It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry

Ms. Davis didn't violate anyone's right. She simply refused to attach her name to something she fundamentally disagrees with because her religion teaches it is an abomination and wrong. If someone had their rights violated as a result of her exercising her rights, that sounds like a state or federal problem to me. She shouldn't have been put in that position by the actions of SCOTUS.

Of course she did.

Any gay couple who believe that they are entitled to be married according to their religion who is denied a marriage license by her are having their religious freedom violated.

Why do you believe in protecting her religious freedom- but not the religious freedom of gay couples who want to marry?

Matter of fact- why do you support any state law which violates their religious freedom to marry according to their faith?

First of all, gay marriage is not a religious tenet in any religion. Second, even if it were, Ms. Davis is not denying anyone the right to do anything. If the State of Kentucky says they can't do it without her permission, that's the State of Kentucky, not Ms. Davis. Finally, no right is being denied because the parties can go to any number of other court clerks and obtain the license.

Well then, Mrs. Davis' rights are not being denied because she can go to any number of other employers that don't require her to sign off on same sex marriages.

Do you think separate but equal was a reasonable accommodation?

You see, I have a problem with this solution. If a black man or woman were being discriminated against at work, we could not say... well, they can go work someplace else, so their rights aren't denied. When you and others go protest this and a cop pops you in the head with a billy-club, we could not say... well, you could have protested on another street so your rights weren't violated. Now, as long as Ms. Davis didn't fire some homosexual from their job or bop someone in the head with a club, there is no comparative argument.

Ms. Davis rights have not been denied. She refused to allow that and was put in jail. You still have not denied Ms. Davis her rights as she has still not put her signature on a license for gay marriage, and I predict she never will. When any argument comes down to God's Word vs. Liberal's Word, guess who will win most of the time with Christians? This poses a real problem for homosexuals in a country that is 80% Christian.

 

[Boss]

Pretty sure I did, but apparently "They are interested in legitimizing homosexual behavior in society because it is a direct affront to Christianity and traditional values." doesn't mean the same thing in your world...

Not it doesn't because you didn't include the rest of what was said with puts this in context. Christian values are not attacked in order to piss of Christians. They are attacked in order to bring down Christianity which is the moral underpinning of our society. So it's about destroying moral underpinnings and not pissing people off.

 

[Montrovant]

Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry

Ms. Davis didn't violate anyone's right. She simply refused to attach her name to something she fundamentally disagrees with because her religion teaches it is an abomination and wrong. If someone had their rights violated as a result of her exercising her rights, that sounds like a state or federal problem to me. She shouldn't have been put in that position by the actions of SCOTUS.

Of course she did.

Any gay couple who believe that they are entitled to be married according to their religion who is denied a marriage license by her are having their religious freedom violated.

Why do you believe in protecting her religious freedom- but not the religious freedom of gay couples who want to marry?

Matter of fact- why do you support any state law which violates their religious freedom to marry according to their faith?

First of all, gay marriage is not a religious tenet in any religion. Second, even if it were, Ms. Davis is not denying anyone the right to do anything. If the State of Kentucky says they can't do it without her permission, that's the State of Kentucky, not Ms. Davis. Finally, no right is being denied because the parties can go to any number of other court clerks and obtain the license.

Well then, Mrs. Davis' rights are not being denied because she can go to any number of other employers that don't require her to sign off on same sex marriages.

Do you think separate but equal was a reasonable accommodation?

You see, I have a problem with this solution. If a black man or woman were being discriminated against at work, we could not say... well, they can go work someplace else, so their rights aren't denied. When you and others go protest this and a cop pops you in the head with a billy-club, we could not say... well, you could have protested on another street so your rights weren't violated. Now, as long as Ms. Davis didn't fire some homosexual from their job or bop someone in the head with a club, there is no comparative argument.

Ms. Davis rights have not been denied. She refused to allow that and was put in jail. You still have not denied Ms. Davis her rights as she has still not put her signature on a license for gay marriage, and I predict she never will. When any argument comes down to God's Word vs. Liberal's Word, guess who will win most of the time with Christians? This poses a real problem for homosexuals in a country that is 80% Christian.

