Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Unkotare]

You may not support abortion, sorry. Too bad. Not your call. .

Of course it is.

 

[Redfish]

My question to you, is why do you care. if their "relationship" is called a "marriage." Why. Do. You. Care. Your "marriage" will ALWAYS be different than a homosexual one, because you are in a heterosexual relationship. It will ALWAYS be that way. That cant be taken away from you just because the word itself is redefined, and that they get to have their own little homosexual ceremony. Let them have it.

Let them do their thing....and you...you just do your thing.
There are other things in the world that I believe God cares WAY more about.

Why. Why do you care so much.

see post #1071

So.....all men are created equal...unless they are gay? Man...we need to reword the Declaration of Independence. You may only persue your unalienable right of happiness....unless you are gay.

how could you possibly get that from what I said

I said just the opposite. Everyone should have equal rights, including the right to believe and think whatever we want. The government cannot mandate that I accept gay marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage---but that is what they are trying to do.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't know how to make this any more clear - our church was not permitted to marry us unless we produced a marriage license from the state. Period.

Your church was not permitted to represent the state in officiating your entry into a public contract without said license. Your religious institution could perform any religious ceremony it wants; your marriage would just not have been recognized by the state as legal and binding.

YOu and seawatch should look up the relevant law before you make such presumptions.

Of course it would help if Rot told us what state he lived in and how many centuries ago he was married.

Every one says "legally binding". If you don't care that your marriage is not legally binding, you can have just a ceremony.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, I do. I will not allow a minority view to be forced on the majority by government edict. I will not allow the government to tell me what to believe and what to think.

This is but another example of government thought control aimed at turning us all into blind worshiping sheep. I will not ever go along with that.

Thats the issue.

So you recognize as Civilly Married those couples in Washington, Maine, and Maryland that approved of Same-sex Civil Marriage through direct election at the polls since they won by a majority opinion?



>>>>

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Your church was not permitted to represent the state in officiating your entry into a public contract without said license. Your religious institution could perform any religious ceremony it wants; your marriage would just not have been recognized by the state as legal and binding.

YOu and seawatch should look up the relevant law before you make such presumptions.

Of course it would help if Rot told us what state he lived in and how many centuries ago he was married.

Every one says "legally binding". If you don't care that your marriage is not legally binding, you can have just a ceremony.

Marriage is a contract. If it isn't legally enforcible - its not a contract.

 

[Redfish]

Yes, I do. I will not allow a minority view to be forced on the majority by government edict. I will not allow the government to tell me what to believe and what to think.

This is but another example of government thought control aimed at turning us all into blind worshiping sheep. I will not ever go along with that.

Thats the issue.

So you recognize as Civilly Married those couples in Washington, Maine, and Maryland that approved of Same-sex Civil Marriage through direct election at the polls since they won by a majority opinion?



>>>>

The voters of those states made that part of their statutes. So, yes that is the law in those states. But it is not the business of the federal government or SCOTUS.

If the voters in alaska wanted to make it legal to marry a moose that would be their right. But they could not compel me or you to believe that human/moose marriage was equal to man/woman marriage.

sometimes a strange analogy is needed to make a point.

 

[Unkotare]

You Moosophobe!

 

[Redfish]

You Moosophobe!

LOL

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, I do. I will not allow a minority view to be forced on the majority by government edict. I will not allow the government to tell me what to believe and what to think.

This is but another example of government thought control aimed at turning us all into blind worshiping sheep. I will not ever go along with that.

Thats the issue.

So you recognize as Civilly Married those couples in Washington, Maine, and Maryland that approved of Same-sex Civil Marriage through direct election at the polls since they won by a majority opinion?



>>>>

The voters of those states made that part of their statutes. So, yes that is the law in those states. But it is not the business of the federal government or SCOTUS.

If the voters in alaska wanted to make it legal to marry a moose that would be their right. But they could not compel me or you to believe that human/moose marriage was equal to man/woman marriage.

sometimes a strange analogy is needed to make a point.

Since it was no business of the Federal government, can we assume you have staked out a position over the years that Section 3 of DOMA should never have been passed and should be repealed and the Federal government recognizing all Civil Marriages entered into under State law? (I'm asking about Section 3, not Section 2 which provides that no state need recognize a Civil Marriage from another state based on gender).



>>>>

 

[Redfish]

So you recognize as Civilly Married those couples in Washington, Maine, and Maryland that approved of Same-sex Civil Marriage through direct election at the polls since they won by a majority opinion?



>>>>

The voters of those states made that part of their statutes. So, yes that is the law in those states. But it is not the business of the federal government or SCOTUS.

If the voters in alaska wanted to make it legal to marry a moose that would be their right. But they could not compel me or you to believe that human/moose marriage was equal to man/woman marriage.

sometimes a strange analogy is needed to make a point.

Since it was no business of the Federal government, can we assume you have staked out a position over the years that Section 3 of DOMA should never have been passed and should be repealed and the Federal government recognizing all Civil Marriages entered into under State law? (I'm asking about Section 3, not Section 2 which provides that no state need recognize a Civil Marriage from another state based on gender).



>>>>

marriage should be a state issue. I think I already said that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The voters of those states made that part of their statutes. So, yes that is the law in those states. But it is not the business of the federal government or SCOTUS.

If the voters in alaska wanted to make it legal to marry a moose that would be their right. But they could not compel me or you to believe that human/moose marriage was equal to man/woman marriage.

sometimes a strange analogy is needed to make a point.

Since it was no business of the Federal government, can we assume you have staked out a position over the years that Section 3 of DOMA should never have been passed and should be repealed and the Federal government recognizing all Civil Marriages entered into under State law? (I'm asking about Section 3, not Section 2 which provides that no state need recognize a Civil Marriage from another state based on gender).



