized by the Church to be the union of man and woman in holy matrimony. It has never been anything else, and the only examples you can give are obscure instances from the Roman era, where the state allowed the custom to be perverted, in defiance of the Church.

Wait, what happened to "marriage has been this way since ancient times, so we should continue doing it this way"? Who made that argument? Oh, it was you!

No, that is the argument you wish I made, so you can easily refute and dismiss it. What I said was, marriage has always been a religious custom, and is an important ritual to the religious community as a whole. This is a true statement.

Your only argument against extending equal marriage rights to homosexuals is that you claim a particular religious viewpoint should control civil marriage - that a particular religious viewpoint should be enforced upon all of society.

No, my only argument is, marriage is the religiously-based custom of joining man and woman in holy matrimony, and shouldn't be infringed upon by the state. (separation of church and state works both ways) I have also repeatedly said, Civil Unions would allow gays the rights they claim to want, while allowing religion to maintain the sanctity of marriage. It is YOUR view that YOU should be able to force upon society, a contradiction in terms, and a direct slap in the face of organized religion.

Since when is a religious scholar or authority the person you go to when you want to interpret the law? Last time I checked, you go to a lawyer or a judge. And, since the US Supreme Court has made it pretty clear what the 1st Amendment means....

I assumed you meant "the actual interpretation has been presented" for the inane comments made about a Biblical reference of marriage given earlier. My mistake. On the Constitution, our Founding Fathers worked very hard to construct a well-written document, and for over 200 years, no one has really had much trouble understanding it or needing it "interpreted" by so-called experts. The SCOTUS has been anything but clear on what the 1st means, over the years, the interpretations have varied widely. The basic concept of the first is to protect religious freedom, which happens to include the religious custom of marriage as the union in holy matrimony, of a man and woman. Changing the laws to amend the meaning of this, is a violation of the 1st.

On the Constitution, our Founding Fathers worked very hard to construct a well-written document, and for over 200 years, no one has really had much trouble understanding it or needing it "interpreted" by so-called experts. The SCOTUS has been anything but clear on what the 1st means, over the years, the interpretations have varied widely. The basic concept of the first is to protect religious freedom, which happens to include the religious custom of marriage as the union in holy matrimony, of a man and woman. Changing the laws to amend the meaning of this, is a violation of the 1st.

On that point I have asked a series of questions, specifically here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13201086&postcount=815). I do expect you to answer them.

Specifically, what freedoms, what exact freedoms would be restricted?

That's what you're implicitly saying. Since your religion doesn't believe in gay marriage, you don't want anyone to be able to do it because *gasp* your church doesn't condone it. If that isn't religious tyranny, I don't know what is

You know, I realize you guys have to resort to outright lies and distortion, but this is ridiculous. I have stated numerous times in this thread, I am not a member of any organized religion, and have no "church". I am speaking from an unbiased perspective, and upholding the Constitutional protections the Church should enjoy, just like you enjoy. Because I happen to be on the side of the Church in this argument, doesn't mean I support their viewpoint completely, or that I want the Church to run the country. Get a grip!

It's not a matter of "believing in" gay marriage, if that is all you need to do, it would be simple to settle... just make 'believers' out of all of us! I don't think there is reason for gay marriage, because I don't see any compelling reason to change the definition of marriage, which is what is required to include same-sex unions. Figure out a way to give gay people the same opportunities as straight people, without violating the covenants of the Church, and I am all on board with it! You can't bestow rights onto people that don't exist, especially when those so-called rights are at the expense of religious freedom, and that is what you seek to accomplish with Gay Marriage.

Anyone who took the bet with Skaladora owes him 20 dollars.

It's not a matter of "believing in" gay marriage, if that is all you need to do, it would be simple to settle... just make 'believers' out of all of us! I don't think there is reason for gay marriage, because I don't see any compelling reason to change the definition of marriage, which is what is required to include same-sex unions. Figure out a way to give gay people the same opportunities as straight people, without violating the covenants of the Church, and I am all on board with it! You can't bestow rights onto people that don't exist, especially when those so-called rights are at the expense of religious freedom, and that is what you seek to accomplish with Gay Marriage.

what I don't understand, what I just can't get my head around, is why you think, why you seem to stubbornly believe that religious definitions of marriage need be the same as state definitions of marriage?

Where the hell do you get this absolutly stupid belief that the government and the church are not allowed to define marriage in different ways?

What compells you toward such a patently stupid belief? Why the fuck would the government defining marriage in one way as a matter of law in any way matter, alter, influence, or impact the way a church defines it as a matter of religion?

Why the hell do you believe this? Why god why do you believe that the government and the church can't define different things differently. Do you have any idea what so ever how the first amendment works?

I have asked you, numerous times, how, would the government defining marriage as a union between a man and a women, or two men, OR two women, as a matter of law in ANY way shape or form impact the right of the religion to define their RELIGIOUS marriage in any way they want?

For example, if you were correct, divorce would be unconstitutional. The roman catholic church defines marriage as a union for life, divorce is not possible. That is the catholic definition of marriage. But the law allows for divorce, it does not require marriage for life. Already we have the government's definition of marriage being different from the religious definition of marriage.

How can you possibly reconcile this with your position?

It can't logically be anything other than a religious ritual, there is no inherent reason for the state to require men and women join in holy union together.

There is no reason for the state to do "holy" anything, nor is marriage in any way required by the law.

What the state does do - and has done for centuries - is join couples in legal union together. There is nothing holy involved in it. These couples are now seen as a single legal entity for most purposes of law.

If it weren't for religion, marriage would never have existed. It originated and existed as a religious ritual long before Romans perverted it, or liberals were born.

What makes you think that people would not have begun living together as a single unit and required legal protections for that arrangement without religion in the picture?

The religious custom of marriage has always been recognized by the Church to be the union of man and woman in holy matrimony. It has never been anything else, and the only examples you can give are obscure instances from the Roman era, where the state allowed the custom to be perverted, in defiance of the Church.

It is interesting that you capitalize "Church" - a Christian distinction. It is interesting that you stick only to Roman Catholicism, as if no other religion exists. There have been religions throughout history who have recognized same-sex marriage. There are religions now that do so.

No, that is the argument you wish I made, so you can easily refute and dismiss it. What I said was, marriage has always been a religious custom, and is an important ritual to the religious community as a whole. This is a true statement.

The contention that marriage has always been a religious custom may or may not be true. However, either contention is completely and utterly irrelevant to civil marraige. The fact that religions also define a type of marriage does not mean that the law does not define its own marriage construct.

No, my only argument is, marriage is the religiously-based custom of joining man and woman in holy matrimony, and shouldn't be infringed upon by the state.

.....ignoring the fact that there is a legal construct of marriage that should not be determined by any given religious viewpoint.

(separation of church and state works both ways)

Indeed. That's why no particular religious viewpoint should define civil marriage.

I have also repeatedly said, Civil Unions would allow gays the rights they claim to want, while allowing religion to maintain the sanctity of marriage.

You have repeatedly said that. You have also repeatedly been shown to be wrong.

It is YOUR view that YOU should be able to force upon society, a contradiction in terms, and a direct slap in the face of organized religion.

No, it isn't. I'm trying to keep certain religions from slapping me and others in the face.

Changing the laws to amend the meaning of this, is a violation of the 1st.

No, it isn't. Why not, you ask? Because religions can and do continue to define marriage in any manner that they like. They do not have to recognize any civil marriage that does not meet their definitions. Likewise, the definition of civil marriage cannot be determined by any particular religious definition.

Remember how you said that separation of church and state goes both ways? You were right, it does. It's too bad that you seem to think "goes both ways" means, "States have to follow the rules of one particular religious viewpoint."

It's not a matter of "believing in" gay marriage, if that is all you need to do, it would be simple to settle... just make 'believers' out of all of us! I don't think there is reason for gay marriage, because I don't see any compelling reason to change the definition of marriage, which is what is required to include same-sex unions. Figure out a way to give gay people the same opportunities as straight people, without violating the covenants of the Church, and I am all on board with it! You can't bestow rights onto people that don't exist, especially when those so-called rights are at the expense of religious freedom, and that is what you seek to accomplish with Gay Marriage.

1) Marriage IS a right. SCOTUS has ruled as such. Concede this point, refute it, or immediately lose all credibility. You've ignored it several times.
2) Civil unions are NOT equal to marriage, as your union is not guaranteed if you move overseas the way a marriage is. Concede this point, refute it, or immediately lose all credibility. You've ignored it several times.
3) Gay marriage would violate NO religious freedom, as it would not force churches to recognize the gay marriages. The ONLY entity that this would cause to recognize the marriage would be the state. Concede this point, refute it, or immediately lose all credibility. You've ignored it several times.
4)Your understanding of Seperation of Church and State is Made of Phail. It doesn't mean that state definitions of something have to be the same as religious definitions.

what I don't understand, what I just can't get my head around, is why you think, why you seem to stubbornly believe that religious definitions of marriage need be the same as state definitions of marriage?

Where the hell do you get this absolutly stupid belief that the government and the church are not allowed to define marriage in different ways?

What compells you toward such a patently stupid belief? Why the fuck would the government defining marriage in one way as a matter of law in any way matter, alter, influence, or impact the way a church defines it as a matter of religion?

Why the hell do you believe this? Why god why do you believe that the government and the church can't define different things differently. Do you have any idea what so ever how the first amendment works?

It's kind of like confession. The government has to agree that confession is a religious ritual that the church has used for centuries. Confession refers to a person telling their sins to a priest, being assigned penitence, and then being absolved. It is a violation of freedom of religion for the government to use "confession" when talking about a criminal telling a police officer that he committed a crime.

The religious custom of marriage has always been recognized by the Church to be the union of man and woman in holy matrimony. It has never been anything else, and the only examples you can give are obscure instances from the Roman era, where the state allowed the custom to be perverted, in defiance of the Church.

On the Constitution, our Founding Fathers worked very hard to construct a well-written document, and for over 200 years, no one has really had much trouble understanding it or needing it "interpreted" by so-called experts. The SCOTUS has been anything but clear on what the 1st means, over the years, the interpretations have varied widely. The basic concept of the first is to protect religious freedom, which happens to include the religious custom of marriage as the union in holy matrimony, of a man and woman. Changing the laws to amend the meaning of this, is a violation of the 1st.

Dixieanna-
First off let me commend you for standing up to the onslaught on the forums here. I would like to show you another perspective and perhaps you can see more where people are coming from.

Last time I checked - several religions allow and have allowed polygamy. So I guess that's marriage between a man and a woman and a woman (potentially ad infinitum). So then it's okay for two women and a man to get married but not two women?

What if a religion believed in two men getting married? Would that change your beliefs that a government should allow it? What if they called it marriage? If the religion is a new one should it be allowed to exist? Isn't that persecution just what happened to the first Christians?

Why is X religion the only one that gets to choose what marriage is?

As an aside, I've also included the second paragraph in your quote. The constitution when ratified was believed to even allow states to have their own religion (several did at the time). The 'meaning' of the constitution has changed over the years from the original intention of the signatories and their constituents through supreme court rulings (For better or worse). A good book on this that you can find in bookstores (The book portrays this as a bad thing) is 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution' by Kevin Gutzman. (ISBN 978-1-59698-505-6)

It's kind of like confession. The government has to agree that confession is a religious ritual that the church has used for centuries. Confession refers to a person telling their sins to a priest, being assigned penitence, and then being absolved. It is a violation of freedom of religion for the government to use "confession" when talking about a criminal telling a police officer that he committed a crime.

quite right, religion uses the word "confession" one way, so the government MUST use it that way. Additionally, as said, many religions recognize marriage as an institution for life. Divorce, therefore, is out of the question.

Let us not also forget the Jewish religion, which defines adulthood at the age in which one can perform the bar/bat mitzvah, namely, 13. Therefore all laws which define adulthood as older than 18 are unconstitutional.

Let's see, what else. Oh, if you read the torah, it states: " All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you." Therefore any attempt to define insects in the way they are defined, IE, an insect by definition has six legs, is contrary to the Torah, and therefore a violation.

Oh, I know, 'And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.'

Therefore, pi = 3. Any attempt to say otherwise contradicts religious text and is therefore an afront to religion.

Okay here is your answers...

I asked you a question before, you ignored it, I will ask again. If gay marriage were made legal today, who would it be that forces churches to perform gay marriage against their will? Who will it be that requires churches to recognizes gay marriages as legitimate in their religion? Who will it be that requires churches to perform ceremonies they do not wish to perform.

No one, but that isn't the point. I don't oppose gay marriage because I am afraid the church will be forced to perform them or recognize them.

In short, answer me these, if you can, a yes or no will suffice. If gay marriage were allowed, would churches:

1) be legally required to perform gay marriages?

2) be legally required to recognize gay marriages as legitimate in their religion?

3) be subject to penalties if they refuse to perform gay marriage?

Courts have no jurisdiction over what religious bodies do. Again, that is not the point here, or the argument I have presented.


Now, keep in mind, that you said it was the "godless liberals" that was trying to shut down religion. Also keep in mind, gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 4 years now.

Massachusetts is in the 1st circuit, one of the most liberal circuits in the nation. So, if any of these things were to happen, because of the "liberals", then it probably would have happened in the last 4 years within massachusetts? I mean, if your premise was correct, and any of these things would occur, they would certainly occur in massachusetts already.

So, if you answer "yes" to any of those questions, please provide appropriate citations to when they have occured in Massachusetts please. To repeat my questions:

1) be legally required to perform gay marriages?

2) be legally required to recognize gay marriages as legitimate in their religion?

3) be subject to penalties if they refuse to perform gay marriage?

If your answer is yes, please provide proof to substantiate your claims. If your position is demonstrably provable, you should have no problems what so ever actually proving it. You say that you have proven that gay marriage would violate the first amendment rights of churches. Fine, gay marriage has been legal in massachusetts for four years now. Please prove that churches first amendment rights have been violated.

Go ahead, you said it was proveable? How hard could it possibly be to prove it? You made your claim, said it was provable. Prove it. Gay marriage has been legal in a (very liberal) state for four years now. You said that it would violate church rights? prove it.

Uhmmm, excuse me for interrupting your rant, but the fact that courts and laws have no bearing on what churches do or recognize, is pretty well-established by now. This debate is not over what the Church will or will not be allowed to do, it is over religious persecution and churches who refuse to condone gay marriage, would certainly be persecuted for that position.

This debate is not over what the Church will or will not be allowed to do, it is over religious persecution and churches who refuse to condone gay marriage, would certainly be persecuted for that position.

Persecuted, by whom? And you believe this "persecution" violates their rights, how?

Persecuted, by whom? And you believe this "persecution" violates their rights, how?

They'd be persecuted by persecutors! They'd not be compelled to do anything they do not wish to do, but it'd still be persecution!

