Redefining Marriage and all that

[Draka]

Birds of a feather.

Yeah, we educated, open-minded, loving, compassionate people tend to do that.

 

[rheff78]

Good luck then. Too bad you'll only be dissappointed in the end.

 

[Draka]

Good luck then. Too bad you'll only be dissappointed in the end.

You just keep saying things like that...maybe someday you, and others, will believe them.

Besides, you are the one who can't answer the main question I posed to you several times. And you are the one in denial about what it is to be homosexual and that you have no control over whether someone is or not.

I think it would be very fitting for you to have a child that happened to be homosexual. Then perhaps you might realize a few facts about life.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You do understand that marriage is a legal contract and that church leaders are granted permission by the government to legalize marriage contracts, don't you?

Here lies the whole problem in a nut shell.

The government granting permission for a couple to get married is in conflict with being a secular government. There is no separation of church and state here.

The other half you left out was, Someone has to sign the marriage licence and perform the ceremony for someone to be legally married. The ceremony makes the marriage and just buying the license don't mean squat.

When the first marriage licence was issued, this is where the mistake was made.

When the state controlled the marriage and decided what legal rights should be bestowed upon the couple, this is where THE STATE discriminated against certain groups of people, not the church or any religion.

THE STATE enacts laws that prohibits certain folks from getting married.

THE STATE stuck it's nose into plural marriage and denied people the right for them to practice THEIR RELIGION.

THE STATE PERVERTED MARRIAGE WHEN THEY STUCK THEIR NOSE INTO A RELIGIOUS UNION.

Marriage was never suppose to be about rights and privileges, it was suppose to be a sacred vow made in the presence of our Lord and Savior.

Just who the hell does the state think it is to tell the church what it can and can't do?

Just who the hell does the state think it is to pick and choose who can get married and discriminate against certain folks?

The problem is not marriage or religion. The problem is, the state never should have given anyone any rights or issued a marriage licence in the first place.

Think about it, NO ONE GIVES YOU RIGHTS. RIGHTS ARE SOMETHING YOU ARE BORN WITH. UNALENATED RIGHTS ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR!

If you really thought about it, state issued marriage licences are unconstitutional. Marriage is a right not a privilege.

 

[fantome profane]

Here lies the whole problem in a nut shell.

The government granting permission for a couple to get married is in conflict with being a secular government. There is no separation of church and state here.

The other half you left out was, Someone has to sign the marriage licence and perform the ceremony for someone to be legally married. The ceremony makes the marriage and just buying the license don't mean squat.

When the first marriage licence was issued, this is where the mistake was made.

When the state controlled the marriage and decided what legal rights should be bestowed upon the couple, this is where THE STATE discriminated against certain groups of people, not the church or any religion.

THE STATE enacts laws that prohibits certain folks from getting married.

THE STATE stuck it's nose into plural marriage and denied people the right for them to practice THEIR RELIGION.

THE STATE PERVERTED MARRIAGE WHEN THEY STUCK THEIR NOSE INTO A RELIGIOUS UNION.

Marriage was never suppose to be about rights and privileges, it was suppose to be a sacred vow made in the presence of our Lord and Savior.

Just who the hell does the state think it is to tell the church what it can and can't do?

Just who the hell does the state think it is to pick and choose who can get married and discriminate against certain folks?

The problem is not marriage or religion. The problem is, the state never should have given anyone any rights or issued a marriage licence in the first place.

Think about it, NO ONE GIVES YOU RIGHTS. RIGHTS ARE SOMETHING YOU ARE BORN WITH. UNALENATED RIGHTS ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR!

If you really thought about it, state issued marriage licences are unconstitutional. Marriage is a right not a privilege.

Yes, and any time the government tells a church who they can and cannot marry, the are violating the separation of church in state in the most heinous way.

And if you support the restriction of marriage rights by the government than you are supporting government interference into the church.

If you want to protect the right of your church to choose whom to marry, then you must also protect the rights of another church to choose.

If a church does not wish to marry same sex couples, the government should not interfere. But neither should the government interfere with the church that does wish to have same sex marriages. And the government should not show preference to one church over another.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yes, and any time the government tells a church who they can and cannot marry, the are violating the separation of church in state in the most heinous way.

And if you support the restriction of marriage rights by the government than you are supporting government interference into the church.

If you want to protect the right of your church to choose whom to marry, then you must also protect the rights of another church to choose.

If a church does not wish to marry same sex couples, the government should not interfere. But neither should the government interfere with the church that does wish to have same sex marriages. And the government should not show preference to one church over another.

That's exactly right. Funny the religious right would not dare think of challenging another church. Control one control them all.

 

[fantome profane]

Funny the religious right would not dare think of challenging another church.

Is that sarcasm? I can’t tell.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No it is the truth

 

[McBell]

Here lies the whole problem in a nut shell.

The government granting permission for a couple to get married is in conflict with being a secular government. There is no separation of church and state here.

You are right.
The government should revoke the right of church leaders to legalize marriage.
Like YOU said, their extending the courtesy of allowing church members to legalize the contract is a clear violation of separation of church and state.

The other half you left out was, Someone has to sign the marriage licence and perform the ceremony for someone to be legally married. The ceremony makes the marriage and just buying the license don't mean squat.

And here you are simply mistaken.
The "Ceremony" does not mean squat.
It is the signature that legalizes it.
The ceremony is optional.
Don't believe me?
Just talk to any justice of the peace.

When the first marriage licence was issued, this is where the mistake was made.

No argument there.

When the state controlled the marriage and decided what legal rights should be bestowed upon the couple, this is where THE STATE discriminated against certain groups of people, not the church or any religion.

