What's new

Gay Marriage is GO...

Parts of Texas and Kentucky along with the states of Alabama and Lousiana have taken action against the ruling. Some counties are simpyl refusing to comply and some state judges are trying to order stays on implimenting the new ruling to allow time for counter suits.

Wonder how far this spreads...

Like I mentioned, if they want to shut it down all together for everyone, that's one thing - - and I'd be curious to see how that would be handled. But I would think that just to deny it for one specific class would be illegal and a clerk who refused could face charges.
 
Marriage is a legal union, and has been around longer than most religions. It is also the status quo; not letting homosexual couples into the status quo based on their orientation is discrimination. Therefore, the term marriage should belong to the people, not any religion. Hence having religions get out of the marriage game, instead of the people getting out of it.

Even though it was put trollish, an oddly good question DJ. Thanks for actually bringing something.

I'm pretty sick of the "Marriage has been around longer than religion" argument.
I completely disagree with it.

I believe religion or belief in God has been around from the beginning and that Adam and Eve were married and that it was part of their religion.

There have definitely been lots of ups and downs in the history of the world in regards to marriage as well as religion, but marriage does not pre date belief in God or religion.

I'm not looking to prove it to you, nor do I care if you try to prove it to me.
Just letting you know that "proven fact" statements like this are not common ground as to marriage.
Many don't agree with that statement, so it has no holding power in a discussion/argument on this topic if both sides have not yet met on common ground.

This is not specifically in response to you ElRoach0, it just happens to be that I responded to your post.
I also realize the wording in your post is "has been around longer than most religions".
My reply is not directed at you, just the idea in general I've seen in multiple posts.
 
Like I mentioned, if they want to shut it down all together for everyone, that's one thing - - and I'd be curious to see how that would be handled. But I would think that just to deny it for one specific class would be illegal and a clerk who refused could face charges.

as is stated in this and other threads.
seperation of church and state. government should get out of the mariage business. it worked in other countries.
this way only divides people and create "hate" and tension
 
Like I mentioned, if they want to shut it down all together for everyone, that's one thing - - and I'd be curious to see how that would be handled. But I would think that just to deny it for one specific class would be illegal and a clerk who refused could face charges.

israel never got in the mariage business"
a short summarry about mariage in israel

Same-sex marriage cannot legally be performed in Israel. Under the confessional community system that operates in Israel, each of the recognized confessional communities regulates the personal status, including marriage and divorce, of its members. The state views marriage as a religious institution and as such does not issue marriage licences, regardless of sexual orientation. This is intended to secure the separation of religion and state and aims to prevent conflict between the various religions in the country. The religious authority for the Jewish majority marriages is the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and there are parallel authorities for Christians, Muslims, Druze and nine Christian authorities, with a total of 15 religious courts. These regulate all marriages and divorces for their own communities. Currently they all oppose same-sex marriages. If the views of one of these bodies were to change, however, it would be legal for members of that religious community to enter into same-sex marriages in Israel. However, religious denominations that are in favour of same-sex marriage have been refused recognition in the confessional community system.


Same-sex marriages performed abroad can be recorded at the Israeli Administration of Border Crossings, Population and Immigration, according to a 2006 High Court of Justice ruling which defined such records as strictly 'for statistical purposes', thereby avoiding official recognition of same-sex marriages by the state.

Despite the fact that same-sex marriage (or opposite-sex civil marriage) remains non-existent in the State of Israel, unmarried same-sex and opposite-sex couples in Israel have equal access to nearly all of the rights of marriage in the form of unregistered cohabitation status, similar to common-law marriage. In 2013, the Hatnuah and Yesh Atid parties introduced bills that would provide for civil marriage for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.


when and if i get married it will be in Israel. cus i believe i should not ask a government who does not understand what marriage is and does not respect it for permission. so my only option is to go to Israel and get hitched there.
because if i get married by permission whose definition of marriage differs from mine it is a passive way of agreeing with the government in question.
 
Like I mentioned, if they want to shut it down all together for everyone, that's one thing - - and I'd be curious to see how that would be handled. But I would think that just to deny it for one specific class would be illegal and a clerk who refused could face charges.

I would think so as well. But if that county clerk is backed by their states Gov. and Atty General? Does a federal police force, say the FBI, step in and remove them from office? Would they arrest the Govs and Atty Generals as well?

Just interesting to see how this will all go down.
 
as is stated in this and other threads.
seperation of church and state. government should get out of the mariage business. it worked in other countries.
this way only divides people and create "hate" and tension

The government issues licenses that allow people to enter into a specific partnership that is called marriage. That term is used by people regardless of religious affiliation. Just because religions use a term does not mean they "own" it. The word is a legal term first and foremost.

I think what we really need more than anything is a new vocabulary.

Or just people who don't conflate religion and law.
 