It isn't a solution, it's an attempt to show how your reasoning works in another setting. It isn't a direct analogy, but it's intended more to show how the seeming intent applies somewhere else.

Let's try this, instead : if any county clerk is allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on religious beliefs, no matter what type of marriages are or are not legal, what do you do if every county in a 100 mile radius ends up with a clerk who refuses to issues licenses to same sex couples? At what point does 'they can go elsewhere' become an undue burden?

What about someone like a Supreme Court justice who is appointed for life? If they have a religious conflict with some law, should they be allowed to ignore that law for the duration of their term, even if it affects their duties?

Should police be able to ignore new laws they disagree with based on religious principle?

Is there some sort of limit to how long a person may continue in a position while refusing to perform all of the duties involved because of a religious conflict?

There are a lot of questions and details involved in the idea that a government representative can pick and choose which new laws to follow/enforce/comply with.

 

[Boss]

Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

Good for you! And when you get to be the King of your own country and can make your own Constitution, you are free to practice your beliefs and force your subjects to practice them as well. You don't have that right here.

All of you keep yapping about "equal rights" but you've not demonstrated where homosexuals didn't already have equal rights. You created something that does not exist, no one else gets to do it, and so you try to call it something else and then complain your "rights" are denied.

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it? Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, "going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot." I know you probably disagree with my lifestyle (which harms no one), but I have a right to call this "Love in the Park" and you must give me equal rights. If you deny me my equal rights to Love in the Park, you are a bigot and we have to hoot you down.

You can point out that what I want to do is NOT "Love in the Park" but I'm going to ignore you and continue to insist you are denying me "equal rights" of everyone else who enjoys legitimate and "traditional" love in the park. Furthermore, I am going to impress upon the media to embrace my campaign of "equality for love in the park." I'll even get the rogue SCOTUS to rule that my type of love in the park can't be banned and has to be treated the same as all other kinds of love in the park. And that's where we are with Gay Marriage... it is something that doesn't exist, never existed before, people didn't have the right to call it marriage, no one was being discriminated against and allowed to do it while others were denied.

 

[Boss]

Let's try this, instead : if any county clerk is allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on religious beliefs, no matter what type of marriages are or are not legal, what do you do if every county in a 100 mile radius ends up with a clerk who refuses to issues licenses to same sex couples? At what point does 'they can go elsewhere' become an undue burden?

I don't know, that's not for me to answer or figure out... I didn't make Gay Marriage a thing. Perhaps SCOTUS should have addressed this aspect when they were making their "social justice" ruling?

I honestly don't know what pushes liberals over the edge morally... I've racked my brain trying to think of some comparative example you could relate to. Perhaps your morals and ethics are just so shallow and malleable there isn't a good example? But think of something inside your little pinhead that you totally object to morally.... I don't know what, maybe "waterboarding?" Now, let's say you are in a position of authority and it's your job to issue the permits for whatever this thing you disagree with. Could you sign your name indicating your approval of said thing? Would it be right to say, you've GOT to sign your name to it and approve of it or we're going to throw you in jail?

IF Marriage (including gay marriage) is a RIGHT... why does it depend on the approval of some other person or party to the action or even government at all? If it's a RIGHT it shouldn't have to depend on anything or anyone.

 

[Syriusly]

Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry

Ms. Davis didn't violate anyone's right. She simply refused to attach her name to something she fundamentally disagrees with because her religion teaches it is an abomination and wrong. If someone had their rights violated as a result of her exercising her rights, that sounds like a state or federal problem to me. She shouldn't have been put in that position by the actions of SCOTUS.

Of course she did.

Any gay couple who believe that they are entitled to be married according to their religion who is denied a marriage license by her are having their religious freedom violated.

Why do you believe in protecting her religious freedom- but not the religious freedom of gay couples who want to marry?

Matter of fact- why do you support any state law which violates their religious freedom to marry according to their faith?

First of all, gay marriage is not a religious tenet in any religion. Second, even if it were, Ms. Davis is not denying anyone the right to do anything. If the State of Kentucky says they can't do it without her permission, that's the State of Kentucky, not Ms. Davis. Finally, no right is being denied because the parties can go to any number of other court clerks and obtain the license.