>>>>

marriage should be a state issue. I think I already said that.

That's not what I asked. I asked over the years have supported the repeal of DOMA Section 3 and the equal treatment of legally married couples under federal law since it isn't the fed's business?


>>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

YOu and seawatch should look up the relevant law before you make such presumptions.

Of course it would help if Rot told us what state he lived in and how many centuries ago he was married.

Every one says "legally binding". If you don't care that your marriage is not legally binding, you can have just a ceremony.

Marriage is a contract. If it isn't legally enforcible - its not a contract.

Exactly. If you object to it being a legal, binding contract, sanctioned by the state and Federal government, just have a religious ceremony.

 

[Seawytch]

The voters of those states made that part of their statutes. So, yes that is the law in those states. But it is not the business of the federal government or SCOTUS.

If the voters in alaska wanted to make it legal to marry a moose that would be their right. But they could not compel me or you to believe that human/moose marriage was equal to man/woman marriage.

sometimes a strange analogy is needed to make a point.

Since it was no business of the Federal government, can we assume you have staked out a position over the years that Section 3 of DOMA should never have been passed and should be repealed and the Federal government recognizing all Civil Marriages entered into under State law? (I'm asking about Section 3, not Section 2 which provides that no state need recognize a Civil Marriage from another state based on gender).



>>>>

marriage should be a state issue. I think I already said that.

So your marriage in CA should not be recognized in TX?

 

[Unkotare]

The voters of those states made that part of their statutes. So, yes that is the law in those states. But it is not the business of the federal government or SCOTUS.

If the voters in alaska wanted to make it legal to marry a moose that would be their right. But they could not compel me or you to believe that human/moose marriage was equal to man/woman marriage.

sometimes a strange analogy is needed to make a point.

Since it was no business of the Federal government, can we assume you have staked out a position over the years that Section 3 of DOMA should never have been passed and should be repealed and the Federal government recognizing all Civil Marriages entered into under State law? (I'm asking about Section 3, not Section 2 which provides that no state need recognize a Civil Marriage from another state based on gender).



>>>>

marriage should be a state issue. I think I already said that.

A fine sentiment generally, but it becomes a bit tricky when interstate matters come into play.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Every one says "legally binding". If you don't care that your marriage is not legally binding, you can have just a ceremony.

Marriage is a contract. If it isn't legally enforcible - its not a contract.

Exactly. If you object to it being a legal, binding contract, sanctioned by the state and Federal government, just have a religious ceremony.

A religious ceremony for what? Not marriage. As I said - marriage is a contract. Without the contract, there is no marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is a contract. If it isn't legally enforcible - its not a contract.

Exactly. If you object to it being a legal, binding contract, sanctioned by the state and Federal government, just have a religious ceremony.

A religious ceremony for what? Not marriage. As I said - marriage is a contract. Without the contract, there is no marriage.

You're confusing civil marriage with religious marriage.

A marriage is what the couple wants it to be. If they want to swear to honor and cherish each other for life before god and family, without the legal binding contract, they CAN.

Gays have been doing it for decades.

 

[P@triot]

It is possible in ANY state if you do not care if your marriage is legally binding. That is the key in EVERY state. If you didn't want your marriage to be legally binding, you could get a religious ceremony performed, just like "the gheys" do.

I don't know how to make this any more clear - our church was not permitted to marry us unless we produced a marriage license from the state. Period.

On a side note - why do you assume that because I believe in traditional marriage, I "hate" gay people? Is it because you need that to demonize your opponent so as to construct an argument?

I don't assume you hate straight people. I mean, you very well might. You're being insane if you don't think there are gay people who HATE straight people. But I don't just assume that about you.

But you don't believe in traditional marriage. Traditional marriages are arranged. Was your marriage arranged by your parents? Then its not traditional.

Grow up.... traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

When you get desperate in a debate, you really become an asshole. This isn't India and you know it. America has never arranged marriages - period.

 

[P@triot]

You wanted to get married to your wife without a marriage license? Seriously? What for?

1.) It was just another way for government to take money from me (because libtards feel that already taking more than 50% of what I earn is not enough to quench their greed). Ask yourself why there needs to be an absorbent fee associated with the license? If I remember correctly, I think we paid about $60 (it's been a while, so forgive me if I'm not 100% accurate). I know damn well they aren't paying the clerk $60 per 5 minutes (or $720 per hour) to process the paperwork - so how exactly do they justify this? It's just another way to fuck the American people for their socialism.

2.) What business is it of the government who I marry? My marriage is between myself, my wife, my church, and God. I see no room for government in there (nor should there be).

LOL! OMG marriage licenses aren't that expensive. You just didn't want to have a legally binding obligation to your wife! Come on man, who are you kidding? Instead of buying the cow with cash you wanted a mortgage you could walk away from any time.

What in the hell does that even mean? What does my mortgage have to do with any of this?

 

[P@triot]

Your church was not permitted to represent the state in officiating your entry into a public contract without said license. Your religious institution could perform any religious ceremony it wants; your marriage would just not have been recognized by the state as legal and binding.

YOu and seawatch should look up the relevant law before you make such presumptions.

I've read the relevant law a million times. It's called the First Amendment.

A little naive, are we? Since when does the U.S. abide by the Constitution? That ended with the start of the 20th century.

Yes, the 1st Amendment states "freedom of religion" - but that is simply not the case. The government intrudes in every sector of life, including the church.

I mean, we have a 4th Amendment which protects your privacy yet the NSA has been stealing every single form of digital/electronic content across America and storing it for years now.

 

[Unkotare]

America has never arranged marriages - period.[/B]

Yes we have had such arrangements, but that is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.