The government issues licenses that allow people to enter into a specific partnership that is called marriage. That term is used by people regardless of religious affiliation. Just because religions use a term does not mean they "own" it. The word is a legal term first and foremost.

I think what we really need more than anything is a new vocabulary.

Or just people who don't conflate religion and law.
well thats why there is this big discussion cus religious poeple think they own the term.,
but unbelievers think its is a legal term first and foremost.
 
I would think so as well. But if that county clerk is backed by their states Gov. and Atty General? Does a federal police force, say the FBI, step in and remove them from office? Would they arrest the Govs and Atty Generals as well?

Just interesting to see how this will all go down.


Texas wants its gold back from the feds
Deep in the bowels of an office building in lower Manhattan sits more than 500,000 gold bars, with a combined weight of nearly 7,000 tons. They are in the custody of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is holding them for the U.S. government, foreign governments, state governments, other central banks, and official international organizations.

Some of Texas' gold reserves are there too, and now they want them back.

Last week, Gov. Greg Abbot signed HB 483, a law creating what is likely the first-ever state-level gold bullion and precious metal depository.

In his official statement after signing the bill, Abbot said the law is about "increasing the security and stability of our gold reserves and keeping taxpayer funds from leaving Texas to pay for fees to store gold in facilities outside our state."

The bill states the gold will be beyond the purview or control of any "governmental or quasi-governmental authority" that is not directly administered by the state of Texas.

State Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, the bill's author, told the Star-Telegram newspaper that the depository is about more than just securing Texas' precious metals.

"We are not talking Fort Knox," Capriglione said. "But when I first announced this, I got so many emails and phone calls from people literally all over the world who said they want to store their gold ... in a Texas depository. People have this image of Texas as big and powerful ... so for a lot of people, this is exactly where they would want to go with their gold."

The Star-Telegram reports the primary goal of the depository - which doesn't have a physical home yet - is to "bring home more than $1 billion in gold bars that are owned by the University of Texas Investment Management Co. and are now housed at the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank in New York."

However, it's no secret that many in Texas have long talked of seceding from the federal government. Having a healthy gold reserve would make establishing a currency a lot easier, to say nothing of providing a solid foundation for true economic independence, and some say the Texas depository could be a first step in that direction..

Conservatives in the state have ratcheted up the rhetoric around secession in recent years. Earlier this year, a controversy erupted around a multi-state U.S. military training exercise dubbed "Jade Helm 15." It led to wild Internet-fueled suspicions that the war simulation was really a hostile military takeover.

The speculation grew so loud that Gov. Abbott asked the State Guard to monitor the exercise. No other governor had so publicly addressed the training exercise.

"It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed," Abbott said at the time. "By monitoring the Operation on a continual basis, the State Guard will facilitate communications between my office and the commanders of the Operation to ensure that adequate measures are in place to protect Texans."



seems like texas want their gold back and succeed from the stars and stripes :P

will this lead to a civil war? probably not!
but it seems like texas is very unhappy with usa.
having court cases against imigration and obamacare. and now this gay "marriage" sham.


also very intrigued to see where this leads.
 
well thats why there is this big discussion cus religious people who think with only half their brain think they own the term.,
but those who use their full brain understand that it is a legal term first and foremost.

Fixed that for you.




Oh wait, it's Dutchjazzer. I'm not sure he could ever possibly make such a reasonable statement.
 
Fixed that for you.




Oh wait, it's Dutchjazzer. I'm not sure he could ever possibly make such a reasonable statement.

how do you explain churches being longer in the marriage business.

government started melding in the marriage business after some traveling dudes in England had wives in different parts of the country. and after he died it was a mess to sort out his estate with different spouses and kids.
so how is it first and foremost a legal term. seriously go study the history of it.
the government in America started meddling in marriages in 1600's(yes i know America was under British law then. but i am talking about the local government of the Brits in America).
and at the middle of the 1700's England passed a law so government started meddling into marriages.

so tell me again going from American/christian perspective how marriage was first and foremost a legal term?

somewhere in the middle-ages (1200) English churches started registering marriages.

so yeah if we go by English-American history before about 1600's the government did not meddle into marriages.
and before 1200 the churches did not register it, but they did preform it.


of course marriage has been mentioned earlier then 1200's in different literature the torah, the qu'ran and the bible.
but marriage has not been mentioned as a legal term except in shariah law and Talmudic law which are religious law

so please tell me again how mariage is a legal term first and foremost?
 
Did you even bother reading the part at the end, where I agreed allowing a tax exempt status would be subsidizing discrimination, Or did you just want to throw out more words? It doesn't seem like you're catching what I'm throwing at all, which is nothing new.