Well then, Mrs. Davis' rights are not being denied because she can go to any number of other employers that don't require her to sign off on same sex marriages.

Do you think separate but equal was a reasonable accommodation?

You see, I have a problem with this solution. If a black man or woman were being discriminated against at work, we could not say... well, they can go work someplace else, so their rights aren't denied.n.

So now you want to compare Ms. Davis being told to do her job- with a black person being told to do his or her job?

Ms. Davis has not been discriminated against- she is being asked to do exactly the same thing as every other employee is asked to do- black or white- Christian or Jew.

If she were refusing however to issue marriage licenses to a black and white couple- or a Jewish couple- claiming that would violate her religious beliefs- she would never have gotten any support except from the Stormfront crowd.

And I know you are going to say 'but there is no religion which says to discriminate against blacks or Jews"- and to that I say- 'says who'?

If you allow someone to discriminate against a person by claiming it would violate their personal religious beliefs- then either you allow any person to make any claim about their personal religious beliefs- or you have the government deciding which are 'legitimate religious beliefs'

Anyone in favor of the government deciding what a genuine religious belief is?

 

[Syriusly]

Still looking for an answer on why Ms. Davis can violate the religious freedom of gay men who want to marry

Ms. Davis didn't violate anyone's right. She simply refused to attach her name to something she fundamentally disagrees with because her religion teaches it is an abomination and wrong. If someone had their rights violated as a result of her exercising her rights, that sounds like a state or federal problem to me. She shouldn't have been put in that position by the actions of SCOTUS.

Of course she did.

Any gay couple who believe that they are entitled to be married according to their religion who is denied a marriage license by her are having their religious freedom violated.

Why do you believe in protecting her religious freedom- but not the religious freedom of gay couples who want to marry?

Matter of fact- why do you support any state law which violates their religious freedom to marry according to their faith?

First of all, gay marriage is not a religious tenet in any religion. Second, even if it were, Ms. Davis is not denying anyone the right to do anything. If the State of Kentucky says they can't do it without her permission, that's the State of Kentucky, not Ms. Davis. Finally, no right is being denied because the parties can go to any number of other court clerks and obtain the license.

Well then, Mrs. Davis' rights are not being denied because she can go to any number of other employers that don't require her to sign off on same sex marriages.

Do you think separate but equal was a reasonable accommodation?

. When any argument comes down to God's Word vs. Liberal's Word, guess who will win most of the time with Christians? This poses a real problem for homosexuals in a country that is 80% Christian.

Well most Liberals are Christian in America- and right now most Americans belief that gay couples should be allowed to marry.

I agree- living in a country that is 80% Christian has posed a real problem for homosexuals- because Christians are behind the legal discriminatory laws that were enacted to attack homosexuals.

From criminalizing sexual behavior between consenting adults in private- if they are gay- to laws requiring the firing of teachers- if they are gay- Chrisitians have been- and still are- behind the efforts to have legal discrimination against homosexuals.

Homosexuals would have every reason to resent Christians based upon the history of discrimination and bigotry they have endured.

But since most homosexuals are also Christian- that probably explains why homosexuals have been far, far more tolerant than Christians have been.

 

[Syriusly]

Pretty sure I did, but apparently "They are interested in legitimizing homosexual behavior in society because it is a direct affront to Christianity and traditional values." doesn't mean the same thing in your world...

Not it doesn't because you didn't include the rest of what was said with puts this in context. Christian values are not attacked in order to piss of Christians. They are attacked in order to bring down Christianity which is the moral underpinning of our society. So it's about destroying moral underpinnings and not pissing people off.

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians who want to play the victim card.

Meanwhile no one is preventing a single Christian from worshipping.

No one is saying that Christians should not follow Jesus's first or second commandment to his followers.

There are not groups of homosexuals out there burning down churches.......and I could say something pithy about who is burning down churches- but its not homosexuals- or liberals.

The only thing that will 'bring down' Christianity in America is if Americans decide that the people who claim to be Christians no longer represent American values.

