Stance on Gay Rights/ Marriage

[WorldWatcher]

Then you haven't been paying attention. There have been numerous complaints from Homosexuals and from groups that support homosexuals. The argument being that since Marriage is supposedly a "civil right" churches have no right to discriminate.

The only ones that I've ever seen that use the argument that members of the clergy or Churches will be forced to marry members of the same-sex against their religious dogma are people that oppose Same-sex Civil Marriage.

If you would care to back up your claim, please provide an example of any legal case where the government forced a member of the clergy or a Church to perform a...

1. Interracial marriage, when it was against the teachings of the Church, or

2. Inter-faith marriage, when it was against the teaching of the Church, or

3. Marriage ceremony when one (or both) of the participants were divorced for a reason not sanctioned by the teachings of that Church, or

4. Since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal in at least one State for over 7-years, a Same-sex Marriage when it is against the teachings of the Church.​

I would like to review any verifiable case from a reliable news source or court proceeding.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

No it doesn't





You appear to be confusing being illiterate and mute with having a low IQ, they are not the same thing. IQ is an indication of how the brain is "wired" and the ability for independent thought. "Illiterate" is a function of training. "Mute" simply means someone cannot speak.

A blind person with no exposure to braille is illiterate (liberally meaning non-literate) because they can't read. Lack of sight does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent. A person raised in an environment where they have not been exposed to education may be illiterate, doesn't mean they have a low IQ and are therefore unable to give consent.

A mute person literally cannot speak, possibly because of deformed or damaged vocal cords. Lack of speech does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.

A blind person who is also a mute does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.



>>>>

I'm not confusing anything....

I clearly stated "an illiterate mute"

WTF

WTF is...

............... Because a person is illiterate (literally cannot read) does not mean they have a low IQ and are unable to give informed consent. A blind person who never learns braille can literally not read, yet many blind people graduate college every year. You realize that people can read to them and with modern text-to-speach technology computers will read to them.

............... Because a person is mute (literally meaning cannot speak) does not mean they have a low IQ and are unable to give informed consent.

............... Because a person is blind/illiterate/mute does not mean they have a low IQ and are unable to give informed consent.


>>>>

Let it go....we are getting quite a glimpse at Mr. Nick's attitude towards handicapped people.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..

Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of the United States on no less than THREE occasions:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

That's precedence, my friend.

Marriage is not a right it's a choice...

Not according to the SCOTUS. They have declared it a fundamental right. You can have your opinion on that, but those are the FACTS.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL...that's quite a stretch. Blacks were prohibited from marrying whites. They never had that right so it wasn't "taken away" post slavery, it was prohibited from the "get go". Those darn activist SCOTUS judges went against the will of the people to over turn anti-miscegenation laws.

We don't vote on civil rights, period.

Civil rights are won in the court of law (when you look at history). The fact that Mississippi would vote to overturn anti miscegenation laws RIGHT NOW if it went to the ballot box is just one of the reasons.

Well, if MS actually tried that, they'd find a lot of companies would move out, a lot of tourist dollars would be lost, etc. So even if you found a poll that said that, it probably wouldn't be true.

It wasn't a stretch at all. The 14th Amendment made it legal for blacks to marry whites, because it made them citizens. Passing laws against interracial marriage was a violation of the 14th Amendment- therefore unconstitutional.

There is really nothing in the constitution about letting people of the same gender marry. A gay can get married to any person of the opposite sex who will have them, therefore, they have the SAME rights as straight people.

Now, if you want to change the law, change the law at the ballot box or in the legislature. That's what they are there for.

But if you are going to trust your fortunes to judges, you are opening a very serious can of nasty worms. That isn't democracy.

Somehow, I don't think you were one of the people who were cheering when the courts decided Gore vs. Bush in Bush's favor.

Judges are there to interpret the Constitution. Laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage violate the same 14th Amendment that was used to decide Loving v Virginia. There is no difference in the two issues in regards to judicial oversight.

Civil rights aren't voted on and there is a reason for that...

Except there was a major difference. A law had to be passed to prevent interracial marriage. It has been accepted as a matter of practice that marriage occurs only between member of the opposite sex. So there was actually a law that violated the 14th Amendment passed after the 14th Amendment.

That gave the judges standing to rule it unconstitutional.

There is no such standing for gay marriage because same-sex marriage has never existed or been accepted before the current time. In short, marriage has to be REDEFINED from what it has always meant in order for that to happen. And the place to redefine something is in the legislature, not the judiciary.

A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure.​

46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

Gay marriage will be won in the courts, just like interracial marriage was. It's the way it is supposed to work when states pass laws that go against the Constitution.

I'm going to have to call shennigans on you here, because you claimed that MS would vote to outlaw it. Now you admit that it was only Republicans, and not even a majority of them.

 

[JoeB131]

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of the United States on no less than THREE occasions:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

That's precedence, my friend.