They'd be persecuted by persecutors! They'd not be compelled to do anything they do not wish to do, but it'd still be persecution!

apparently this poster seems to believe that while the government can't make them do anything, can't make them not do anything, can't prevent or require them to perform any marriage, can't stop anyone from going there, basically can't really make the church do anything, and the worst thing that can happen is that private people, of their own free will, under no government compulsion, might decide they don't like churches that don't perform gay weddings.

And that, somehow, the government doing anything that might, possibly, conceivably cause private people, of their own free will, to not hold religion in as high esteme as they used to, violates that religion's rights. That private people choosing not to accept a church violates that church's rights.

Because somehow the first amendment means that the government can't do anything that might cause people to not like religion as much.

1) Marriage IS a right. SCOTUS has ruled as such. Concede this point, refute it, or immediately lose all credibility. You've ignored it several times.
2) Civil unions are NOT equal to marriage, as your union is not guaranteed if you move overseas the way a marriage is. Concede this point, refute it, or immediately lose all credibility. You've ignored it several times.
3) Gay marriage would violate NO religious freedom, as it would not force churches to recognize the gay marriages. The ONLY entity that this would cause to recognize the marriage would be the state. Concede this point, refute it, or immediately lose all credibility. You've ignored it several times.
4)Your understanding of Seperation of Church and State is Made of Phail. It doesn't mean that state definitions of something have to be the same as religious definitions.

1) Marriage is not a right, sorry. If it were a right, you would not need a license from the state, and everyone would be guaranteed a bride or groom for life, regardless of how repulsive they were. I don't know what SCOTUS ruling you misinterpreted, but marriage is not a right for anyone, gay or straight. REFUTED

2) Nothing is guaranteed if you move overseas! You don't have Constitutional protection in a foreign country! Sorry! REFUTED

3) Gay Marriage directly contradicts the religious tenants of every major practicing religion in this country. Mandating it by law is the equivalent to mandating everyone wake in the morning and take a whiz on the cross! REFUTED

4) The Constitution doesn't say anything about "separation of church and state" it is derived from the 1st amendment, which clearly states the government can't interfere with your religious belief, and that your belief will be protected from persecution by others. Including but not limited to, those who want to change the definition of a religiously-based and rooted traditional ceremony to join a man and woman in holy matrimony. REFUTED

You know, I realize you guys have to resort to outright lies and distortion, but this is ridiculous. I have stated numerous times in this thread, I am not a member of any organized religion, and have no "church". I am speaking from an unbiased perspective, and upholding the Constitutional protections the Church should enjoy, just like you enjoy. Because I happen to be on the side of the Church in this argument, doesn't mean I support their viewpoint completely, or that I want the Church to run the country. Get a grip!

It's not a matter of "believing in" gay marriage, if that is all you need to do, it would be simple to settle... just make 'believers' out of all of us! I don't think there is reason for gay marriage, because I don't see any compelling reason to change the definition of marriage, which is what is required to include same-sex unions. Figure out a way to give gay people the same opportunities as straight people, without violating the covenants of the Church, and I am all on board with it! You can't bestow rights onto people that don't exist, especially when those so-called rights are at the expense of religious freedom, and that is what you seek to accomplish with Gay Marriage.

First of all, you never specified. It was an easy assumption to make that you were a member of a religious group, given your rhetoric.

Secondly, nothing about gay marriage infringes on anyone's rights. A right to discriminate by any group is simply dentologically unsound, and must be categorically denied. Allowing gay people to marry infringes on no one's rights. Preventing them from marrying infringes on theirs.

Persecuted, by whom? And you believe this "persecution" violates their rights, how?

Oh hell? By whom???? How about the ACLU, and every Gay Rights activist in this country? The ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, news crews who would be blanketing any church that refused to marry a gay couple? The pastor would be hounded daily, liberals would flock to Anywhere, USA to wage protests and picket outside Sunday services, liberal talking heads would be on TV nightly to act shocked that this kind of "bigotry" still exists in a time when we have passed laws allowing gays to marry!

Don't give me this "who will persecute them" shit! You know damn well who!

If it were a right, you would not need a license from the state,

That's what civil marriage constitutes.

and everyone would be guaranteed a bride or groom for life, regardless of how repulsive they were.

People do not have the right to a spouse. They have the right to marry other consenting adults.

Mandating it by law is the equivalent to mandating everyone wake in the morning and take a whiz on the cross!

Oh my God. We've refuted this one a million times already.

Including but not limited to, those who want to change the definition of a religiously-based and rooted traditional ceremony to join a man and woman in holy matrimony.

Maybe. Thankfully, we're only changing the rules regarding a purely civil institution.

:rolleyes:

Ok, prove that marriage is 100% religious. We'll just start with that one.

It can't logically be anything other than a religious ritual, there is no inherent reason for the state to require men and women join in holy union together. If it weren't for religion, marriage would never have existed. It originated and existed as a religious ritual long before Romans perverted it, or liberals were born.

I know I said I was done with this but I cant help yelling in the face of willful ignorance, and thats exactly what this is.
You are choosing to be willfully ignorant on this situation.
If your idea on marriage had any merit whatsoever, it would be impossible to get married any other way than in a church.

Justice of the Peace?
A ship's captain?

Ever heard of any of those?

It is a daily occurence to get married in a number of ways that have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus, God, or even any sort of church of any kind.

To deny this is is to continue to be wilfully ignorant, or simple stubbornness.

You know youre wrong, and you get that fact shown to you every time you reiterate the same tired arguement.
Why you dont cease immediately, I cant understand.

Oh hell? By whom???? How about the ACLU, and every Gay Rights activist in this country? The ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, news crews who would be blanketing any church that refused to marry a gay couple? The pastor would be hounded daily, liberals would flock to Anywhere, USA to wage protests and picket outside Sunday services, liberal talking heads would be on TV nightly to act shocked that this kind of "bigotry" still exists in a time when we have passed laws allowing gays to marry!

Don't give me this "who will persecute them" shit! You know damn well who!

Again, I think you have no idea how the law in this country works. I've said it before, I'll say it again. To respect the constitution, you first have to know how it works. Frankly I'm sure they would be criticized. That, however, is irrelevant. You said their rights would be violated. Specifically their first amendment rights. And, considering the first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Please explain to me how the ACLU, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and everything else you mention constitute "congress?"

Please explain to me in what specific way the first amendment provents the ACLU, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, from saying they disagree with the church

Please explain to me how the first amendment means the government can't do anything that might reflect badly on religion.

Please explain to me how a church or ANY entity has the right to not be criticised by private entities? Especially the media, which has its own first maendment protection to say pretty much what it wants.

Please, I'm waiting. I can't fucking wait for this

1) Marriage is not a right, sorry. If it were a right, you would not need a license from the state, and everyone would be guaranteed a bride or groom for life, regardless of how repulsive they were. I don't know what SCOTUS ruling you misinterpreted, but marriage is not a right for anyone, gay or straight. REFUTED
Bullshit, you should know damn well which one I mean, because it's been quoted at you several times in this thread. Either you're lying or you're intentionally keeping yourself willfully ignorant. But I will quote it again, it's Loving v. Virginia. Indeed, I will even quote the relevant bit:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


2) Nothing is guaranteed if you move overseas! You don't have Constitutional protection in a foreign country! Sorry! REFUTED

False. The US has treaties with other countries that they well accept our marriages and vice versa. And even in cases where we don't have such treaties, it's common practice for them to do it anyway. This has been pointed out to you in the thread several times, so either you are lying or you are intentionally remaining ignorant.


3) Gay Marriage directly contradicts the religious tenants of every major practicing religion in this country. Mandating it by law is the equivalent to mandating everyone wake in the morning and take a whiz on the cross! REFUTED

It mandates nothing, it merely allows. A better analogy would be making it legal to wake up every morning and take a piss on the cross. But that's illegal, right?

4) The Constitution doesn't say anything about "separation of church and state" it is derived from the 1st amendment, which clearly states the government can't interfere with your religious belief, and that your belief will be protected from persecution by others. Including but not limited to, those who want to change the definition of a religiously-based and rooted traditional ceremony to join a man and woman in holy matrimony. REFUTED

How will a church's belief be persecuted by others if they can still have their marriages in the way they want to, and grant (or not)them to the people the want to? People might get a little mad at them? Tough shit. You don't have the right for people to be happy with what you do, even if you have the right to do it.

First of all, you never specified. It was an easy assumption to make that you were a member of a religious group, given your rhetoric.

No, I specified several times, but this thread is a few pages long, so you apparently missed it. I am a spiritualist, and I believe in a Creator, but I am not a member of any religion, and don't particularly care for religion.

Secondly, nothing about gay marriage infringes on anyone's rights. A right to discriminate by any group is simply dentologically unsound, and must be categorically denied. Allowing gay people to marry infringes on no one's rights. Preventing them from marrying infringes on theirs.

It does infringe on the rights of religious people to keep marriage sacred. This is their religious viewpoint, and they are entitled to have it without being persecuted for it, or having the government mandate changes in it. There is a way to accomplish gay "marriage" without this infringement and that is Civil Unions... better yet, just abolish governmental sanction of "marriage" all together, I have no problem with that, and it's probably how it should have been all along.

It does infringe on the rights of religious people to keep marriage sacred. This is their religious viewpoint, and they are entitled to have it without being persecuted for it.

Do you honestly, TRULY believe religious people have the right to not have thier beliefs criticised?

is that your honest position? I can't understand how someone with enough intellect to type can truly believe that a person, or 10 people, or 100 people, or a million people standing up as private citizens and saying "I think your religion is wrong because you still don't allow a practice we recognize by law" in ANY way violates their rights.

Nobody has the right to hold a viewpoint without criticsm. We merely have the right to hold our viewpoints and not be told that they are illegal by the government.

The idea that we have the right to not have our ideas called stupid and barbaric by private people is absurd.

Oh hell? By whom???? How about the ACLU, and every Gay Rights activist in this country? The ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, news crews who would be blanketing any church that refused to marry a gay couple?
The pastor would be hounded daily, liberals would flock to Anywhere, USA to wage protests and picket outside Sunday services, liberal talking heads would be on TV nightly to act shocked that this kind of "bigotry" still exists in a time when we have passed laws allowing gays to marry!

Don't give me this "who will persecute them" shit! You know damn well who!

That's not persecution. That's using your constitutional right to say "I think you're a jackass for what you're doing."

The first amendment does NOT guarantee you immunity from protests and other consequences for your actions, merely that the government can't interfere with your religious freedom.

That's not persecution. That's using your constitutional right to say "I think you're a jackass for what you're doing."

The first amendment does NOT guarantee you immunity from protests and other consequences for your actions, merely that the government can't interfere with your religious freedom.

You should further specify that "religious freedom" means simply, "The right freely practice any religion within the privacy of your church, or home."

You should further specify that "religious freedom" means simply, "The right freely practice any religion within the privacy of your church, or home."

Well, you can practice it anywhere, but you can't (usually) break other laws to do so. For example, you can't commit murder just because your religion allows it.

Well, you can practice it anywhere, but you can't (usually) break other laws to do so. For example, you can't commit murder just because your religion allows it.


Or where the practice of ones religion would trod upon any liberties of others.

Or where the practice of ones religion would trod upon any liberties of others.

That too.

It does infringe on the rights of religious people to keep marriage sacred. This is their religious viewpoint, and they are entitled to have it without being persecuted for it, or having the government mandate changes in it. There is a way to accomplish gay "marriage" without this infringement and that is Civil Unions... better yet, just abolish governmental sanction of "marriage" all together, I have no problem with that, and it's probably how it should have been all along.

Okay, let's say I'm in a loving monogamous relationship with a man. Civil marriage, as defined by the state, grants a laundry list of about 1600 seperate rights pertaining to everything from inheritance to hospital visitation, which I cannot have access to unless I get married. It is discriminatory to not permit me access to these rights.

Okay, let's say I marry this guy. No religious group that is opposed to gay marriage was involved. It was strictly JoP. I now have access to these rights with my spouse. I am no longer being discriminated against. Now, can you show any causal link with the fact that I have access to these rights and any harm to any religious group opposed to gay marriage? Because if you can't, than you have no basis for argument.

We've already been over the fact that other states and foreign countries do not recognize civil unions performed in other jurisdictions. We've already been over the fact that the semantical difference between civil unions and marriage is meaningless. Add to that the fact that there is an ever growing list of religious groups that want to have the ability to perform gay marriages. They are being discriminated against, and their religious freedom is being impugned.

If we do allow gay marriage, than groups that oppose gay marriage will not have any religious rights infringed. The state won't be forcing them to do anything. Their observance of their faith in God will not be altered in anyway shape or form.

Thus, only one conclusion can be arrived: the discriminatory banning of gay marriage is dentologically unsound, and must be categorically rejected.

Do you honestly, TRULY believe religious people have the right to not have thier beliefs criticised?

is that your honest position? I can't understand how someone with enough intellect to type can truly believe that a person, or 10 people, or 100 people, or a million people standing up as private citizens and saying "I think your religion is wrong because you still don't allow a practice we recognize by law" in ANY way violates their rights.

Nobody has the right to hold a viewpoint without criticsm. We merely have the right to hold our viewpoints and not be told that they are illegal by the government.

The idea that we have the right to not have our ideas called stupid and barbaric by private people is absurd.


Please don't misconstrue what I said. Of course, people criticize and bash religion all the time. To intentionally pass a law that violates the beliefs of religious people, is unconstitutional on its merits, the persecution would certainly follow such a law. Religious persecution is different than free speech, you don't have the right to persecute people for their religious beliefs, they have the right to have their beliefs without persecution.

Please don't misconstrue what I said. Of course, people criticize and bash religion all the time. To intentionally pass a law that violates the beliefs of religious people, is unconstitutional on its merits,
By that logic, divorce would be illegal, because it violates the beliefs of Catholics.

Oh, and you know that many Christians support Gay Marriage, right?


the persecution would certainly follow such a law. Religious persecution is different than free speech, you don't have the right to persecute people for their religious beliefs, they have the right to have their beliefs without persecution.

You don't seem to understand what persecution is. Protesting a church's actions is not persecution. Telling them that you think they're horrible is not persecution. Calling them bigots is not persecution. It's only persecution if you deny them their legal rights. The ONLY "persecution" that the first amendment applies to is Government, not what individuals choose to do.


Oh, and you've skipped quite a few good posts. Go back and reply to them all, please.

To intentionally pass a law that violates the beliefs of religious people, is unconstitutional on its merits, the persecution would certainly follow such a law.

I believe very strongly that marriage is a consensual union of love, stability, and commitment between persons of any gender.

If I invented a god and wrote a holy text, would laws prohibiting gay marriage become unconstitutional?

You should further specify that "religious freedom" means simply, "The right freely practice any religion within the privacy of your church, or home."