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

Good for you! And when you get to be the King of your own country and can make your own Constitution, you are free to practice your beliefs and force your subjects to practice them as well. You don't have that right here.

All of you keep yapping about "equal rights" but you've not demonstrated where homosexuals didn't already have equal rights. You created something that does not exist, no one else gets to do it, and so you try to call it something else and then complain your "rights" are denied..

LOL- yet who is the one arguing that America went to far in 'tolerating homosexuals'?

that is is you.

And who is arguing that the Supreme Court is wrong- that would be you- you want to force your beliefs on everyone who agrees with the Supreme court.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage. Seawitch could not marry her partner legally in the same way that I was able to marry my wife- not equal rights.

And dozens of courts recognized this- and ultimately the Supreme Court recognized this- and you are still upset that homosexuals are getting equal rights.

That is what this entire thread is about.

Your butthurt that homosexuals are now being treated far more equally under the law in the United States.

 

[Boss]

Ms. Davis didn't violate anyone's right. She simply refused to attach her name to something she fundamentally disagrees with because her religion teaches it is an abomination and wrong. If someone had their rights violated as a result of her exercising her rights, that sounds like a state or federal problem to me. She shouldn't have been put in that position by the actions of SCOTUS.

Of course she did.

Any gay couple who believe that they are entitled to be married according to their religion who is denied a marriage license by her are having their religious freedom violated.

Why do you believe in protecting her religious freedom- but not the religious freedom of gay couples who want to marry?

Matter of fact- why do you support any state law which violates their religious freedom to marry according to their faith?

First of all, gay marriage is not a religious tenet in any religion. Second, even if it were, Ms. Davis is not denying anyone the right to do anything. If the State of Kentucky says they can't do it without her permission, that's the State of Kentucky, not Ms. Davis. Finally, no right is being denied because the parties can go to any number of other court clerks and obtain the license.

Well then, Mrs. Davis' rights are not being denied because she can go to any number of other employers that don't require her to sign off on same sex marriages.

Do you think separate but equal was a reasonable accommodation?

You see, I have a problem with this solution. If a black man or woman were being discriminated against at work, we could not say... well, they can go work someplace else, so their rights aren't denied.n.

So now you want to compare Ms. Davis being told to do her job- with a black person being told to do his or her job?

Ms. Davis has not been discriminated against- she is being asked to do exactly the same thing as every other employee is asked to do- black or white- Christian or Jew.

If she were refusing however to issue marriage licenses to a black and white couple- or a Jewish couple- claiming that would violate her religious beliefs- she would never have gotten any support except from the Stormfront crowd.

And I know you are going to say 'but there is no religion which says to discriminate against blacks or Jews"- and to that I say- 'says who'?

If you allow someone to discriminate against a person by claiming it would violate their personal religious beliefs- then either you allow any person to make any claim about their personal religious beliefs- or you have the government deciding which are 'legitimate religious beliefs'

Anyone in favor of the government deciding what a genuine religious belief is?

Do you fucking DROOL when you post? For some reason, I imagine you as someone who can't control his drool. No I didn't compare Davis with a black man being asked to do his job and I honestly don't know how you derived such nonsense from what I posted.

You can't be asked to do a job that fundamentally violates your religious or moral principles. It's no different than if SCOTUS ruled it a constitutional right to torch churches and Ms. Davis job was to issue burn permits for said torchings. It's not about denying rights to those who want to burn churches. She shouldn't have to leave her job or else sign her name to something she doesn't condone and which contradicts her fundamental religious beliefs.

Now... I never said ANY religious belief MUST be respected in ALL cases. That is YOU trying to be obtuse and dodge the point. I have repeatedly used the word "fundamental" and it's not because I just like using big words, it means something. Traditional marriage is a fundamental tenant of Christian religion and most organized religions. FUNDAMENTAL...forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.

 

[Montrovant]

Let's try this, instead : if any county clerk is allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on religious beliefs, no matter what type of marriages are or are not legal, what do you do if every county in a 100 mile radius ends up with a clerk who refuses to issues licenses to same sex couples? At what point does 'they can go elsewhere' become an undue burden?

