A couple of important same sex marriage rulings

[rob]

Exactly. The state forces rules on the religious organizations. Of course, they'd never do that regarding same-sex partners. Never. Nope.

 

Huh? I don't even get it. The government makes lots of private groups verify a government license first before performing some action. For example, the car dealership verifies my driver's license before the test drive. If it were a RELIGIOUS car dealership, they'd have to check, too.

 

Is this really that complicated? You're gonna hurt yourself!

Edited July 14, 2010 by rob

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Is this really that complicated? You're gonna hurt yourself!

 

Right back at you.

[rob]

why do you care if gays get married or not? What's your interest in this matter which should be totally unrelated to you, assuming you're not gay.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

why do you care if gays get married or not? What's your interest in this matter which should be totally unrelated to you, assuming you're not gay.

 

I am responding to the bullshit assertion that gov't has nothing to do with religious marriage ceremonies in the US

 

If you and TTK want to tie the knot somewhere that'll take you, go for it!

 

[rob]

I'm still waiting for him to ask me, I'll I've got is this stupid promise ring

[kevbone]

You 2 should get a room.

[rob]

you should come a little bit closer so I can slap you in the face with my cock

[tvashtarkatena]

why do you care if gays get married or not? What's your interest in this matter which should be totally unrelated to you, assuming you're not gay.

 

I am responding to the bullshit assertion that gov't has nothing to do with religious marriage ceremonies in the US

 

If you and TTK want to tie the knot somewhere that'll take you, go for it!

 

There's a level of stupid that's simply not possible for the rest of us to access.

[tvashtarkatena]

why do you care if gays get married or not? What's your interest in this matter which should be totally unrelated to you, assuming you're not gay.

 

I am responding to the bullshit assertion that gov't has nothing to do with religious marriage ceremonies in the US

 

If you and TTK want to tie the knot somewhere that'll take you, go for it!

 

The assertion, you complete moron, was that religion is irrelevant to the same sex marriage issue.

 

Should same sex marriages become legal nationwide (they will), those couples will be able to choose to marry in churches should they meet whatever requirements those sects have, or not...just like their hetero counterparts.

Edited July 14, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

Does anyone here know what idea this idiot is trying to convey?

 

Seems like he's arguing for getting the state out of the business of annointing "marriages" all together. Man and woman, two chicks, two dudes - everybody gets the same piece of paper. If you want your marriage blessed by whatever cult/deity/collective that's your business, not the state's.

 

You've apparently contracted Nitrox's disorder.

 

'Marriage' IS a civil contract. Hence, you know, the term 'marriage license'. Religiosity is optional...and the state already doesn't give a shit about that component, other than to authorize church members (as it does secular folks) to perform the ceremony.

 

Religion is irrelevant to both the court cases posted and this discussion in general. I would guess TrailerMan brought it up due to confusion and/or the undeniable urge to counter with something, anything, whenever I post.

 

 

Yes. Marriage is a civil contract. The state doesn't care what religious or secular blessing you seek out after the fact, but there's clearly a set of religious imperatives that have informed the limitations that the state currently places on who can join in such a contract.

 

I'd much prefer it if we made the distinction between the civil contract part and the religious part clear by granting only civil unions to whatever pairing of consenting adults happened to walk into their office and apply for one.

 

Seems like that's what he was arguing for, but maybe I was mistaken.

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Oh, you mean remove 'marriage' from the civil lexicon, and for everyone who choses not be married, oh, I mean civil unionized, outside a church.

 

That way you can say you're 'unionized' with your wife, rather than 'married', unless you were married in a church.

 

Great idea, and an excellent application of Newspeak. Good luck with it.

 

 

Edited July 14, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Simply granting all couples an equal right to marry would to SO MUCH MORE COMPLICATED.

[rob]

We will lose our family values, and the sanctity of marriage will crumble if you let the queers and the minorities take part in God's Contract.

[tvashtarkatena]

Maybe the state should get out of the business of placing a value judgement on homosexuality. Now there's an idea.

 

While it's at it, the state might consider removing its nose from a whole lot of other personal business: drugs, Cuban travel, surveillance....

[rob]

If you start talking about personal liberty like that, you're going to get the republican's all pissed off. They hate freedom.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

We will lose our family values, and the sanctity of marriage will crumble if you let the queers and the minorities take part in God's Contract.

 

"minorities"? STFU

[rob]

You need to reevaluate your relationship with our personal Lord and Savior, JESUS CHRIST.

 

ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!!!!11

[JayB]

Maybe the state should get out of the business of placing a value judgement on homosexuality. Now there's an idea.

 

While it's at it, the state might consider removing its nose from a whole lot of other personal business: drugs, Cuban travel, surveillance....

 

Yes. Pretty much anything consenting adults do to themselves or to each other as long as it's not directly harming anyone else or infringing on their constitutional rights.

 

Unfortunately, one one side there are religious conservatives who want the state to have a significant influence what people do with their bodies, and there are an equal number of progressives who want the state to have a significant influence over what people do with their money.

 

 

 

 

[sobo]

...and there are an equal number of progressives who want the state to have a significant influence over what the state does with other people's do with their money.

Fixed it for ya, JayB.

[JayB]

...and there are an equal number of progressives who want the state to have a significant influence over what the state does with other people's do with their money.

Fixed it for ya, JayB.

 

Much better.

 

 

[rob]

Absolutely! Is there anything wrong with American citizens wanting significant influence over how the State spends OUR MONEY?

 

Sounds about right to me.

[JayB]

Absolutely! Is there anything wrong with American citizens wanting significant influence over how the State spends OUR MONEY?

 

Sounds about right to me.

 

Is it limited to wanting influence over how the state spends the money it collects for you Rob? Or are you also a fan of things like tarriffs, subsidies, sin-taxes, etc that distort private spending in service of a political agenda that's rigged to benefit private interests. Were - say - the tariffs placed on Japanese autos *really* put in place to benefit the consumer? How about agricultural tariffs like the one that's currently in place against cane ethanol? Prevailing wage laws for public projects - does the public really benefit from getting 4 schools, bridges, highways, etc for the price of 5?

 

[rob]

um, are we talking about WHAT they spend the money on, or HOW they collect it?

 

I want total control over both!

[JosephH]

If conservatives and republican politicians don't like gays then they should stop having and raising them. Simple as that.

[pink]

ur parents r republicans?