No, I am sorry, I know godless heathens would like to confine religion to ones own home or church, but the Constitution makes no such requirement of worshipers. FREELY means FREELY, not behind closed doors in the privacy of your own home or church. What if we allow homosexuals to practice their gay behaviors in the privacy of their own homes? Is that fair? Bible readers can stay in their homes, and gays can stay in theirs... everyone is FREE, right?

You should THINK before you post!

Please don't misconstrue what I said. Of course, people criticize and bash religion all the time. To intentionally pass a law that violates the beliefs of religious people, is unconstitutional on its merits, the persecution would certainly follow such a law. Religious persecution is different than free speech, you don't have the right to persecute people for their religious beliefs, they have the right to have their beliefs without persecution.


In order for such a law to be what it is, the law itself would have to be the direct cause, not an indirect one. The situation you describe is quite indirect.

Please don't misconstrue what I said. Of course, people criticize and bash religion all the time. To intentionally pass a law that violates the beliefs of religious people, is unconstitutional on its merits, the persecution would certainly follow such a law. Religious persecution is different than free speech, you don't have the right to persecute people for their religious beliefs, they have the right to have their beliefs without persecution.

Well, looks like we're going to have to remove the laws that criminalize killing people and taking their money. After all, that violates the beliefs of the Thuggees.

I believe very strongly that marriage is a consensual union of love, stability, and commitment between persons of any gender.

If I invented a god and wrote a holy text, would laws prohibiting gay marriage become unconstitutional?

No, religious freedom only applies to the religions big enough that they don't need the protection because they have the power to get their ideas enforced anyway. :rolleyes:

Well, looks like we're going to have to remove the laws that criminalize killing people and taking their money. After all, that violates the beliefs of the Thuggees.

Thuggees have no religious freedom protection under the Constitution, sorry!

...Next Red Herring?

No, I am sorry, I know godless heathens would like to confine religion to ones own home or church, but the Constitution makes no such requirement of worshipers. FREELY means FREELY, not behind closed doors in the privacy of your own home or church. What if we allow homosexuals to practice their gay behaviors in the privacy of their own homes? Is that fair? Bible readers can stay in their homes, and gays can stay in theirs... everyone is FREE, right?

You should THINK before you post!
And YOU should read where I corrected him, and he added to my correction, thereby implicitly accepting it. And then THINK before you post.

Thuggees have no religious freedom protection under the Constitution, sorry!

...Next Red Herring?

Yes, could you please go back to all the recent posts you've skipped/ignored? There were some good ones.

No, I am sorry, I know godless heathens would like to confine religion to ones own home or church, but the Constitution makes no such requirement of worshipers. FREELY means FREELY, not behind closed doors in the privacy of your own home or church. What if we allow homosexuals to practice their gay behaviors in the privacy of their own homes? Is that fair? Bible readers can stay in their homes, and gays can stay in theirs... everyone is FREE, right?

You should THINK before you post!


Careful your nearly flaming....

Specifically, I was hoping you'd reply to these, but you really should read EVERY post in the thread if you're going to debate.

Bullshit, you should know damn well which one I mean, because it's been quoted at you several times in this thread. Either you're lying or you're intentionally keeping yourself willfully ignorant. But I will quote it again, it's Loving v. Virginia. Indeed, I will even quote the relevant bit:




False. The US has treaties with other countries that they well accept our marriages and vice versa. And even in cases where we don't have such treaties, it's common practice for them to do it anyway. This has been pointed out to you in the thread several times, so either you are lying or you are intentionally remaining ignorant.


It mandates nothing, it merely allows. A better analogy would be making it legal to wake up every morning and take a piss on the cross. But that's illegal, right?


How will a church's belief be persecuted by others if they can still have their marriages in the way they want to, and grant (or not)them to the people the want to? People might get a little mad at them? Tough shit. You don't have the right for people to be happy with what you do, even if you have the right to do it.

That's not persecution. That's using your constitutional right to say "I think you're a jackass for what you're doing."

The first amendment does NOT guarantee you immunity from protests and other consequences for your actions, merely that the government can't interfere with your religious freedom.

Okay, let's say I'm in a loving monogamous relationship with a man. Civil marriage, as defined by the state, grants a laundry list of about 1600 seperate rights pertaining to everything from inheritance to hospital visitation, which I cannot have access to unless I get married. It is discriminatory to not permit me access to these rights.

Okay, let's say I marry this guy. No religious group that is opposed to gay marriage was involved. It was strictly JoP. I now have access to these rights with my spouse. I am no longer being discriminated against. Now, can you show any causal link with the fact that I have access to these rights and any harm to any religious group opposed to gay marriage? Because if you can't, than you have no basis for argument.

We've already been over the fact that other states and foreign countries do not recognize civil unions performed in other jurisdictions. We've already been over the fact that the semantical difference between civil unions and marriage is meaningless. Add to that the fact that there is an ever growing list of religious groups that want to have the ability to perform gay marriages. They are being discriminated against, and their religious freedom is being impugned.

If we do allow gay marriage, than groups that oppose gay marriage will not have any religious rights infringed. The state won't be forcing them to do anything. Their observance of their faith in God will not be altered in anyway shape or form.

Thus, only one conclusion can be arrived: the discriminatory banning of gay marriage is dentologically unsound, and must be categorically rejected.

I believe very strongly that marriage is a consensual union of love, stability, and commitment between persons of any gender.

If I invented a god and wrote a holy text, would laws prohibiting gay marriage become unconstitutional?

In order for such a law to be what it is, the law itself would have to be the direct cause, not an indirect one. The situation you describe is quite indirect.

Do you not know how to use multi-quote, possibly, and is that why you're skipping posts? Because you want to quote one, so you just hit quote and it brings up the post screen thing?

By that logic, divorce would be illegal, because it violates the beliefs of Catholics.

Oh, and you know that many Christians support Gay Marriage, right?



You don't seem to understand what persecution is. Protesting a church's actions is not persecution. Telling them that you think they're horrible is not persecution. Calling them bigots is not persecution. It's only persecution if you deny them their legal rights. The ONLY "persecution" that the first amendment applies to is Government, not what individuals choose to do.


Oh, and you've skipped quite a few good posts. Go back and reply to them all, please.

You effectively deny them the right to practice their religion by making same-sex marriage legal. Marriage is a religious ritual, it is sacred... like the Koran... (maybe libs can relate to that?) Would you pass a law that allowed people to burn the Koran in front of Muslim churches? Or... think of any example of mockery against the Muslim faith... maybe we pass a law that makes those vail thingys illegal to wear in public... You down with that? Didn't think so! You libs will bust a gut to defend Muslims rights to religious freedom and protect their religious sanctity, but fuck the poor Christians and anyone in the moral majority! You just can't see where pissing on one of their most sacred and holy traditions is any sort of violation of their rights!

Thuggees have no religious freedom protection under the Constitution, sorry!
Why not? They're a religion.

Why not? They're a religion.

No they aren't. Can we please get the grown ups back in the room?

No they aren't. Can we please get the grown ups back in the room?

Ok..you need a nap.

Youre no longer debating, youre just making rude comments.
If you cant play nice, maybe you should just quit while your way behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/find_a_church.htm

Some Christian faiths will marry a same sex couple if they are allowed

You effectively deny them the right to practice their religion by making same-sex marriage legal. Marriage is a religious ritual, it is sacred... like the Koran... (maybe libs can relate to that?) Would you pass a law that allowed people to burn the Koran in front of Muslim churches? Or... think of any example of mockery against the Muslim faith... maybe we pass a law that makes those vail thingys illegal to wear in public... You down with that? Didn't think so! You libs will bust a gut to defend Muslims rights to religious freedom and protect their religious sanctity, but fuck the poor Christians and anyone in the moral majority! You just can't see where pissing on one of their most sacred and holy traditions is any sort of violation of their rights!
Actually, assuming burning things in general is legal in said location, and the Koran in question is the property of the burner, then yes, I would support the right to burn a Koran. Now, he'd have to deal with some pissed of Muslims who might protest/send him hate mail/etc, but that's his own damn fault.

And can you honestly not see the difference between banning something and allowing something? And what about people whose religion allows gay marriage? Do you want to deny them their religious rights?

Oh, and I'm going to quote these in every post of mine till you acknowledge them:
Bullshit, you should know damn well which one I mean, because it's been quoted at you several times in this thread. Either you're lying or you're intentionally keeping yourself willfully ignorant. But I will quote it again, it's Loving v. Virginia. Indeed, I will even quote the relevant bit:




False. The US has treaties with other countries that they well accept our marriages and vice versa. And even in cases where we don't have such treaties, it's common practice for them to do it anyway. This has been pointed out to you in the thread several times, so either you are lying or you are intentionally remaining ignorant.


It mandates nothing, it merely allows. A better analogy would be making it legal to wake up every morning and take a piss on the cross. But that's illegal, right?


How will a church's belief be persecuted by others if they can still have their marriages in the way they want to, and grant (or not)them to the people the want to? People might get a little mad at them? Tough shit. You don't have the right for people to be happy with what you do, even if you have the right to do it.

That's not persecution. That's using your constitutional right to say "I think you're a jackass for what you're doing."

The first amendment does NOT guarantee you immunity from protests and other consequences for your actions, merely that the government can't interfere with your religious freedom.

Okay, let's say I'm in a loving monogamous relationship with a man. Civil marriage, as defined by the state, grants a laundry list of about 1600 seperate rights pertaining to everything from inheritance to hospital visitation, which I cannot have access to unless I get married. It is discriminatory to not permit me access to these rights.

Okay, let's say I marry this guy. No religious group that is opposed to gay marriage was involved. It was strictly JoP. I now have access to these rights with my spouse. I am no longer being discriminated against. Now, can you show any causal link with the fact that I have access to these rights and any harm to any religious group opposed to gay marriage? Because if you can't, than you have no basis for argument.

We've already been over the fact that other states and foreign countries do not recognize civil unions performed in other jurisdictions. We've already been over the fact that the semantical difference between civil unions and marriage is meaningless. Add to that the fact that there is an ever growing list of religious groups that want to have the ability to perform gay marriages. They are being discriminated against, and their religious freedom is being impugned.

If we do allow gay marriage, than groups that oppose gay marriage will not have any religious rights infringed. The state won't be forcing them to do anything. Their observance of their faith in God will not be altered in anyway shape or form.

Thus, only one conclusion can be arrived: the discriminatory banning of gay marriage is dentologically unsound, and must be categorically rejected.

I believe very strongly that marriage is a consensual union of love, stability, and commitment between persons of any gender.

If I invented a god and wrote a holy text, would laws prohibiting gay marriage become unconstitutional?

In order for such a law to be what it is, the law itself would have to be the direct cause, not an indirect one. The situation you describe is quite indirect.

FUCK YOU!


...that was flaming!

Ahh.

I knew it was only a matter of time.
This is what people who cannot articulate themselves like adults generally do. They resort to verbal abuse when what little logic they have runs out.
You have no legitimate arguements. The last thirty pages have seen every weak arguement you summon, to be nothing more than an intolerant, and quite skewed opinion of what you think religion and marriage are.

When sticking your proverbial fingers in your ears didnt work, you resort to verbal abuse wich is clearly against forum rules.

Too bad your true colors seem to be typical ones.

Ahh.

I knew it was only a matter of time.
This is what people who cannot articulate themselves like adults generally do. They resort to verbal abuse when what little logic they have runs out.
You have no legitimate arguements. The last thirty pages have seen every weak arguement you summon, to be nothing more than an intolerant, and quite skewed opinion of what you think religion and marriage are.

When sticking your proverbial fingers in your ears didnt work, you resort to verbal abuse wich is clearly against forum rules.

Too bad your true colors seem to be typical ones.

You know, it's unfortunate. When he first entered the thread, I had some hope for him. He seemed reasonable enough, like argument might have a point. But even if he isn't a Christian, he's just as dogmatic as one. And that dogmatic side came out pretty damn fast.

Some Christian faiths will marry a same sex couple if they are allowed

They're allowed to right now. The government doesn't mess with religious marriage. The question is about civil marriage.

Just because they usually coincide doesn't mean they have to.

You know, it's unfortunate. When he first entered the thread, I had some hope for him. He seemed reasonable enough, like argument might have a point. But even if he isn't a Christian, he's just as dogmatic as one. And that dogmatic side came out pretty damn fast.

Hell, Demipublicents is a christian, and has nowhere near the dogmatic approach that Dix does.
In his/her case, I think its something else...

No they aren't.

You have no fucking clue who the Thuggees are, do you. They are a religion.

They're allowed to right now. The government doesn't mess with religious marriage. The question is about civil marriage.

Just because they usually coincide doesn't mean they have to.

Yes, the point being that religious freedoms are being hurt according to the logic that is Dixieanna.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony, meaning, it is a religious ceremony ordained by the church and sanctioned by the state in form of a marriage licence.
My religion allows marriage between any combination of people of any sex. Probably any age too. And maybe even some inanimate objects.
Oh look, there's some nice, religious gay marriage. What do you have to say to that?
Marriage is not a right, no one is "entitled" to get married, gay or straight,
LOVING V. VIRGINIA, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT?
To intentionally pass a law that violates the beliefs of religious people, is unconstitutional on its merits
Divorce. Abortion. Hot dogs. A thousand other things. Freedom of religion does not mean that everyone has to abide by the rules of any given religion.

I'm still waiting to see if poor Dixie will be in favor of forbidding interracial marriage on the grounds that it's also against some religions.

You effectively deny them the right to practice their religion by making same-sex marriage legal. What? How exactly would that prevent someone from practicing Christianity?
Marriage is a religious ritual, it is sacred... like the Koran... (maybe libs can relate to that?) Meh. The church decided to move marriages into its jurisdiction because of the power that brings sometime during the dark ages. That point is entirely moot now that most Western countries have made that a responsibility of the state as opposed to the church.
Would you pass a law that allowed people to burn the Koran in front of Muslim churches? Nah, but I would oppose laws that made it illegal to have the soles of your feet facing a mosque.
Or... think of any example of mockery against the Muslim faith... Something like legalizing gay marriage =D
maybe we pass a law that makes those vail thingys illegal to wear in public... You down with that? Turkey is.
Didn't think so! You libs will bust a gut to defend Muslims rights to religious freedom and protect their religious sanctity, but fuck the poor Christians and anyone in the moral majority! But I'm a representative of the moral majority, not you! =(
You just can't see where pissing on one of their most sacred and holy traditions is any sort of violation of their rights!You're not being forced to have a gay marriage, you know.

Marriage is purely religious, it is the holy union of man and woman in matrimony, and has been for centuries. I have agreed, the government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business, but you don't seem to care that we agree on that point, you want to insist on changing marriage and have the government mandate how it is defined, instead of getting the government out of it. The only difference between your view and that of a religious zealot, is Government is YOUR God!