I don't know, that's not for me to answer or figure out... I didn't make Gay Marriage a thing. Perhaps SCOTUS should have addressed this aspect when they were making their "social justice" ruling?

I honestly don't know what pushes liberals over the edge morally... I've racked my brain trying to think of some comparative example you could relate to. Perhaps your morals and ethics are just so shallow and malleable there isn't a good example? But think of something inside your little pinhead that you totally object to morally.... I don't know what, maybe "waterboarding?" Now, let's say you are in a position of authority and it's your job to issue the permits for whatever this thing you disagree with. Could you sign your name indicating your approval of said thing? Would it be right to say, you've GOT to sign your name to it and approve of it or we're going to throw you in jail?

IF Marriage (including gay marriage) is a RIGHT... why does it depend on the approval of some other person or party to the action or even government at all? If it's a RIGHT it shouldn't have to depend on anything or anyone.

First, I am not a liberal.

Second, and again, it is funny that you complain about being called names yet so often do it to others.

Third, if I were morally opposed to something going on where I worked, I might consider quitting. If I were morally opposed and wanted to end whatever it is I opposed, sure, I might do something similar to Mrs. Davis....however, considering she has decided to return to work while other employees give out marriage licenses, I find it unlikely that her intention is to end the practice through her actions.

Fourth, Mrs. Davis was not given only two choices. She was free to resign, and based on everything I've read of the case, she was free to allow her subordinates to give the licenses prior to going to court and being held in contempt. The narrative about Mrs. Davis and her choices often seems to be disingenuous.

Fifth, having a right does not mean that there will be no government involvement. Owning a gun is a right yet one is often required to get a license. Assembly is a right yet one might need to get permission to assemble in a particular place at a particular time.

Sixth, while it may not be for you to figure out, you brought up the idea that being able to go to another county means the couples who wanted wedding licenses didn't have their rights violated. I'm trying to determine just what the boundaries of that concept are in your mind, I'm not expecting you to have any ability to determine the law.

Finally, I have serious doubts about the true nature of Mrs. Davis' supposed religious convictions. As has been pointed out on this subject before, there is no evidence that Mrs. Davis denied any other marriage licenses on religious grounds, despite the admonitions of the Bible about things like divorce. Why, I wonder, was her religious belief only violated by same sex marriages and not other types of marriage Christianity is against? It strikes me as a very selective reading of religion in order to deny gays rather than a deeply held belief. Whatever the case, though, she is free to refuse to perform her duties and give licenses but she will face the consequences so long as the law allows same sex couples to marry.

 

[Boss]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality.

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. As I said earlier, all four of my great grandparents were "mixed-race" couples who were married legally under the law, long before interracial marriage was made Constitutional. We only discriminated against blacks marrying whites and it stemmed from 100 years of segregated society.

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation." I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it? Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, "going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot." Id.

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

 

[Syriusly]

Let's try this, instead : if any county clerk is allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on religious beliefs, no matter what type of marriages are or are not legal, what do you do if every county in a 100 mile radius ends up with a clerk who refuses to issues licenses to same sex couples? At what point does 'they can go elsewhere' become an undue burden?

IF Marriage (including gay marriage) is a RIGHT... why does it depend on the approval of some other person or party to the action or even government at all? If it's a RIGHT it shouldn't have to depend on anything or anyone.

Sigh.

Owning guns is a right- yet you still can be denied that right if you are convicted of a felony. Further- the state can require you to have a permit to own certain kinds of guns.

Churches still require building permits. A political rally in a public park will still require a permit.

Now if you want to get the government out of marriage completely- well you are welcome to declare you are going to take all of your toys and go home.

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality.

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. As I said earlier, all four of my great grandparents were "mixed-race" couples who were married legally under the law, long before interracial marriage was made Constitutional. We only discriminated against blacks marrying whites and it stemmed from 100 years of segregated society.

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation." I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.

However, opposite sex couples are not being granted civil unions or anything else. They are granted marriages under the law. You have an issue with the word being used, and I've already said that I have absolutely no problem changing the name. Civil unions for all seems fine to me, but I see very little chance of that happening in the near future. That isn't because of gays, but because marriage as a legal institution is far too ingrained in our society.