Marriage is not a right it's a choice...

Not according to the SCOTUS. They have declared it a fundamental right. You can have your opinion on that, but those are the FACTS.

Except they haven't declared it a "right" that is absolute. They have not struck down the incest laws or the polygamy laws.

 

[freetek]

Incest is illegal in the U.S. Got any other strawmen?

Not everywhere in the US and the laws from state to state differ a great deal just as the age of consent.

 

[newpolitics]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

As citizens Gays have all the same rights as everyone else, there is no need to provide "special" rights for them.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Get the Government out of Marriage, call everything the Government licenses and makes laws for a " Domestic Partnership" or some such. Leave Marriage to the religions.

Wait, you say that Gays should have all the same rights as anyone else, that they shouldn't be given any special privilege, and then say that heterosexuals should be the only ones allowed to get married? Isn't this granting 'special rights' to heterosexuals?

Oh I forgot, because religion is apparently a Christian thing, and the US is apparently a Christian nation... is this your justification? The US is not a Christian nation. Get over it. It is a secular nation, and marraige is not a Christian phenomenon. 'Marriage' is just a word. The act of two forming a social bond with others as witnesses has many names in many cultures. Two people in love, get married, have all the same benefits as anyone else getting married. Stop being afraid of what you don't understand, you xenophobic and sad people.

 

[Qball]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

As citizens Gays have all the same rights as everyone else, there is no need to provide "special" rights for them.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Get the Government out of Marriage, call everything the Government licenses and makes laws for a " Domestic Partnership" or some such. Leave Marriage to the religions.

Wait, you say that Gays should have all the same rights as anyone else, that they shouldn't be given any special privilege, and then say that heterosexuals should be the only ones allowed to get married? Isn't this granting 'special rights' to heterosexuals?

Oh I forgot, because religion is apparently a Christian thing, and the US is apparently a Christian nation... is this your justification? The US is not a Christian nation. Get over it. It is a secular nation, and marraige is not a Christian phenomenon. 'Marriage' is just a word. The act of two forming a social bond with others as witnesses has many names in many cultures. Two people in love, get married, have all the same benefits as anyone else getting married. Stop being afraid of what you don't understand, you xenophobic and sad people.

It's not that simple. To most people, the definition of a marriage involves a man and woman. It's not simply a matter of affirming one sexual orientation over another. It is to gay people because that's the basis on which they're more or less disqualified from marriage.

The assumption that "marriage" refers to a man/woman relationship is a big part of the reason we have all these extra benefits tied to marital status in the first place. US common law pertains to any two consenting adults like you describe. But when you claim to have a marriage, new stipulations apply given not only the usual wage and employment gap between men and women, but the fact that male/female unions create children.

 

[Qball]

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of the United States on no less than THREE occasions:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

That's precedence, my friend.

Marriage is not a right it's a choice...

Not according to the SCOTUS. They have declared it a fundamental right. You can have your opinion on that, but those are the FACTS.

You're leaving out some important facts by citing those cases. For one thing, all three of them involved heterosexual (male/female) couples, not couples that would be considered deviating from the norm (i.e. same-sex, polygamous). All three of them pertained to laws that abridged what would otherwise be a traditional marriage -- anti-miscegenation laws, laws that denied marriage certificates to people in arrears for child support, and laws against inmates marrying -- and were primarily used for penal (see: punishment) purposes.

Conversely, none of those cases were over the legal definition of "marriage" or a couple's supposed right to call their union "marriage". None of those cases make the argument you need them to make -- that there exists some right for two men and two women to have a legally recognized marriage because the law recognizes male/female unions as marriage.

Interestingly, there are two cases in which someone went to the SCOTUS to argue that their marriage is a legal marriage too. Reynolds v. US (or is it the other way around?) was about a polygamist who said a state's law against polygamy infringed on his 1st amendment religious freedom -- he lost -- and Baker v. Nelson was a case where a gay couple claimed MN not recognizing gay marriage was in violation of their 9th and 14th amendment rights. The case was dismissed on the merits, five years after the Loving decision.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Theres a difference between 2 women getting married and someone who wants to marry a horse or a chair, the 2 women can give their consent as adults, the horse or chair cannot give consent or sign any legal documents.

Can you prove a horse cannot give consent??

Using that logic an illiterate mute individual cannot get married because they cant give consent...

how do you even breath?

I have lungs and muscles called my diaphragm that support my respiratory system.

 

[PredFan]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

I'm for making civil unions completely equal to marriage in EVERY legal way. Let homosexuals have Civil Unions, and let hetero's keep "marriage". Everyone gets what they want, except the fanatical gays who want the name "marriage" simply to rub it in the faces of the religious.

Gay "Rights" is complete bull shit. Gays have every single right that heteros have. What they want are special rights.

 

[ABikerSailor]

There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......