You cannot prove that marriage is solely a religious institution. Matriomony is part of the Christian belief set but it is a specific ritual for Christians wishing to join in a marriage. It is merely a binding ritual expected to be performed in front of a priest with two witnesses. This dates back to the 1500, specifically 1563 when the Council of Trent decided that in order for a marriage to be recognised in the eyes of the church, the union had to be forced before a priest and two witnesses.

Before Pope Nicholas I, there was no definition of marriage. Once again, the definition of marriage hasn't even been around for 2000 years. In fact, marriages were considered "free" marriages until the 9th century when the church did become involved. This alone proves that religion came along into the business much later than the government, as Emperor Justin (527-565 AD) did code in laws regarding marriage before the church did.

From this we reach two conclusions, the government was in charger first, and secondly, it was not controlled by religion until later on, though it was regarded in the Bible as a family affair.

Man, you people sure like to put words in my mouth... again, I never said this. You interpreted my comments to mean this, but it isn't what I said. Marriage has been a religious custom for over 8000 years, and has never been defined by any church as anything other than the union of a man and woman.

See above. It has not even been a religious custom that long, maybe a good 1200 years at the most. Even then, that is disputable. There is plenty of evidence that points to the church trying to take control. In fact, if we wanted to get real picky, we could point out that marriage has only been a religious mandate for about 400-500 years since the Council of Trent, in which it was mandated that for marriages to be considered legal, it had to be performed in front of a priest and two witnesses.

As for the definition, the definition only came about in the 9th century AD, but there was no way to enforce it because people could marry without the above requirements for the longest time.

For the vast majority of history, it was considered enough for a marriage to be recognised if the parties involved consented to the union, and wanted to enter it voluntarily.

Here are some links...

Succinct History of Marriage (http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm)
More History of Marriage (http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm)
Wikipedia: History of Marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage)

You know this level of consistent pwnage of a poster is rare these days. Funny though!

You effectively deny them the right to practice their religion by making same-sex marriage legal. Marriage is a religious ritual, it is sacred... like the Koran... (maybe libs can relate to that?) Would you pass a law that allowed people to burn the Koran in front of Muslim churches? Or... think of any example of mockery against the Muslim faith... maybe we pass a law that makes those vail thingys illegal to wear in public... You down with that? Didn't think so! You libs will bust a gut to defend Muslims rights to religious freedom and protect their religious sanctity, but fuck the poor Christians and anyone in the moral majority! You just can't see where pissing on one of their most sacred and holy traditions is any sort of violation of their rights!

I like how you assume the "libs" can related to the Qu'ran yet it is the same utter bunk as the OT/NT and the Torah (and Talmud). We hate it all the same. We just enjoy taking swings at the Bible because it's dangled in front of us a lot more. It's like dangling a string in front of a cat and expecting it not to swipe at it.

You want mockery? Ok, the editorial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad? According to some Muslims, those drawings were highly offensive and mocked their beliefs. Then again, this is the same religion that believes realistic paintings are not a good thing.

There are plenty of instances where the veil is subject to legislation. See: France, Turkey, Netherlands (or was it Denmark? At least when it came to more concealing head covers)... there is even ongoing conflict in England over it, at least when it comes to covering the face.

And you don't think marriage is a sacred element of Islam or Judaism? They regard it very highly. So do the Hindus, Sikhs, Shintoist, Buddhists... et al.

The only reason there is often not many defending the Christians is because... the controlling majority does not need protection in the same way that minorities do. They need protection from the majority. This goes for any law-abiding group.

The only difference between your view and that of a religious zealot, is Government is YOUR God!And that you can vote for the other God come election time! =D

And that you can vote for the other God come election time! =D

Or fail that, we could use a coup d'état to force a regime change. :)

You know this level of consistent pwnage of a poster is rare these days. Funny though!

A dozen people patting each other on the back while half of them attack their detractors with ever increasing levels of flamebait is NOT the essence of pawnage. The fact that you thought it was is just sad. The fact that you think it's funny just makes one wonder if you might be insecure in you beliefs and you require the constant back patting as a reinforcing comfort wall to your positions.

A dozen people patting each other on the back while half of them attack their detractors with ever increasing levels of flamebait is NOT the essence of pawnage.

We have here a guy claiming that "liberals" are "attacking religion". How come HE is not flamebaiting?

A dozen people patting each other on the back while half of them attack their detractors with ever increasing levels of flamebait is NOT the essence of pawnage. The fact that you thought it was is just sad. The fact that you think it's funny just makes one wonder if you might be insecure in you beliefs and you require the constant back patting as a reinforcing comfort wall to your positions.

If you think there's flamebaiting then the moderation forum is over there (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231).

We have here a guy claiming that "liberals" are "attacking religion". How come HE is not flamebaiting?

Go back over the last few pages looking for words like motherfucker in oversized red print and see which side is using it.

Go back over the last few pages looking for words like motherfucker in oversized red print and see which side is using it.You're more than welcome to report it :)

Go back over the last few pages looking for words like motherfucker in oversized red print and see which side is using it.

As opposed to Dixie, who got a message in which he said "fuck you" to a guy deleted by a mod in this here thread? Or his frequent accusations of liberals wanting to "attack Christianity"?

Go back over the last few pages looking for words like motherfucker in oversized red print and see which side is using it.

Big red letters aren't flamebaiting, they're a a subtle way of calling out Dixie for ignoring so many of the arguements against his position.

And '[noun], motherfucker, do you [appopriate verb] it?' is just a meme, not an insult.

Big red letters aren't flamebaiting, they're a a subtle way of calling out Dixie for ignoring so many of the arguements against his position.

And '[noun], motherfucker, do you [appopriate verb] it?' is just a meme, not an insult.

Just because you don't feel remorse, it doesn't make you innocent. As to whether or not it's bannable was not the topic.

I noticed that everyone got too busy to asnwer this so I'll quote myself...


...
You assert that no major society has ever had gay marriage.
Somebody presents Roman gay marriage.
You ignore it.
...

I'm extremely interested in which 'Roman' same sex marriages are being brought up as a defense and example for modern same-sex marriages?

Something like a Nero example would really, really be inappropriate and susceptible to counter arguments, I think...

Nero: seduced by his mother
Nero's reported sexual activities range from being seduced by his mother Agrippina to forcing his unwanted attentions on married women and boys. Famously, he takes two homosexual lovers, Pythagoras and Sporus, in 'marriage'. Nero is said to behave as the wife to Pythagoras and husband to Sporus, whom he has had castrated. Taken together with his 'artistic' performances (see The arts), when he will often take on a female part and dress accordingly, Nero's behaviour scandalises Rome and plays an important part in his downfall.
link (http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/guide03/part10.html)

Or maybe Elagabalus?:
But even more shocking in the eyes of respectable Roman society is his 'marriage' to a slave named Hierocles. Elagabalus likes nothing better than to dress as a woman and go around with his 'husband', who is even encouraged to beat the emperor as if he is his real wife. Sometimes Elagabalus plays out scenes in which Hierocles finds him with another man and punishes him for his 'infidelity'.

It seems that the only reference I can find are people saying something like, it is well known that the Romans had same sex marriages, and other statements like that, but the ones I have found are not backed up with the “when and where and who's”, and the statement itself seems to be mainly found on pro same-sex websites/authors, and not historical Roman scholarship or websites.

Perhaps someone here has some samples that they can share about Roman same sex marriages that are ‘good’ examples for modern day comparison. From my understanding, the Roman government didn't even have official unions at all, you simply got married and told them on the next census how many people were in your family. No marriage licenses etc.

Just because you don't feel remorse, it doesn't make you innocent. As to whether or not it's bannable was not the topic.

And yet not a word about Dixieanna's flaming and baseless flamebait accusations.

Go back over the last few pages looking for words like motherfucker in oversized red print and see which side is using it.

I believe you were pointed over to moderation if there was a problem? Instead of whining, why not take it up with the mods? I'm sure they're more than willing to lend you a sympathetic ear if they're not too busy with other snivelling demands.

Well what do you know, we've managed to shut up about homosexuality for a couple of posts...

Just because you don't feel remorse, it doesn't make you innocent.
No, the fact that I didn't break the rules makes me innocent.
As to whether or not it's bannable was not the topic.

No, the topic was gay marriage. Then you started posting and once again made it about something else. Do you have anything to say about gay marriage? Care to respond to any of the numerous recent posts about gay marriage?

Well what do you know, we've managed to shut up about homosexuality for a couple of posts...

Nice move!

Well what do you know, we've managed to shut up about homosexuality for a couple of posts...

Why is it when I read this, I'm thinking of, the "I am evil Homer" song? :D

http://weaselhut.net/evilhomer.jpg

Does this make me a homersexual? ;)

Nice move!Sweet! A backpat to call my very own! =D

But seriously, peoples. Let's not get sidetracked into a "it was flamebait" discussion. That's what moderation is there for.

I noticed that everyone got too busy to asnwer this so I'll quote myself...

The wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_marriage) article on Ancient Roman marriages doesn't say anything about same sex marriages either. But it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference. Just because the Romans didn't have same sex marriages would be no reason for us not to.

Ugh...I'm so sick of this even being an issue. Gays ought to just get the right to marry, give 'em the bonus hate crime protection, and we all ought to stop caring about it.

Well if we can't talk about teh gheyz then what will we talk about?

Ugh...I'm so sick of this even being an issue. Gays ought to just get the right to marry, give 'em the bonus hate crime protection, and we all ought to stop caring about it.

Ugh...I'm so sick of this even being an issue. Gays ought to just get the right to marry, give 'em the bonus hate crime protection, and we all ought to stop caring about it.

Ah, but you see, that would be too easy. It would offend the people that hate gays because they put their dicks or tongues on or in the orifices that are disapproved by these people.

Ah, but you see, that would be too easy. It would offend the people that hate gays because they put their dick or tongues on the orifices that are disapproved by these people.

Even though it doesn't affect them in any way shape or form. It's just the fact that someone is not conforming. ie: they are doing X and X is bad because they're doing it and I say X is wrong! Right?

We could go back to the good, ol' fashioned "J00Z3!!!!!!!", we've got people here interested in that one, you know, United Beleriand and company.

There's also "teh m0zlemz"...

Well if we can't talk about teh gheyz then what will we talk about?

We could go back to the good, ol' fashioned "J00Z3!!!!!!!", we've got people here interested in that one, you know, United Beleriand and company.

Even though it doesn't affect them in any way shape or form. It's just the fact that someone is not conforming. ie: they are doing X and X is bad because they're doing it and I say X is wrong! Right?

Pretty much.

Plus they hate themselves for being turned on by X, but...

Perfect timing for a timewarp there =P

Pretty much.

Plus they hate themselves for being turned on by X, but...

And X is supposedly banned by Y and Y will smite Z if X engages in X even if W is doing X without Y being pissed.

There's also "teh m0zlemz"...

What about teh ebil godless libz?

And X is supposedly banned by Y and Y will smite Z if X engages in X even if W is doing X without Y being pissed.

In short, if you're looking for a more sophisticated answer than "because I say so", you're out of luck.

What about teh ebil godless libz?Leave librarians out of it! :mad:

What about teh ebil godless libz?

Covered in this very thread.

Even though it doesn't affect them in any way shape or form. It's just the fact that someone is not conforming. ie: they are doing X and X is bad because they're doing it and I say X is wrong! Right?
I direct your attention to Heikoku's quote in my sig.
We could go back to the good, ol' fashioned "J00Z3!!!!!!!", we've got people here interested in that one, you know, United Beleriand and company.

There's also "teh m0zlemz"...

I hear good things about the immigrants too. Word is they're stealing our jobs.

Leave librarians out of it! :mad:

But... But they're so... eerily QUIET!!!

What about teh ebil godless libz?

No, no, that one's all worn out and tired...it's been a long time since we've had "T3H J00Z3!!!11!!!" in the western world. It'll have the classic feel, while still seeming fresh and new.

No, no, that one's all worn out and tired...it's been a long time since we've had "T3H J00Z3!!!11!!!" in the western world. It'll have the classic feel, while still seeming fresh and new.
Ok... here we go...

Teh ebil j00z3 r in ka-hootz wit da homos n dey iz gonna get gayz 2 reck mariage !!!1111!!! :gundge::sniper::mp5::gundge:

Does that help? ;)

Since I'm not going to wade through about 60 pages of this, I just have one question for those who are apparently homophobic.

Do the homosexuals really threaten you and your liberties? Do they actually affect your day to day living? If homosexuals were to get married, would that make your marriage or relationship less meaningless? Would it even affect your marriage or relationship?

Personally I don't care if you're gay or not, Hell you can be the most flamboyant gay guy or the most masculine lesbian I know and I wouldn't care, hell I may ask for fashion tips or help lifting weights (sorry if that offends anyone) and if gays are granted the right to marry, I really don't see how that will affect my current relationship or any marriages that I may have in the future.

I really don't see how that will affect my current relationship or any marriages that I may have in the future.
Didn't Ruffy draw a picture proving how a while back? :confused:

Edit:
Ha! Found it:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/HowGaymarriageaffectsthesanctityofm.jpg

Didn't Ruffy draw a picture proving how a while back? :confused:

He did? I wish I saw it, it was probably amusing.

EDIT - *upon seeing the image* WTF...?

Ok... here we go...

Teh ebil j00z3 r in ka-hootz wit da homos n dey iz gonna get gayz 2 reck mariage !!!1111!!! :gundge::sniper::mp5::gundge:

Does that help? ;)

Perfect.

The wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_marriage) article on Ancient Roman marriages doesn't say anything about same sex marriages either. But it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference. Just because the Romans didn't have same sex marriages would be no reason for us not to.

I didn't use it as a reason not to, I'm questioning other people who use it as a reason we should allow it...

Didn't Ruffy draw a picture proving how a while back? :confused:

Edit:
Ha! Found it:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/HowGaymarriageaffectsthesanctityofm.jpg

Fukken saved.

Since I'm not going to wade through about 60 pages of this, I just have one question for those who are apparently homophobic.

Do the homosexuals really threaten you and your liberties? Do they actually affect your day to day living? If homosexuals were to get married, would that make your marriage or relationship less meaningless? Would it even affect your marriage or relationship?

Personally I don't care if you're gay or not, Hell you can be the most flamboyant gay guy or the most masculine lesbian I know and I wouldn't care, hell I may ask for fashion tips or help lifting weights (sorry if that offends anyone) and if gays are granted the right to marry, I really don't see how that will affect my current relationship or any marriages that I may have in the future.

***Seven hits with the same beginning.***

***7th Flush***

It will affect them because the people they hate as a hobby will become happier.

It will affect them because they will no longer be safe in the knowledge that the Government is catering only and exclusively to THEIR religion, and to THEIR religion alone.

It will affect them because they will have to spend time looking for something else to hate.

It will affect them because they will have to tolerate different people having the same rights as them.

It will affect them because they will have a reminder that their religion isn't the only thing that matters to society.