I've also pointed out that men and women were denied legal marriages based on their gender. A woman could legally marry a man but a man could not do the same thing, and vice versa.

I can sympathize with your complaint about the use of the word marriage, however, to try and say that the law should be invalid because of this kind of semantics issue seems petty. Words mean what society accepts them as meaning, and those meanings often change.

 

[Syriusly]

Let's try this, instead : if any county clerk is allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on religious beliefs, no matter what type of marriages are or are not legal, what do you do if every county in a 100 mile radius ends up with a clerk who refuses to issues licenses to same sex couples? At what point does 'they can go elsewhere' become an undue burden?

I don't know, that's not for me to answer or figure out... I didn't make Gay Marriage a thing. Perhaps SCOTUS should have addressed this aspect when they were making their "social justice" ruling?

I honestly don't know what pushes liberals over the edge morally... I've racked my brain trying to think of some comparative example you could relate to. Perhaps your morals and ethics are just so shallow and malleable there isn't a good example?.

Frankly the only one I have seen displaying low morals and ethics in this thread is you.

Let us use marriage as an example- let us pretend for a moment that you and I are both the government officials entrusted to issue marriage licenses in our state- here are some examples of where I would stand

• A mixed race couple comes in and asks for a marriage license. I issue said marriage license
• A Jewish couple comes in and asks for a marriage license. I issue said marriage license.
• A couple come in- each is happy to announce that this is the fourth marriage for each of them- I issue said marriage license.
• A couple come in- both practicing Catholics, but one got a civil divorce- I issue said marriage license.
• I get a request to issue a marriage license to a couple, one of whom is serving life in prison- since this is legal- I issue a marriage license.
• A couple comes in- the man owes child support to the mother of his child- I issue a marriage license.
• A couple comes in- two men and asks for a marriage license- I issue said marriage license.
  
• A man comes in with a 4 year old girl- and asks for a marriage license for the two of them- I refuse them a marriage license and I notify the police of possible child abuse.
• A teenage couple come in and want to marry- at their age they require either their parents permission or a judges consent to marry- they have neither- so I refuse to issue them a marriage license.
  
• A mother and son- both adults- come in- asking for a marriage license- it is illegal in my state for a mother and son to marry- so I don't issue them a marriage license.
• A man comes in with 5 women- and asks for a marriage license for all 6 of them- I point out that in our state that polygamous marriage is first of all illegal and secondly the marriage certificate only has space for the names of two parties- I refuse to issue a marriage license.
  
• Then the man asks for a marriage license for himself- and one of the women- I issue the marriage license.

My challenge to you? Go through my examples and tell us which 'couples'- you would issue marriage licenses to- and which you would object to.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.
.

And nowhere do I say that anyone- Christian or otherwise doesn't have the right to free speech.

Free speech doesn't mean speech free from criticism.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality.

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. .

I disagree- and the courts disagreed also. I understand you don't think it was discrimination.

Mixed race couples were discriminated in almost the exact same way- they were free to marry anyone they wanted- so long as it was to someone of the same race. Virginia actually made your same argument in support of the ban of mixed race marriage.

You are entitled to your opinion. Clearly you have been expressing it here. I think your opinion is wrong.

The difference between my opinion and your opinion is that I didn't start a whole thread whining about America should have perhaps condemned homosexuals- and continued to discriminate against them.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation." .

Marriage has legally included same gender couples in the United States for 11 years now. You are the one pretending that same gender marriages are not real marriages.

Marriage is a term for a societal construct. Procreation is a technical biological term.

Like all of your various inept attempts at analogies- this one falls flat again.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.

I see you once again having real difficulty with analogies.

Americans do have a right to procreate- or not procreate. This was established in the case regarding the State ban on contraception.

Does that mean therefore that a man has a right to 'procreate' by rape?

Why do you think so?

Once again- one of many times in this thread- you present a scenario which involves a non-consensual sex act- and compare it to homosexual marriage.

Why do you keep comparing rape to homosexuality?