Bullcrap.
Religion discriminated against certain groups LONG before the state did.

THE STATE enacts laws that prohibits certain folks from getting married.

So what.
They also enact certain laws that resrtrict who can and cannot drive.
What's your point?

THE STATE stuck it's nose into plural marriage and denied people the right for them to practice THEIR RELIGION.

Really?
Please present an example.

THE STATE PERVERTED MARRIAGE WHEN THEY STUCK THEIR NOSE INTO A RELIGIOUS UNION.

I disagree with this opinion.

Marriage was never suppose to be about rights and privileges, it was suppose to be a sacred vow made in the presence of our Lord and Savior.

Opinion that is actually irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Just who the hell does the state think it is to tell the church what it can and can't do?

Example please.

Just who the hell does the state think it is to pick and choose who can get married and discriminate against certain folks?

Again, example please.

The problem is not marriage or religion. The problem is, the state never should have given anyone any rights or issued a marriage licence in the first place.

I disagree.
Cause if it was left up to religion to give equal rights, women would not be allowed to vote, slavery would still be legal, etc.

Think about it, NO ONE GIVES YOU RIGHTS. RIGHTS ARE SOMETHING YOU ARE BORN WITH. UNALENATED RIGHTS ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR!

And then taken away by said creators followers.

If you really thought about it, state issued marriage licences are unconstitutional. Marriage is a right not a privilege.

wow.
You are going to have to paint this one out.

 

[McBell]

No it is the truth

It is as stated.
But it is also a rather misleading comment.

 

[Nanda]

I think it would be very fitting for you to have a child that happened to be homosexual. Then perhaps you might realize a few facts about life.

Yeah, but why wish that sort of mental anguish on an innocent child?

 

[fantome profane]

Funny the religious right would not dare think of challenging another church.

No it is the truth

No it isn’t the truth, it is absolute nonsense. Are you seriously trying to tell me that no self appointed spokesman for the religious right ever bashes another church. That they would never speak out against the Catholics, or the Mormons or Liberal Protestants? They do this all the time. Not to mention attacking the Hindu’s, Buddhists, Wiccan’s etc. And if one of these other churches were to be granted religious freedom and choose to marry same sex couples, spokesmen of the religious right would be on every TV station trying to convince people we must put a stop to religious freedom. They would be lobbying congress and bashing any politician who didn’t oppose it. This is not only what they would do, but it is what they are doing. And the fact that in opposing the freedom of other churches they strike against their own does not seem to register with their fear soaked brains.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No it isn’t the truth, it is absolute nonsense. Are you seriously trying to tell me that no self appointed spokesman for the religious right ever bashes another church. That they would never speak out against the Catholics, or the Mormons or Liberal Protestants? They do this all the time. Not to mention attacking the Hindu’s, Buddhists, Wiccan’s etc. And if one of these other churches were to be granted religious freedom and choose to marry same sex couples, spokesmen of the religious right would be on every TV station trying to convince people we must put a stop to religious freedom. They would be lobbying congress and bashing any politician who didn’t oppose it. This is not only what they would do, but it is what they are doing. And the fact that in opposing the freedom of other churches they strike against their own does not seem to register with their fear soaked brains.

Alright, no sane person would endanger their own church rights by trying to reduce another Churches rights. Freedom of religion means all religions. We all sit in the same boat. If the boat sinks, we all drown.

 

[Draka]

Yeah, but why wish that sort of mental anguish on an innocent child?

True, but let me expand further so rheff makes no assumptions. The mental anguish would not come from being homosexual. It would come from whatever "instilling" and "god-fearing" lecturing and judgement that would come from him as a father of a homosexual. That's where any anguish would come into play.

 

[McBell]

True, but let me expand further so rheff makes no assumptions. The mental anguish would not come from being homosexual. It would come from whatever "instilling" and "god-fearing" lecturing and judgement that would come from him as a father of a homosexual. That's where any anguish would come into play.

Agreed

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Alright, no sane person would endanger their own church rights by trying to reduce another Churches rights. Freedom of religion means all religions. We all sit in the same boat. If the boat sinks, we all drown.

Even so, there are a number of religious groups (e.g. the UUs) and Christian denominations (e.g. some Quaker meetings, the Metropolitan Community Church, some Anglican groups) who support same-sex marriage, but still the "religious right" works to keep it illegal.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Even so, there are a number of religious groups (e.g. the UUs) and Christian denominations (e.g. some Quaker meetings, the Metropolitan Community Church, some Anglican groups) who support same-sex marriage, but still the "religious right" works to keep it illegal.

Yes, but they are dealing with STATE ISSUES that do not affect their churches status.

Do you all not see that the STATE is the problem? The state has to represent everyone including the religious right that opposes you.

If marriage was left up to the church, there would be no problems for same sex couples.

I get the feeling that most folks could give a hoot about religious marriage and are only interested in the rights the state should not have gave anyone in the first place.

How can anyone GIVE one person a right yet deny another? State sanctioned marriage is unconstitutional.

 

[McBell]

Do you all not see that the STATE is the problem? The state has to represent everyone including the religious right that opposes you.

I disagree.
It is the Feds that are the problem.
They need to stop sidestepping, avoiding, and dancing around the issue and deal with it.
Problem is that they have no legitimate legal reason to go the route they personally want to go. So instead of dealing with the issue, they avoid it.

 

[McBell]

State sanctioned marriage is unconstitutional.

This is the SECOND time you have said this and now this is the SECOND time I ask for you to explain it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This is the SECOND time you have said this and now this is the SECOND time I ask for you to explain it.

See post 144