It will affect them because they will see people they chose to be offended by becoming their equals in the eyes of society.

It will affect them because their unhappy marriages will seem even more meaningless not due to an inherent change in its meaning, but because they will look at, say, Joseph and Carlos, and go "I wish I had a man like that to me" without the societal punishment that prevents them from acting on this very wish, a wish they fear so much.

For all the wrong, sick, idiotic reasons.

Why homersexual marriages DO NOT hurt us... (inspired by an above post :))

...it makes someone happy and it is not at my expense.

...it gives someone else the same rights I have without taking away mine.

...it opens the door for other minorities who may in the past had no legal recourse. This makes life better for all us because then everyone has the same rights.

...it shows us that change is a good thing.

...it opens the door for homersexuals to adopt, thus giving wards of the state hope and a family of their own.

...it provides people with a safety net so they have someone to look after them in old age.

...it doesn't change the quality of my marriage because the quality of each marriage, and life for that matter is determined by the person themself. That's why we need equality so we have equally footing on which to determine the quality of our lives.

Is a homersexual someone who is attracted to this guy? (http://samueljscott.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/homer_simpson.jpg)

Snip.

Tag team 7th Flush! Nice! :D

Is a homersexual someone who is attracted to this guy? (http://samueljscott.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/homer_simpson.jpg)

Sorry it's not in English, but....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dwuLkE2KPHc

Had to be done! :D

You effectively deny them the right to practice their religion by making same-sex marriage legal. Marriage is a religious ritual, it is sacred... like the Koran... (maybe libs can relate to that?) Would you pass a law that allowed people to burn the Koran in front of Muslim churches? Or... think of any example of mockery against the Muslim faith... maybe we pass a law that makes those vail thingys illegal to wear in public... You down with that? Didn't think so! You libs will bust a gut to defend Muslims rights to religious freedom and protect their religious sanctity, but fuck the poor Christians and anyone in the moral majority! You just can't see where pissing on one of their most sacred and holy traditions is any sort of violation of their rights!

*psst!* Marriage was around long before Christianity.

Also, guess what? Christian ministers don't have to perform the ceremonies, now, do they? Nope. So there goes that argument. That was easy. Got anything else?

Sorry to burden you with the facts. Please continue making wildly inaccurate statements and insulting people. You bounce outta here faster than ice on a wood stove, and it is fun to watch.

You effectively deny them the right to practice their religion by making same-sex marriage legal. Marriage is a religious ritual, it is sacred... like the Koran... (maybe libs can relate to that?) Would you pass a law that allowed people to burn the Koran in front of Muslim churches? Or... think of any example of mockery against the Muslim faith... maybe we pass a law that makes those vail thingys illegal to wear in public... You down with that? Didn't think so! You libs will bust a gut to defend Muslims rights to religious freedom and protect their religious sanctity, but fuck the poor Christians and anyone in the moral majority! You just can't see where pissing on one of their most sacred and holy traditions is any sort of violation of their rights!

So many straw men so little time grammar.

http://intellectualize.org/images/help_oppressed.gif

So many straw men so little time grammar.

http://intellectualize.org/images/help_oppressed.gif

I really wish I could find the animated version of that. It's infinitely more funny.

I really wish I could find the animated version of that. It's infinitely more funny.

Why not instead of musing, you go do it. ;) Don't be so lazy!

*sits on her ass and watches life walk past*

Dad…

Yes, son ?

I’m hetero…

Really? Mmm, does your mother know this?

One thing is for sure, we keep it in the family and we’ll send you to the best doctors around...

Thanks dad.

I really wish I could find the animated version of that. It's infinitely more funny.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd135/deathbysp4m/100de9.gif

You're welcome

Why not instead of musing, you go do it. ;) Don't be so lazy!

*sits on her ass and watches life walk past*

I don't even think I could move from where I am right now. I just got through a grueling 45 minutes of badminton, where I won the first doubles game I played in 17-15, but lost the second 15-12 with the winning shot nailing me in the forehead.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd135/deathbysp4m/100de9.gif

You're welcome

:fluffle:

I <3 the Christian Pacman of Doom

I'm putting the image in my server to make it easier to keep track. :)

I'm putting the image in my server to make it easier to keep track. :)

I started a photobucket account just to post it and other bits of random goodness.

I don't even think I could move from where I am right now. I just got through a grueling 45 minutes of badminton, where I won the first doubles game I played in 17-15, but lost the second 15-12 with the winning shot nailing me in the forehead.

Kinda makes the finality of the loss hit home, doesn't it? That's one reason why I like badminton.

Kinda makes the finality of the loss hit home, doesn't it? That's one reason why I like badminton.

Certainly adds injury to insult.

I'm playing with lead-tipped birdies next time :D

What is it about water that necessitates it be liquid?

The temperature. Just because it's hot enough to be steam or cold enough to be ice it doesn't stop being water.

Marriage is defined a certain way,

Currently you are correct. Definitions are subject to change however.

it has always been defined that way,

Incorrect. Among other things it has in the past been defined as including multiple partners and as being available only to those of the same race. There have been many other changes that I'm to lazy to think of right now.

and it has always been a religious ceremony ordained by religious groups.

This statement has been proven incorrect multiple times in this thread.

These things don't just change because you feel some need to bestow rights that don't exist.

The Supreme Court decision proving that a right to marriage exists has been posted multiple times in this thread. You are simply ignoring it.

I'm requoting these becauee I'd like to see Dixie respond to them. We're waiting.

(thanks for the idea, Pirated Corsairs)

I believe very strongly that marriage is a consensual union of love, stability, and commitment between persons of any gender.

If I invented a god and wrote a holy text, would laws prohibiting gay marriage become unconstitutional?

By that logic, divorce would be illegal, because it violates the beliefs of Catholics.

Oh, and you know that many Christians support Gay Marriage, right?



You don't seem to understand what persecution is. Protesting a church's actions is not persecution. Telling them that you think they're horrible is not persecution. Calling them bigots is not persecution. It's only persecution if you deny them their legal rights. The ONLY "persecution" that the first amendment applies to is Government, not what individuals choose to do.


Oh, and you've skipped quite a few good posts. Go back and reply to them all, please.

Okay, let's say I'm in a loving monogamous relationship with a man. Civil marriage, as defined by the state, grants a laundry list of about 1600 seperate rights pertaining to everything from inheritance to hospital visitation, which I cannot have access to unless I get married. It is discriminatory to not permit me access to these rights.

Okay, let's say I marry this guy. No religious group that is opposed to gay marriage was involved. It was strictly JoP. I now have access to these rights with my spouse. I am no longer being discriminated against. Now, can you show any causal link with the fact that I have access to these rights and any harm to any religious group opposed to gay marriage? Because if you can't, than you have no basis for argument.

We've already been over the fact that other states and foreign countries do not recognize civil unions performed in other jurisdictions. We've already been over the fact that the semantical difference between civil unions and marriage is meaningless. Add to that the fact that there is an ever growing list of religious groups that want to have the ability to perform gay marriages. They are being discriminated against, and their religious freedom is being impugned.

If we do allow gay marriage, than groups that oppose gay marriage will not have any religious rights infringed. The state won't be forcing them to do anything. Their observance of their faith in God will not be altered in anyway shape or form.

Thus, only one conclusion can be arrived: the discriminatory banning of gay marriage is dentologically unsound, and must be categorically rejected.

That's not persecution. That's using your constitutional right to say "I think you're a jackass for what you're doing."

The first amendment does NOT guarantee you immunity from protests and other consequences for your actions, merely that the government can't interfere with your religious freedom.

Do you honestly, TRULY believe religious people have the right to not have thier beliefs criticised?

is that your honest position? I can't understand how someone with enough intellect to type can truly believe that a person, or 10 people, or 100 people, or a million people standing up as private citizens and saying "I think your religion is wrong because you still don't allow a practice we recognize by law" in ANY way violates their rights.

Nobody has the right to hold a viewpoint without criticsm. We merely have the right to hold our viewpoints and not be told that they are illegal by the government.

The idea that we have the right to not have our ideas called stupid and barbaric by private people is absurd.

Why can't people just shut up about homosexuality?

Why can't people just shut up about homosexuality?

Because homophobes won't shut up about it?


Edit:
There are religions (and Churches) who have no compunction about marrying two men or two women.

If you want to respect the most basic notion of freedom of religion, you have to legalize gay marriage otherwise you are infringing on the rights of the religions who wish to perform said marriages. And they are many. Protestant, Anglican denominations around the world have taken this step.

To outlaw gay marriage does not protect freedom of religion. It is merely enforcing ONE religion on everyone else.

I repeat myself because I can.

Might make me seem full of myself, but the fact of the matter is that this is entirely disregarded by people who oppose gay marriage.

They do not have a leg to stand on as far as freedom of religion is concerned.

4) The Constitution doesn't say anything about "separation of church and state" it is derived from the 1st amendment, which clearly states the government can't interfere with your religious belief, and that your belief will be protected from persecution by others. Including but not limited to, those who want to change the definition of a religiously-based and rooted traditional ceremony to join a man and woman in holy matrimony. REFUTED

You keep saying that your arguments aren't religious, but you keep referring to 'holy' matrimony. Are you arguing that somehow hetro marriages will stop being holy if teh ebil gayz get to marry too?

Why can't people just shut up about homosexuality?

Because as long as there is inequality in the world, people will speak up until we are all truly equal before the eyes of the law. No one deserves to be deprived of rights because of their religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender or political beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixieanna View Post
What is it about water that necessitates it be liquid?
The temperature. Just because it's hot enough to be steam or cold enough to be ice it doesn't stop being water.

Thanks for answering the rhetorical question. Proving my point, there is something which necessitates water being liquid. You can't sell water and call it ice, because ice and water are defined differently.

Quote:
Marriage is defined a certain way,
Currently you are correct. Definitions are subject to change however.

No, this is why we go to the trouble to define things, so they will be defined and not subject to change on a whim. You can't just start calling things something else because you want to, unless you just want to be retarded. That black stuff we want to drill in Alaska for? It's food to feed the homeless! I just changed 'Oil' to 'Food' by definition, so that should satisfy all the liberals! Let's see how well that goes over!

Quote:
it has always been defined that way,
Incorrect. Among other things it has in the past been defined as including multiple partners and as being available only to those of the same race. There have been many other changes that I'm to lazy to think of right now.

Marriage, from the origin, and from all religious doctrine, has always been between a man and woman. Short of a few obscure examples of someone perverting the religious understanding of marriage, or some cult group misinterpretations, you can't give me an example, so it's probably a good thing you got lazy.

Quote:
and it has always been a religious ceremony ordained by religious groups.
This statement has been proven incorrect multiple times in this thread.

No, it hasn't been proven incorrect. It has been proven that people can read something out of context and seemingly 'disprove' something that wasn't stated. Marriage was created by religion, and has always been an important ritual within most every religion. The fact that "marriage" has been used by other non-religious groups, doesn't detract from the former statement.

Quote:
These things don't just change because you feel some need to bestow rights that don't exist.
The Supreme Court decision proving that a right to marriage exists has been posted multiple times in this thread. You are simply ignoring it.

You have misconstrued what the Supreme Court said. In your haste to "prove me wrong" you grabbed the few words you needed, and ignored everything else. The SC states that 'marriage is a basic human right' but doesn't say it is one which is guaranteed by the Constitution. They go on to say, the "right" is derived from the individual, not the state. In other words, it is up to the people involved to decide this for themselves. It is your right to pursue marriage, that can not be denied, and I have not stated otherwise. Marriage is not a right, you don't automatically have the right to marry someone or something, just because you want to. It isn't entitled to you, and many people are never married, who would dearly love to be. Also, the SC does not define same-sex union as 'marriage' here, they make no indication that such a union is the same as marriage in any regard, so your "proof" slowly vanished into thin air.

No, it hasn't been proven incorrect. It has been proven that people can read something out of context and seemingly 'disprove' something that wasn't stated. Marriage was created by religion, and has always been an important ritual within most every religion. The fact that "marriage" has been used by other non-religious groups, doesn't detract from the former statement.
Ah, no. Marriage in places such as China or Japan did not spring up from a religious background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_marriage
http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/culture/marriage_history.html

On why gay marriage will affect neocons.

***Seven hits with the same beginning.***

***7th Flush***

It will affect them because the people they hate as a hobby will become happier.

It will affect them because they will no longer be safe in the knowledge that the Government is catering only and exclusively to THEIR religion, and to THEIR religion alone.

It will affect them because they will have to spend time looking for something else to hate.

It will affect them because they will have to tolerate different people having the same rights as them.

It will affect them because they will have a reminder that their religion isn't the only thing that matters to society.

It will affect them because they will see people they chose to be offended by becoming their equals in the eyes of society.

It will affect them because their unhappy marriages will seem even more meaningless not due to an inherent change in its meaning, but because they will look at, say, Joseph and Carlos, and go "I wish I had a man like that to me" without the societal punishment that prevents them from acting on this very wish, a wish they fear so much.

For all the wrong, sick, idiotic reasons.

I quote myself, Dixie, to force you to address my point. You don't have any reason to oppose gay marriage that doesn't boil down to this. Which is why you will ALWAYS lose in the end, like the people in favor of segregation did, like the people against women's rights did and like the people in favor of slavery did. We shall win, again, and you and your hatred for difference shall lose, once again. Because our side is the good side. Our battle is the good battle. And there's nothing you can do against that.

Marriage, from the origin, and from all religious doctrine, has always been between a man and woman. Short of a few obscure examples of someone perverting the religious understanding of marriage, or some cult group misinterpretations

So are the major figures of the old testament obscure, "perverting the religious understanding of marriage" (which they pretty much created), or "some cult group"? After all many of them had multiple wives . . .



No, it hasn't been proven incorrect. It has been proven that people can read something out of context and seemingly 'disprove' something that wasn't stated. Marriage was created by religion, and has always been an important ritual within most every religion. The fact that "marriage" has been used by other non-religious groups, doesn't detract from the former statement.

The context was:

You: "Marriage is religious only!"

Everybody: "Multiple examples of non-religious marriage!!!"

You: "La-la-la I can't hear you!"


You have misconstrued what the Supreme Court said. In your haste to "prove me wrong" you grabbed the few words you needed, and ignored everything else. The SC states that 'marriage is a basic human right' but doesn't say it is one which is guaranteed by the Constitution. They go on to say, the "right" is derived from the individual, not the state. In other words, it is up to the people involved to decide this for themselves. It is your right to pursue marriage, that can not be denied, and I have not stated otherwise. Marriage is not a right, you don't automatically have the right to marry someone or something, just because you want to. It isn't entitled to you, and many people are never married, who would dearly love to be. Also, the SC does not define same-sex union as 'marriage' here, they make no indication that such a union is the same as marriage in any regard, so your "proof" slowly vanished into thin air.