1. An officiant should be allowed to choose to do a ceremony, or not, at their discretion
2. If your answer to why not is "u gay bros, my organization ain't play dat", you, and your organization certainly shouldn't be getting a tax exemption

Which is exactly what conservatives are afraid of. You call them silly for it.

Dealing with your first point, in states where it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation an officiant may be sued for not performing a ceremony(or a baker a cake and so on). If we pass similar national anti-discrimination legislation than yes an officiant could be sued for refusing to serve gay people.
 
let's simplify this for those who are too simple to grasp the complexities - - because it's really not that complex


the Supreme Court ruling basically says that the ability for two people to enter into a specific legal partnership status shall not be denied because of the gender of the those involved

prior to this ruling, some states could block the ability of certain individuals to enter into this particular status on the basis of their gender - - now all states must offer this partnership benefit equally regardless of the gender of those involved.

(this partnership status most commonly has been historically referred to as "marriage" but there's no point in splitting hairs over what we call it)

Dogs, cats, robots, cars, and other objects cannot enter into legal agreements.

Now the bigger question is:
What if a state (or county or whatever entity it is that issues the licenses) decides it's not going to issue them anymore for anyone? Do you think that's possible?

This is all very interesting and it seems like there is a Constitutional 'battle' going on between the 10th and 14th Amendments.

10th Amendment VS. 14th Amendment, who wins? Thoughts.
 
how do you explain churches being longer in the marriage business.

government started melding in the marriage business after some traveling dudes in England had wives in different parts of the country. and after he died it was a mess to sort out his estate with different spouses and kids.
so how is it first and foremost a legal term. seriously go study the history of it.
the government in America started meddling in marriages in 1600's(yes i know America was under British law then. but i am talking about the local government of the Brits in America).
and at the middle of the 1700's England passed a law so government started meddling into marriages.

so tell me again going from American/christian perspective how marriage was first and foremost a legal term?

somewhere in the middle-ages (1200) English churches started registering marriages.

so yeah if we go by English-American history before about 1600's the government did not meddle into marriages.
and before 1200 the churches did not register it, but they did preform it.


of course marriage has been mentioned earlier then 1200's in different literature the torah, the qu'ran and the bible.
but marriage has not been mentioned as a legal term except in shariah law and Talmudic law which are religious law

so please tell me again how mariage is a legal term first and foremost?

So why didn't those traveling dudes in England just ask God to sort out the issues for them? God probably could have done a bang-up job.
 
I'm pretty sick of the "Marriage has been around longer than religion" argument.
I completely disagree with it.

I believe religion or belief in God has been around from the beginning and that Adam and Eve were married and that it was part of their religion....

to Spazz and Dutch (and others who state that it is strictly a religious issue)

What do you say about the long list of religions that SUPPORT equal rights for same-sex couples?

Is "your" religion the only "right" religion?

take a look at this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

the list includes some large denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ - several other large denominations (such as Lutherans and Methodists) don't take a position either in favor or opposed but leave it up to individual churches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches
 
to Spazz and Dutch (and others who state that it is strictly a religious issue)

What do you say about the long list of religions that SUPPORT equal rights for same-sex couples?

Is "your" religion the only "right" religion?

take a look at this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

the list includes some large denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ - several other large denominations (such as Lutherans and Methodists) don't take a position either in favor or opposed but leave it up to individual churches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches

I would say that a majority of religions do indeed feel that they are the only true religion, or that most folks feel that way even if it isn't an official statement of said religion.
 
to Spazz and Dutch (and others who state that it is strictly a religious issue)

What do you say about the long list of religions that SUPPORT equal rights for same-sex couples?

Is "your" religion the only "right" religion?

take a look at this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

the list includes some large denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ - several other large denominations (such as Lutherans and Methodists) don't take a position either in favor or opposed but leave it up to individual churches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches

While good info, it really has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Determining if "my" religion is right or wrong is irrelevant to the argument I have seen made often that marriage has been around far longer than religion has so therefore religionist views of marriage matter less than secular views of marriage.

I have never once stated that marriage is strictly a religious issue, but I reject the idea that religious ideas about marriage are less valid because marriage was "owned" by people before religion came about.

I really don't know what Dutch has been saying, so he can speak for himself.
 
Which is exactly what conservatives are afraid of. You call them silly for it.

Dealing with your first point, in states where it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation an officiant may be sued for not performing a ceremony(or a baker a cake and so on). If we pass similar national anti-discrimination legislation than yes an officiant could be sued for refusing to serve gay people.

I do call them silly for it. They should know better. What about it?

Got a link to back that up?
 
I would say that a majority of religions do indeed feel that they are the only true religion, or that most folks feel that way even if it isn't an official statement of said religion.

obviously!!!!

and my God could beat up your god, so there

200441106-001-girl-poking-tongue-out-whilst-making-gettyimages.jpg
 
Back
Top