So when they said "basic human right" what they meant was not a right at all?

Ah, no. Marriage in places such as China or Japan did not spring up from a religious background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_marriage
http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/culture/marriage_history.html

Watashitachi wa "oni" ni tabemono wo agette iru... no ni, tanoshii, ne...

You ignored these again:
Bullshit, you should know damn well which one I mean, because it's been quoted at you several times in this thread. Either you're lying or you're intentionally keeping yourself willfully ignorant. But I will quote it again, it's Loving v. Virginia. Indeed, I will even quote the relevant bit:




False. The US has treaties with other countries that they well accept our marriages and vice versa. And even in cases where we don't have such treaties, it's common practice for them to do it anyway. This has been pointed out to you in the thread several times, so either you are lying or you are intentionally remaining ignorant.


It mandates nothing, it merely allows. A better analogy would be making it legal to wake up every morning and take a piss on the cross. But that's illegal, right?


How will a church's belief be persecuted by others if they can still have their marriages in the way they want to, and grant (or not)them to the people the want to? People might get a little mad at them? Tough shit. You don't have the right for people to be happy with what you do, even if you have the right to do it.

That's not persecution. That's using your constitutional right to say "I think you're a jackass for what you're doing."

The first amendment does NOT guarantee you immunity from protests and other consequences for your actions, merely that the government can't interfere with your religious freedom.

Okay, let's say I'm in a loving monogamous relationship with a man. Civil marriage, as defined by the state, grants a laundry list of about 1600 seperate rights pertaining to everything from inheritance to hospital visitation, which I cannot have access to unless I get married. It is discriminatory to not permit me access to these rights.

Okay, let's say I marry this guy. No religious group that is opposed to gay marriage was involved. It was strictly JoP. I now have access to these rights with my spouse. I am no longer being discriminated against. Now, can you show any causal link with the fact that I have access to these rights and any harm to any religious group opposed to gay marriage? Because if you can't, than you have no basis for argument.

We've already been over the fact that other states and foreign countries do not recognize civil unions performed in other jurisdictions. We've already been over the fact that the semantical difference between civil unions and marriage is meaningless. Add to that the fact that there is an ever growing list of religious groups that want to have the ability to perform gay marriages. They are being discriminated against, and their religious freedom is being impugned.

If we do allow gay marriage, than groups that oppose gay marriage will not have any religious rights infringed. The state won't be forcing them to do anything. Their observance of their faith in God will not be altered in anyway shape or form.

Thus, only one conclusion can be arrived: the discriminatory banning of gay marriage is dentologically unsound, and must be categorically rejected.

I believe very strongly that marriage is a consensual union of love, stability, and commitment between persons of any gender.

If I invented a god and wrote a holy text, would laws prohibiting gay marriage become unconstitutional?

In order for such a law to be what it is, the law itself would have to be the direct cause, not an indirect one. The situation you describe is quite indirect.

Please stop being so damn dishonest and skipping rebuttals to your points. If you can't keep up with the posts in the thread, you should concede the point, or lose all credibility.

You keep saying that your arguments aren't religious, but you keep referring to 'holy' matrimony. Are you arguing that somehow hetro marriages will stop being holy if teh ebil gayz get to marry too?

Well, as much as I would like to say yes, just to see you bust a gut bashing me and calling me names for it, I have to be honest and say no, that's not what I am arguing at all. If you would take the time to read my previous posts, you will understand, I am not religious and belong to no religious group. I also don't believe hetros will stop being holy, or the world will stop spinning, or the gates of hell will open up and swallow us all, if gays are allowed to marry. Heck, I have even stated that I have no problem with gays having a ceremony and calling it a marriage, if that's what they want to do. I am arguing from a purely constitutional standpoint here, and what our Constitution states, precludes any mythical "right" homosexuals feel they have to make a mockery of religious tradition. Changing the definition of traditional marriage to include homosexuals, is an affront to the religious beliefs of almost every religious group in America. If this change of definition could happen without violating religious people's right to worship without persecution, I would have no problem with it, but it can't unless you change "marriage" to "union" and remove the religious ritual aspect, which frankly, should be how it's done in the first place. One reason it is hard to give valid examples here, is because there is no other issue which entangles the state in religious ceremony and tradition.

Yes, gays should be free to do what they want to do, but not at the expense of religious customs and traditions, because those people have their constitutional rights as well. This is why I favor and advocate Civil Unions, and even go so far as to say... if you want the state to get out of the "marriage" business altogether, I am for that too! If anything, just issue "Civil Union" license to gays, straights, immediate family members, whoever wants to enter into a joint union together, and remove the religious and sexual behavior aspects from the law completely. It seems to me, this is the best way for everyone to get what they want and be happy, but my idea is met with criticism here, because this isn't really about "gay rights" as much as it is about destroying religion.

Well, as much as I would like to say yes, just to see you bust a gut bashing me and calling me names for it, I have to be honest and say no, that's not what I am arguing at all. If you would take the time to read my previous posts, you will understand, I am not religious and belong to no religious group. I also don't believe hetros will stop being holy, or the world will stop spinning, or the gates of hell will open up and swallow us all, if gays are allowed to marry. Heck, I have even stated that I have no problem with gays having a ceremony and calling it a marriage, if that's what they want to do. I am arguing from a purely constitutional standpoint here, and what our Constitution states, precludes any mythical "right" homosexuals feel they have to make a mockery of religious tradition. Changing the definition of traditional marriage to include homosexuals, is an affront to the religious beliefs of almost every religious group in America. If this change of definition could happen without violating religious people's right to worship without persecution, I would have no problem with it, but it can't unless you change "marriage" to "union" and remove the religious ritual aspect, which frankly, should be how it's done in the first place. One reason it is hard to give valid examples here, is because there is no other issue which entangles the state in religious ceremony and tradition.

Yes, gays should be free to do what they want to do, but not at the expense of religious customs and traditions, because those people have their constitutional rights as well. This is why I favor and advocate Civil Unions, and even go so far as to say... if you want the state to get out of the "marriage" business altogether, I am for that too! If anything, just issue "Civil Union" license to gays, straights, immediate family members, whoever wants to enter into a joint union together, and remove the religious and sexual behavior aspects from the law completely. It seems to me, this is the best way for everyone to get what they want and be happy, but my idea is met with criticism here, because this isn't really about "gay rights" as much as it is about destroying religion.

You have failed to address:

Bullshit, you should know damn well which one I mean, because it's been quoted at you several times in this thread. Either you're lying or you're intentionally keeping yourself willfully ignorant. But I will quote it again, it's Loving v. Virginia. Indeed, I will even quote the relevant bit:




False. The US has treaties with other countries that they well accept our marriages and vice versa. And even in cases where we don't have such treaties, it's common practice for them to do it anyway. This has been pointed out to you in the thread several times, so either you are lying or you are intentionally remaining ignorant.


It mandates nothing, it merely allows. A better analogy would be making it legal to wake up every morning and take a piss on the cross. But that's illegal, right?


How will a church's belief be persecuted by others if they can still have their marriages in the way they want to, and grant (or not)them to the people the want to? People might get a little mad at them? Tough shit. You don't have the right for people to be happy with what you do, even if you have the right to do it.

That's not persecution. That's using your constitutional right to say "I think you're a jackass for what you're doing."

The first amendment does NOT guarantee you immunity from protests and other consequences for your actions, merely that the government can't interfere with your religious freedom.

Okay, let's say I'm in a loving monogamous relationship with a man. Civil marriage, as defined by the state, grants a laundry list of about 1600 seperate rights pertaining to everything from inheritance to hospital visitation, which I cannot have access to unless I get married. It is discriminatory to not permit me access to these rights.

Okay, let's say I marry this guy. No religious group that is opposed to gay marriage was involved. It was strictly JoP. I now have access to these rights with my spouse. I am no longer being discriminated against. Now, can you show any causal link with the fact that I have access to these rights and any harm to any religious group opposed to gay marriage? Because if you can't, than you have no basis for argument.

We've already been over the fact that other states and foreign countries do not recognize civil unions performed in other jurisdictions. We've already been over the fact that the semantical difference between civil unions and marriage is meaningless. Add to that the fact that there is an ever growing list of religious groups that want to have the ability to perform gay marriages. They are being discriminated against, and their religious freedom is being impugned.

If we do allow gay marriage, than groups that oppose gay marriage will not have any religious rights infringed. The state won't be forcing them to do anything. Their observance of their faith in God will not be altered in anyway shape or form.

Thus, only one conclusion can be arrived: the discriminatory banning of gay marriage is dentologically unsound, and must be categorically rejected.

I believe very strongly that marriage is a consensual union of love, stability, and commitment between persons of any gender.

If I invented a god and wrote a holy text, would laws prohibiting gay marriage become unconstitutional?

In order for such a law to be what it is, the law itself would have to be the direct cause, not an indirect one. The situation you describe is quite indirect.

I say again, you should be able to keep up with all the posts in a thread. It's not moving that fast.

The context was:

You: "Marriage is religious only!"

Everybody: "Multiple examples of non-religious marriage!!!"

You: "La-la-la I can't hear you!"

No, sorry... that is context you selected, not what I stated.

Marriage is a religious tenant, always has been, always will be. Plain and simple. The fact that others have, throughout history, used the term to describe something else, is of no consequence to the fact that marriage is a religious tenant.

No, sorry... that is context you selected, not what I stated.

Marriage is a religious tenant, always has been, always will be. Plain and simple. The fact that others have, throughout history, used the term to describe something else, is of no consequence to the fact that marriage is a religious tenant.

No.

Done.

No, sorry... that is context you selected, not what I stated.

Marriage is a religious tenant, always has been, always will be. Plain and simple. The fact that others have, throughout history, used the term to describe something else, is of no consequence to the fact that marriage is a religious tenant.

So... the fact that there have been, throughout history, cases where marriage has not been a religious ceremony-- that fact is of no consequence to the claim that marriage is always a religious ceremony? :rolleyes:

EDIT: I almost forgot, you ignored this again:

Bullshit, you should know damn well which one I mean, because it's been quoted at you several times in this thread. Either you're lying or you're intentionally keeping yourself willfully ignorant. But I will quote it again, it's Loving v. Virginia. Indeed, I will even quote the relevant bit:




False. The US has treaties with other countries that they well accept our marriages and vice versa. And even in cases where we don't have such treaties, it's common practice for them to do it anyway. This has been pointed out to you in the thread several times, so either you are lying or you are intentionally remaining ignorant.


It mandates nothing, it merely allows. A better analogy would be making it legal to wake up every morning and take a piss on the cross. But that's illegal, right?


How will a church's belief be persecuted by others if they can still have their marriages in the way they want to, and grant (or not)them to the people the want to? People might get a little mad at them? Tough shit. You don't have the right for people to be happy with what you do, even if you have the right to do it.

That's not persecution. That's using your constitutional right to say "I think you're a jackass for what you're doing."

The first amendment does NOT guarantee you immunity from protests and other consequences for your actions, merely that the government can't interfere with your religious freedom.

Okay, let's say I'm in a loving monogamous relationship with a man. Civil marriage, as defined by the state, grants a laundry list of about 1600 seperate rights pertaining to everything from inheritance to hospital visitation, which I cannot have access to unless I get married. It is discriminatory to not permit me access to these rights.

Okay, let's say I marry this guy. No religious group that is opposed to gay marriage was involved. It was strictly JoP. I now have access to these rights with my spouse. I am no longer being discriminated against. Now, can you show any causal link with the fact that I have access to these rights and any harm to any religious group opposed to gay marriage? Because if you can't, than you have no basis for argument.

We've already been over the fact that other states and foreign countries do not recognize civil unions performed in other jurisdictions. We've already been over the fact that the semantical difference between civil unions and marriage is meaningless. Add to that the fact that there is an ever growing list of religious groups that want to have the ability to perform gay marriages. They are being discriminated against, and their religious freedom is being impugned.

If we do allow gay marriage, than groups that oppose gay marriage will not have any religious rights infringed. The state won't be forcing them to do anything. Their observance of their faith in God will not be altered in anyway shape or form.

Thus, only one conclusion can be arrived: the discriminatory banning of gay marriage is dentologically unsound, and must be categorically rejected.

I believe very strongly that marriage is a consensual union of love, stability, and commitment between persons of any gender.

If I invented a god and wrote a holy text, would laws prohibiting gay marriage become unconstitutional?

In order for such a law to be what it is, the law itself would have to be the direct cause, not an indirect one. The situation you describe is quite indirect.

No, sorry... that is context you selected, not what I stated.

Marriage is a religious tenant, always has been, always will be. Plain and simple. The fact that others have, throughout history, used the term to describe something else, is of no consequence to the fact that marriage is a religious tenant.

So I should tell my wife of 15 years that we aren't really married because we are both athiests, did not take any oaths before God, and were not married in a church?

@Pirated: I wasn't aware I was mandated to answer each and every inane post of a thread. Is this a new rule? If so, I apologize to the mods in advance, and maybe you could weed out some of the lesser intelligent liberals here, so us lone conservatives could keep up. It's really hard for one con to do verbal battle with 15 liberals all saying essentially the same thing.

Let's see... you want me to respond to a Civil Rights case... has nothing to do with homosexuals getting married, so nope... won't respond to red herring today, sorry!

What else? Oh, you want me to prove things to you which can't be proven, and even if they could, you wouldn't accept? Nahh... don't think I care to do that, seems like a complete waste of my time.

Hmmm... what else? Ooo... you want to debate religious interpretations with me? Well, as I have said, I am not religious, and don't know enough about religious interpretation to argue adequately about them, but I am sure there are probably some people here who will argue with you.

I think that is about it, I hope my response was sufficient for you, it did me a world of good!

And yet again, Dixie the Pixie ignores the facts.

Dixie, you keep repeating that marriage has always been part of marriage, yet I provide you with proof that marriage hasn't always been as you claim. I also point out that the definition came along well after religion decided it wanted something of a ceremonial role.

You cannot prove that marriage is solely a religious institution. Matriomony is part of the Christian belief set but it is a specific ritual for Christians wishing to join in a marriage. It is merely a binding ritual expected to be performed in front of a priest with two witnesses. This dates back to the 1500, specifically 1563 when the Council of Trent decided that in order for a marriage to be recognised in the eyes of the church, the union had to be forced before a priest and two witnesses.

Before Pope Nicholas I, there was no definition of marriage. Once again, the definition of marriage hasn't even been around for 2000 years. In fact, marriages were considered "free" marriages until the 9th century when the church did become involved. This alone proves that religion came along into the business much later than the government, as Emperor Justin (527-565 AD) did code in laws regarding marriage before the church did.

From this we reach two conclusions, the government was in charger first, and secondly, it was not controlled by religion until later on, though it was regarded in the Bible as a family affair.



See above. It has not even been a religious custom that long, maybe a good 1200 years at the most. Even then, that is disputable. There is plenty of evidence that points to the church trying to take control. In fact, if we wanted to get real picky, we could point out that marriage has only been a religious mandate for about 400-500 years since the Council of Trent, in which it was mandated that for marriages to be considered legal, it had to be performed in front of a priest and two witnesses.

As for the definition, the definition only came about in the 9th century AD, but there was no way to enforce it because people could marry without the above requirements for the longest time.

For the vast majority of history, it was considered enough for a marriage to be recognised if the parties involved consented to the union, and wanted to enter it voluntarily.

Here are some links...

Succinct History of Marriage (http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm)
More History of Marriage (http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm)
Wikipedia: History of Marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage)

And yet again, Dixie the Pixie ignores the facts.

hello, mods???? Can you please ban this guy from the forum for 3 days, like you did me? I believe his comments were personally insulting and violate forum policy!

**holds breath***
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
***turning blue...***

*crickets chirp*

@Pirated: I wasn't aware I was mandated to answer each and every inane post of a thread. Is this a new rule? If so, I apologize to the mods in advance, and maybe you could weed out some of the lesser intelligent liberals here, so us lone conservatives could keep up. It's really hard for one con to do verbal battle with 15 liberals all saying essentially the same thing.

Let's see... you want me to respond to a Civil Rights case... has nothing to do with homosexuals getting married, so nope... won't respond to red herring today, sorry!

What else? Oh, you want me to prove things to you which can't be proven, and even if they could, you wouldn't accept? Nahh... don't think I care to do that, seems like a complete waste of my time.

Hmmm... what else? Ooo... you want to debate religious interpretations with me? Well, as I have said, I am not religious, and don't know enough about religious interpretation to argue adequately about them, but I am sure there are probably some people here who will argue with you.

I think that is about it, I hope my response was sufficient for you, it did me a world of good!

Of course you don't *have* to address every post, but if you don't address any number of points against you, you lose credibility and your argument falls apart.

hello, mods???? Can you please ban this guy from the forum for 3 days, like you did me? I believe his comments were personally insulting and violate forum policy!

**holds breath***
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
***turning blue...***

*crickets chirp*

Saying you ignore the facts isn't an insult; it's simply true.

hello, mods???? Can you please ban this guy from the forum for 3 days, like you did me? I believe his comments were personally insulting and violate forum policy!

**holds breath***
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
***turning blue...***

*crickets chirp*

In all fairness, you have been presented of actual marriages that were non-religious and you keep ignoring them.

A marriage needn't be religious to be recognized. The only reason society feels a need to recognize it probably has to do with the fact that humanity is a social animal and people like to know who is with you for good.

And, as a fun fact on the side, divorce back in the viking days were easier, but the results much harsher.

hello, mods???? Can you please ban this guy from the forum for 3 days, like you did me? I believe his comments were personally insulting and violate forum policy!

**holds breath***
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
***turning blue...***

*crickets chirp*

...uh... *crickets chirp yet again*.... *blink*... it's not my fault your name makes for a good little rhyme.

And saying "his" comments insults me. I ain't a guy, I'm a friggin' skirt!

You have misconstrued what the Supreme Court said. In your haste to "prove me wrong" you grabbed the few words you needed, and ignored everything else. The SC states that 'marriage is a basic human right' but doesn't say it is one which is guaranteed by the Constitution. They go on to say, the "right" is derived from the individual, not the state. In other words, it is up to the people involved to decide this for themselves. It is your right to pursue marriage, that can not be denied, and I have not stated otherwise. Marriage is not a right, you don't automatically have the right to marry someone or something, just because you want to. It isn't entitled to you, and many people are never married, who would dearly love to be. Also, the SC does not define same-sex union as 'marriage' here, they make no indication that such a union is the same as marriage in any regard, so your "proof" slowly vanished into thin air.


Let's look again at what the Supreme Court said in Loving v. Virginia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1), 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (emphasis added):

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=535#541), 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=125&invol=190), 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

So the Supreme Court did specifically say that marriage was a right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that you may not understand substantive liberties protected by the Due Process Clause does not mean the Supreme Court did not say marriage was a constitutional right.

But, according to you the Supreme Court misreads its own case. Here is yet another quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997) (emphasis added).

Of course you don't *have* to address every post, but if you don't address any number of points against you, you lose credibility and your argument falls apart.

Well, according to the vast majority, I have no argument or credibility already!

The questions you raise, have little to do with the issue being debated. You want to cite a Civil Rights case which deals with racial inequality, an issue addressed with the CRA of 1964, and very well-documented. It has nothing at all to do with homosexual behavior, same-sex unions, or religious freedom. So, you essentially want to trick me into being sidetracked into another debate you think you can win, rather than staying on point. I declined by ignoring you, but apparently, you didn't get the message. I don't waste my time debating things that don't pertain to the issue at hand.

hello, mods???? Can you please ban this guy from the forum for 3 days, like you did me? I believe his comments were personally insulting and violate forum policy!

**holds breath***
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
***turning blue...***

*crickets chirp*

Try posting this in the correct forum (moderation). As a matter of fact, please use this EXACT wording when you do.

Try posting this in the correct forum (moderation). As a matter of fact, please use this EXACT wording when you do.

Friendly hint to add to this post if you intend to follow it to the letter: Remember to add a link. I am a pedant

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

I have highlighted in red, the words you need to consider. The SC does not say that "marriage is a right" at all. The FREEDOM to marry, is a right. It also doesn't say this is a Constitutional right, or a civil right, but a PERSONAL right.

Now, you have cleverly misconstrued what they said, and made it sound as if they said something they didn't. Nice work on that! But, you have not "proved" or "disproved" anything I have said. In fact, this case has nothing to do with what we are discussing, because the SC is using the definition of marriage as it stand presently, the union between a man and woman. They did not say that same-sex union is equivalent to marriage.

Well, according to the vast majority, I have no argument or credibility already!

The questions you raise, have little to do with the issue being debated. You want to cite a Civil Rights case which deals with racial inequality, an issue addressed with the CRA of 1964, and very well-documented. It has nothing at all to do with homosexual behavior, same-sex unions, or religious freedom. So, you essentially want to trick me into being sidetracked into another debate you think you can win, rather than staying on point. I declined by ignoring you, but apparently, you didn't get the message. I don't waste my time debating things that don't pertain to the issue at hand.

Um. Loving v. Virginia had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and everything to do with the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, if you go back to my citation of Loving, it further cites Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) and Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) -- both of which have to do with marriage being a fundamental right, but neither of which are about racial inequality.

But, since you keep claiming there is a religious freedom issue here, perhaps you can cite a single case that supports your view. I bet you can't because there is no such case.

...uh... *crickets chirp yet again*.... *blink*... it's not my fault your name makes for a good little rhyme.

And saying "his" comments insults me. I ain't a guy, I'm a friggin' skirt!

Wow! I think you're the only piece of clothing that posts here!

Wow! I think you're the only piece of clothing that posts here!

It's an honour to be the only one of my kin to be here. ;)

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

I have highlighted in red, the words you need to consider. The SC does not say that "marriage is a right" at all. The FREEDOM to marry, is a right. It also doesn't say this is a Constitutional right, or a civil right, but a PERSONAL right.

Now, you have cleverly misconstrued what they said, and made it sound as if they said something they didn't. Nice work on that! But, you have not "proved" or "disproved" anything I have said. In fact, this case has nothing to do with what we are discussing, because the SC is using the definition of marriage as it stand presently, the union between a man and woman. They did not say that same-sex union is equivalent to marriage.

The Supreme Court specifically says the freedom to marry is a right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They say so in each of the parts I highlighted in red.

Your very last sentence is correct. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue of same-sex marriage. Other courts have and have found that denying same-sex marriage violates equal protection of the law and denies fundamental liberties.

But the point for which we have cited Loving is not about same-sex marriage per se, but rather that you are wrong when you say marriage is not a right. SCOTUS has been rather clear that it is a right.

Now, you have cleverly misconstrued what they said, and made it sound as if they said something they didn't. Nice work on that! But, you have not "proved" or "disproved" anything I have said. In fact, this case has nothing to do with what we are discussing, because the SC is using the definition of marriage as it stand presently, the union between a man and woman. They did not say that same-sex union is equivalent to marriage.

Incorrect. A quick search through the internet will reveal that the definition of marriage is not "standing presently" on any solid ground.

It is, like the rest of the English language, ambiguous and best described in vaguer terms, such as what it actually is: A socially-accepted economic contract between two partners.

That much I think everyone can agree upon. It is the widest definition after all. That some people then choose to define it further does not in any way make the definition of marriage a stable issue. This thread kinda highlights this.

In all fairness, you have been presented of actual marriages that were non-religious and you keep ignoring them.

No, I haven't. I never said that non-religious marriages don't exist. When I was 7 or 8, my sister and I, married our cat and dog! Oh, it was a nice ceremony, we even threw rice at them! Was it a religious marriage? Nope! So, I fully understand there can be non-religious marriage, I've never said otherwise. That is why I continue to not address this stupid point, it doesn't deserve response.

My statement was not that non-religious marriage didn't exist, but that marriage has always been a religious ritual, from its origins, it is a religiously-based and rooted fundamental practice. Doctors have always been in the business of saving lives, it is fundamentally what they do... that isn't to say, ALL doctors are practicing the same Hippocratic oath, witch doctors... doctors of love... honorary doctors... spin doctors... Dr. Dre... there are a bunch of doctors who don't save lives. THAT doesn't prove the previous statement untrue, it's just smokescreen debate tactics, which really hack me off.

You are wrong when you say marriage is not a right. SCOTUS has been rather clear that it is a right.

No, I am sorry, going by what you posted, YOU are wrong. The SCOTUS does not say "marriage is a right" anywhere in there! They say the FREEDOM TO marry, is a right, and I agree with that. Marriage, however, is defined as the union of a man and woman, not same-gender.

the SC is using the definition of marriage as it stand presently, the union between a man and woman.

Try looking in the definitive dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, you will not find marriage defined as the union between an man and a woman.

Instead, the first entry reads:

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.
The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.
c1300 St. Edmund Rich (Laud) 101 in C. Horstmann Early S.-Eng. Legendary (1887) 434 Al ful beo of e Mariage, e, and fayn it wolde un-binde! a1393 GOWER Confessio Amantis (Fairf.) V. 1260 Whan sche was of Age, Sche tok non hiede of mariage. c1485 (1456) G. HAY Bk. Law of Armys (1901) 21 The mareagh of kyrk men. 1513 H. BRADSHAW Lyfe St. Werburge I. 1754 Many dyuers persones..Refused this worlde..Renounsynge vayne pleasures ryches and maryage. 1567 Compend. Bk. Godly Songs (1897) 202 Mariage is ane blissit band. 1606 B. JONSON Hymenæi 737 Marriage Loves Obiect is. a1631 J. DONNE Serm. (1953) VI. 180 Nor does hee dishonour marriage, that praises Virginity. 1675 W. WYCHERLEY Country-wife I. 11 Well, Jack, by thy long absence from the Town, the grumness of thy countenance, and the slovenlyness of thy habit; I shou'd give thee joy, shoud' I not, of Marriage? 1755 B. FRANKLIN Observ. conc. Increase Mankind 9 in W. Clarke Observ. French, They are the Cause of the Generation of Multitudes by the Encouragement they afford to Marriage. 1767 A. YOUNG Farmer's Lett. 189 Marriage will ever flourish, when there is no danger of children proving an incumbrance. 1849 C. BRONTË Shirley I. ix. 237 Marriage! I cannot bear the word: it sounds so silly and utopian. 1894 O. WILDE Let. Aug. (1962) 364 What fun our dinners were in the old days! I hope marriage has not made you too serious? It has never had that effect on me. 1921 J. GALSWORTHY To Let 134 Marriage without a decent chance of relief is only a sort of slave-owning. 1975 G. LICHTENSTEIN in N.Y. Times 27 Apr. 49 The move toward legally-sanctioned marriages between persons of the same sex. 1994 N. DEMILLE Spencerville ii. 9 She'd noticed that her husband was just going through the motions of marriage.

No, I am sorry, going by what you posted, YOU are wrong. The SCOTUS does not say "marriage is a right" anywhere in there! They say the FREEDOM TO marry, is a right, and I agree with that. Marriage, however, is defined as the union of a man and woman, not same-gender.

Pray tell, what is the significance of your pedantic distinction between "marriage is a right" and "the freedom to marry is a right"? You seem to think this is important, so you must be able to explain why.

EDIT: I would add that the Supreme Court did not make this distinction in the quoted portion of Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S.702 (1997).

No, I haven't. I never said that non-religious marriages don't exist. When I was 7 or 8, my sister and I, married our cat and dog! Oh, it was a nice ceremony, we even threw rice at them! Was it a religious marriage? Nope! So, I fully understand there can be non-religious marriage, I've never said otherwise. That is why I continue to not address this stupid point, it doesn't deserve response.

My statement was not that non-religious marriage didn't exist, but that marriage has always been a religious ritual, from its origins, it is a religiously-based and rooted fundamental practice. Doctors have always been in the business of saving lives, it is fundamentally what they do... that isn't to say, ALL doctors are practicing the same Hippocratic oath, witch doctors... doctors of love... honorary doctors... spin doctors... Dr. Dre... there are a bunch of doctors who don't save lives. THAT doesn't prove the previous statement untrue, it's just smokescreen debate tactics, which really hack me off.

I have bolded which I feel is obviously inaccurate data you're providing. This is the same conjecture you keep spouting. Care to address the point I made about the Council of Trent and other parts of history pertaining to marriage before you go on to say that things have always been as you say.

You cannot prove that marriage is solely a religious institution. Matriomony is part of the Christian belief set but it is a specific ritual for Christians wishing to join in a marriage. It is merely a binding ritual expected to be performed in front of a priest with two witnesses. This dates back to the 1500, specifically 1563 when the Council of Trent decided that in order for a marriage to be recognised in the eyes of the church, the union had to be forced before a priest and two witnesses.

Before Pope Nicholas I, there was no definition of marriage. Once again, the definition of marriage hasn't even been around for 2000 years. In fact, marriages were considered "free" marriages until the 9th century when the church did become involved. This alone proves that religion came along into the business much later than the government, as Emperor Justin (527-565 AD) did code in laws regarding marriage before the church did.

From this we reach two conclusions, the government was in charger first, and secondly, it was not controlled by religion until later on, though it was regarded in the Bible as a family affair.



See above. It has not even been a religious custom that long, maybe a good 1200 years at the most. Even then, that is disputable. There is plenty of evidence that points to the church trying to take control. In fact, if we wanted to get real picky, we could point out that marriage has only been a religious mandate for about 400-500 years since the Council of Trent, in which it was mandated that for marriages to be considered legal, it had to be performed in front of a priest and two witnesses.

As for the definition, the definition only came about in the 9th century AD, but there was no way to enforce it because people could marry without the above requirements for the longest time.

For the vast majority of history, it was considered enough for a marriage to be recognised if the parties involved consented to the union, and wanted to enter it voluntarily.

Here are some links...

Succinct History of Marriage (http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm)
More History of Marriage (http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm)
Wikipedia: History of Marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage)

My statement was not that non-religious marriage didn't exist, but that marriage has always been a religious ritual, from its origins, it is a religiously-based and rooted fundamental practice.

No.

There are marriages, serious marriages which you have to learn to accept to take seriously, who have absolutely no origins in religion.

We're not talking you marrying your dog when you're six years old. We're talking seriously, socially recognized marriages.

No.

There are marriages, serious marriages which you have to learn to accept to take seriously, who have absolutely no origins in religion.

We're not talking you marrying your dog when you're six years old. We're talking seriously, socially recognized marriages.

Like my marriage.

If it weren't so insulting, Dixieanna's insistence on degrading marriages like mine would be ironically hilarious.

Like my marriage.

And mine. Mine was done civilly.

Zero mention of god, no prayers, no blessings, done outside with a marriage officiate.

No, I haven't. I never said that non-religious marriages don't exist. When I was 7 or 8, my sister and I, married our cat and dog! Oh, it was a nice ceremony, we even threw rice at them! Was it a religious marriage? Nope! So, I fully understand there can be non-religious marriage, I've never said otherwise. That is why I continue to not address this stupid point, it doesn't deserve response.

Wow. You actually just compared thousands (millions?) of marriages preformed by justices of the peace/judges/whatever with a small child preforming a wedding for his pet. You actually dare to accuse OTHER people of being insulting to YOU?

The point still stands, marriage is a religious tradition and always has been. Because the Council of Trent or whomever, decided to make marriage something non-religious, doesn't mean it stopped being a religious tradition and practice. It simply means there were governments before ours that did not protect the religious freedoms of others.

The point still stands, marriage is a religious tradition and always has been. Because the Council of Trent or whomever, decided to make marriage something non-religious, doesn't mean it stopped being a religious tradition and practice. It simply means there were governments before ours that did not protect the religious freedoms of others.

...

You're not reading/listening.

The Council of Trent decided to make marriage religious.

Before that, marriage was not religious.

At least make the effort of reading our arguments...

The point still stands, marriage is a religious tradition and always has been. Because the Council of Trent or whomever, decided to make marriage something non-religious, doesn't mean it stopped being a religious tradition and practice. It simply means there were governments before ours that did not protect the religious freedoms of others.


1. So, despite copious evidence to the contrary, your argument is marriage is a religious tradition and always has been. Fine. Where is your proof?

2. I am increasingly insulted by your insistence that my marriage is somehow not a real marriage.

3. I challenge you again to cite any case protecting the "religious freedom" that you posit.

No.

There are marriages, serious marriages which you have to learn to accept to take seriously, who have absolutely no origins in religion.

We're not talking you marrying your dog when you're six years old. We're talking seriously, socially recognized marriages.

Listen, don't you tell me what I have to accept or take seriously, I decide that! Don't force your (im)moral views down my throat! I personally recognize marriage as the holy union in matrimony, of a man and woman. This is how most practicing religions recognize marriage, as well as a vast majority of the general public. Because you can cite examples where this isn't the case, doesn't make that no so. No one has claimed that you can't view marriage as something else, people do it all the time, and are free to do it! It still doesn't change the definition of marriage and its significance to religious beliefs, and that is what the issue is here.

The point still stands, marriage is a religious tradition and always has been. Because the Council of Trent or whomever, decided to make marriage something non-religious, doesn't mean it stopped being a religious tradition and practice. It simply means there were governments before ours that did not protect the religious freedoms of others.

No, they made it religious, before they did, it could be performed without a priest, but after that, a priest and two witnesses were required to validate the legitimacy of the marriage. Even in most of Colonial America this was required until the 19th century when the states began to legalise civil marriages for people not wishing to marry in the church.

In Roman society and much of Medieval Europe, marriages didn't have to be performed, all that was required was for the two people to declare their intent to be married to one another. There was no definition. Further, there were no religious laws governing it before the dates I quoted. It wasn't part of religion as much as it was later on in history. Fleet Marriage is one such example of "lawless" marriage.

The Church didn't have a role until later on.

Listen, don't you tell me what I have to accept or take seriously, I decide that! Don't force your (im)moral views down my throat! I personally recognize marriage as the holy union in matrimony, of a man and woman. This is how most practicing religions recognize marriage,

My previous estimate of three religions was recently updated to four religions and a reincarnated holy man. How is that most?

Listen, don't you tell me what I have to accept or take seriously, I decide that! Don't force your (im)moral views down my throat! I personally recognize marriage as the holy union in matrimony, of a man and woman. This is how most practicing religions recognize marriage, as well as a vast majority of the general public. Because you can cite examples where this isn't the case, doesn't make that no so. No one has claimed that you can't view marriage as something else, people do it all the time, and are free to do it! It still doesn't change the definition of marriage and its significance to religious beliefs, and that is what the issue is here.

You do realise that the only part of the marriage definition that changes is the "man and woman" element which becomes "the two people". This is hardly a stretch because it still respects marriage between a man and woman, while affording the same rights to people whose only real crime may be not having been born a hetero.

Everything else remains the same. It is still a union between two consenting people who love each other. How does gender impact on the marriage? It doesn't. The only thing it does it change the wording in the definition. Besides, aren't a "man" and "woman" two people anyway?

Listen, don't you tell me what I have to accept or take seriously, I decide that! Don't force your (im)moral views down my throat! I personally recognize marriage as the holy union in matrimony, of a man and woman. This is how most practicing religions recognize marriage, as well as a vast majority of the general public. Because you can cite examples where this isn't the case, doesn't make that no so. No one has claimed that you can't view marriage as something else, people do it all the time, and are free to do it! It still doesn't change the definition of marriage and its significance to religious beliefs, and that is what the issue is here.

I'm not forcing my view down your throat.

What I am doing, however, is putting you on the defensive. I think it's because you know you're wrong.

However, I also think a more reasonable explanation is that you misread what I said: You claimed that the presently standing definition was X. I showed you that it was not, as you claimed, a presently standing definition, as Y and Z also existed as definitions for the exact same thing. Therefore, even if you might define it as X, that does not mean that it cannot also mean Y and Z. Fact is that the only generally accepted definition of a monogamous marriage is that it is a socially recognized, economic and/or social union between two partners. Where you go from there, it doesn't matter, because it all gets muddled.

And until you decide to stop forcing your immoral views on me, I won't stop forcing my immoral views on you. You can, after all, choose to ignore it. You've chosen to argue against it. Having said this, I am not forcing my views down your throat.

Listen, don't you tell me what I have to accept or take seriously, I decide that! Don't force your (im)moral views down my throat! I personally recognize marriage as the holy union in matrimony, of a man and woman. This is how most practicing religions recognize marriage, as well as a vast majority of the general public. Because you can cite examples where this isn't the case, doesn't make that no so. No one has claimed that you can't view marriage as something else, people do it all the time, and are free to do it! It still doesn't change the definition of marriage and its significance to religious beliefs, and that is what the issue is here.

No, the issue here is that you refuse to accept any other viewpoint on what constitutes a marriage, even though several different types exist, and have been shown to you.

The issue, or so you seem to reiterate, is that a gay marriage somehow violates religious sanctity or views, that you also protest not to have.
Despite the fact that no such violation has, or will take place, apparently means little to you.

So then, what is the REAL issue?

I would guess that the real issue here, is that you just plain dont like the very idea of it, and are grasping at the thinniest of political straws in order to justify your opinion, despite several people informing you that its an opinion of sheer intolerance.

People have shown you legal court cases supporting the idea, a few states have even legalized it, and yet..you still argue for the absolute authority of religion in a civil marriage.

Just give up.

Listen, don't you tell me what I have to accept or take seriously, I decide that! Don't force your (im)moral views down my throat! I personally recognize marriage as the holy union in matrimony, of a man and woman. This is how most practicing religions recognize marriage, as well as a vast majority of the general public. Because you can cite examples where this isn't the case, doesn't make that no so. No one has claimed that you can't view marriage as something else, people do it all the time, and are free to do it! It still doesn't change the definition of marriage and its significance to religious beliefs, and that is what the issue is here.

That's it, now you're just being a idiot for the sake of being a idiot. Your 'arguments' (and I use the tem as loosely as possible) consist entirely of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs "I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALA!" You're no longer worth my time or effort. Have fun.

No, they made it religious, before they did, it could be performed without a priest, but after that, a priest and two witnesses were required to validate the legitimacy of the marriage. Even in most of Colonial America this was required until the 19th century when the states began to legalise civil marriages for people not wishing to marry in the church.

In Roman society and much of Medieval Europe, marriages didn't have to be performed, all that was required was for the two people to declare their intent to be married to one another. There was no definition. Further, there were no religious laws governing it before the dates I quoted. It wasn't part of religion as much as it was later on in history. Fleet Marriage is one such example of "lawless" marriage.

The Church didn't have a role until later on.

Marriage originated from religion. It has taken other non-religious forms over history, but it began and originated as part of religious belief, and was the union of a man and woman for the express purpose of procreation and family. I know you people really want to "beat" me here, but you can't deny fact, and this is a fact. Throughout history, it has been an important aspect to almost every religious belief, and has always been recognized by the Church as being between a man and woman, no other fundamental purpose for marriage exists, as homosexuals can't produce offspring together. Note, I did not say that during history, as this was going on, there weren't groups who recognized other types of arrangements as "marriage" within their society. I have conceded that point several times now, but that doesn't detract from the fact that marriage is a wholly religious practice, and always has been. Bill Gates is rich... doesn't mean that no one else has ever been rich, or that no one has ever been richer than Bill Gates, or that Bill Gates is the only person who is rich, or that no one else is rich because Bill Gates is. All of those things considered, "Bill Gates is Rich" remains a true statement.

Does anyone else find it ironic that this thread has almost reached a thousand posts?

That is the plan.

Does anyone else find it ironic that this thread has almost reached a thousand posts?

My opinion is the overwhelming opinion of most American voters, according to the avg. 70% vote against Gay Marriage in the last elections. Now, last I checked, our form of representative republic democracy allows the prevailing vast majority to make and establish the laws through their elected representatives, and the overwhelming minority has to suck hind tit, as they say. So, we can quickly dismiss the whole Gay Marriage thing and forget about your lame attempts to legalize and normalize it in America, if you insist on going with what the majority thinks.

I had to go back to this argument, because you do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

EDIT: Also, there is a matter of perspective:

In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it.

In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage when it was legalized everywhere in the U.S. by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority.

During this interval, the opposition to interracial marriage dropped by a little under one percentage point per year. This is surprisingly close to the rate at which opposition to same-sex marriage is currently dropping. (link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/maramend14.htm))

Note, I did not say that during history, as this was going on, there weren't groups who recognized other types of arrangements as "marriage" within their society. I have conceded that point several times now, but that doesn't detract from the fact that marriage is a wholly religious practice, and always has been.

"People have recognised non-religious arrangements as marriage."

"Marriage has always been a wholly religious practice."

Contradictory post is not contradictory.

No.

Done.

Norm.
Since I evidently never check my telegrams, I had no idea which post you meant. So I picked one.

Marriage originated from religion.

No it did not.

Marriage originated from a code of laws.

That religion decided to get into the deal at around the 1500s pretty much eliminates marriage as originating from religion.

It has taken other non-religious forms over history, but it began and originated as part of religious belief,

Again, no. It started as a non-religious vow between two partners.

and was the union of a man and woman for the express purpose of procreation and family.

Perhaps. Not really relevant in a modern world though.

I know you people really want to "beat" me here, but you can't deny fact, and this is a fact.

Then why do you ignore all our sources that state the exact opposite? Reputable sources I might add, since anyone can read up on the council of Trent and read what it did.

Throughout history, it has been an important aspect to almost every religious belief,

Norse Mythology has nothing about marriage. Yet Vikings still got married. Explain this, please.

and has always been recognized by the Church as being between a man and woman,

The Church only started wanting to be part of the marriage in the 1500s

no other fundamental purpose for marriage exists,

Wrong. People get married for economic and social purposes unrelated to procreation.

as homosexuals can't produce offspring together.

Cloning would dictate otherwise. But that's semantics.

Note, I did not say that during history, as this was going on, there weren't groups who recognized other types of arrangements as "marriage" within their society. I have conceded that point several times now, but that doesn't detract from the fact that marriage is a wholly religious practice, and always has been.

No! It! Has! Not!

As a religious practice, marriage existed in various rituals in various religions.

As a secular practice, marriage existed in various rituals in various societies.

In both cases, the origin of marriages is not religion. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned and Christianity, marriages were not part of their day-to-day work until the 1500s and the council of Trent.

Bill Gates is rich... doesn't mean that no one else has ever been rich, or that no one has ever been richer than Bill Gates, or that Bill Gates is the only person who is rich, or that no one else is rich because Bill Gates is. All of those things considered, "Bill Gates is Rich" remains a true statement.

And wtf does that have to do with ANYTHING?

If I say "Marriage can be religious" it doesn't mean that "Marriage cannot be religious"

But if I say "Marriage is only religious" it does mean that "Marriage cannot be religious" which has been constantly proven false to you.

Marriage originated from religion. It has taken other non-religious forms over history, but it began and originated as part of religious belief, and was the union of a man and woman for the express purpose of procreation and family. I know you people really want to "beat" me here, but you can't deny fact, and this is a fact. Throughout history, it has been an important aspect to almost every religious belief, and has always been recognized by the Church as being between a man and woman, no other fundamental purpose for marriage exists, as homosexuals can't produce offspring together. Note, I did not say that during history, as this was going on, there weren't groups who recognized other types of arrangements as "marriage" within their society. I have conceded that point several times now, but that doesn't detract from the fact that marriage is a wholly religious practice, and always has been. Bill Gates is rich... doesn't mean that no one else has ever been rich, or that no one has ever been richer than Bill Gates, or that Bill Gates is the only person who is rich, or that no one else is rich because Bill Gates is. All of those things considered, "Bill Gates is Rich" remains a true statement.

Are you impervious to facts because you're acting more skippier than that CD I used as a coaster then wondered why it kept skipping when I put it in my drive. Honestly, try looking at this from an honest point of view. I am not denying that marriage is a part of religion, I'm just pointing out that contrary to your misinformed opinion, marriage has long existed outside of religion and only became an integral part later on.

And how is using Gates as an example a way to add credibility to your statement? No one is denying that Gates is a rich bastard. But with all due respect, there are few in history who could have been considered as rich as he is. Further, the definition if "rich" can vary. A person could be considered rich even if they have few assets because they have a wealth of people who care and love them and a family that is there for them.