First off, acknowledge that civil unions carry the same LEGAL rights and benefits as marriage does, and make that a national law, because most of the benefits (as in taxes) are paid to the federal government.

Second, have a box that states either "marriage" or "civil union". If the person is married by a JP, then the person officiating (who isn't a preacher) would check civil union and sign as the officiating person.

However...........

If the gay couple can find a church willing to marry them, and the ceremony is performed by an ordained minister (and yes, there are churches that will recognize gay marriage), then the box "marriage" is checked, and the preacher signs as the officiating person.

Wouldn't take too much to change the marriage liscence, and it would fix a lot of problems.

Do I personally think that gays have a right to marry? Yes. It doesn't really matter who you love, it just matters that you love someone, and if you're gonna get married, they gotta be of the age of consent.

Besides, sexuality is determined in the womb, because it happens during brain development. Scientists have proven this.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

I'm for making civil unions completely equal to marriage in EVERY legal way. Let homosexuals have Civil Unions, and let hetero's keep "marriage". Everyone gets what they want, except the fanatical gays who want the name "marriage" simply to rub it in the faces of the religious.

Gay "Rights" is complete bull shit. Gays have every single right that heteros have. What they want are special rights.

Can you provide a list of these "special rights" that homosexuals are asking for under Civil Marriage Law that would not be available to heterosexual couples under Civil Marriage Law?


>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

>


It appears that some people believe people like Helen Keller who was Blind and Deaf - and by being raised on communication isolation) would have been considered mute for many years - are/were incapable from having a high level functioning brain.


Glad to know we have come a long why from those days.


>>>>

Apparently some twats don't understand there are some less functioning people in this world who have communication problemes at minimum. Democrats usually use them as shields when its convenient for their ilk to raise taxes...

oh we understand they are out there. It would seem we have to protect you from your own brain.

You feel the need to protect me from my brain???



Fucking tyrant....

I believe Mao and Stalin felt the need to protect people from their brains as well..

Your posts show how tyrannical and EVIL you are...

But no you're not a totalitarian, I suppose you're just a misunderstood democrat eh???

Fucking retard...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......

First off, acknowledge that civil unions carry the same LEGAL rights and benefits as marriage does, and make that a national law, because most of the benefits (as in taxes) are paid to the federal government.

Second, have a box that states either "marriage" or "civil union". If the person is married by a JP, then the person officiating (who isn't a preacher) would check civil union and sign as the officiating person.

However...........

If the gay couple can find a church willing to marry them, and the ceremony is performed by an ordained minister (and yes, there are churches that will recognize gay marriage), then the box "marriage" is checked, and the preacher signs as the officiating person.

Wouldn't take too much to change the marriage liscence, and it would fix a lot of problems.

Do I personally think that gays have a right to marry? Yes. It doesn't really matter who you love, it just matters that you love someone, and if you're gonna get married, they gotta be of the age of consent.

Besides, sexuality is determined in the womb, because it happens during brain development. Scientists have proven this.

So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?

 

[del]

There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......

First off, acknowledge that civil unions carry the same LEGAL rights and benefits as marriage does, and make that a national law, because most of the benefits (as in taxes) are paid to the federal government.

Second, have a box that states either "marriage" or "civil union". If the person is married by a JP, then the person officiating (who isn't a preacher) would check civil union and sign as the officiating person.

However...........

If the gay couple can find a church willing to marry them, and the ceremony is performed by an ordained minister (and yes, there are churches that will recognize gay marriage), then the box "marriage" is checked, and the preacher signs as the officiating person.

Wouldn't take too much to change the marriage liscence, and it would fix a lot of problems.

Do I personally think that gays have a right to marry? Yes. It doesn't really matter who you love, it just matters that you love someone, and if you're gonna get married, they gotta be of the age of consent.

Besides, sexuality is determined in the womb, because it happens during brain development. Scientists have proven this.

So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?

why not?

 

[ABikerSailor]

There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......

First off, acknowledge that civil unions carry the same LEGAL rights and benefits as marriage does, and make that a national law, because most of the benefits (as in taxes) are paid to the federal government.

Second, have a box that states either "marriage" or "civil union". If the person is married by a JP, then the person officiating (who isn't a preacher) would check civil union and sign as the officiating person.

However...........

If the gay couple can find a church willing to marry them, and the ceremony is performed by an ordained minister (and yes, there are churches that will recognize gay marriage), then the box "marriage" is checked, and the preacher signs as the officiating person.

Wouldn't take too much to change the marriage liscence, and it would fix a lot of problems.

Do I personally think that gays have a right to marry? Yes. It doesn't really matter who you love, it just matters that you love someone, and if you're gonna get married, they gotta be of the age of consent.

Besides, sexuality is determined in the womb, because it happens during brain development. Scientists have proven this.

So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?

Incest and polygamy are currently illegal in this country. If you want those people to marry, then change those laws specifically.

However...........if you're going to change the law that family members can marry each other, they should also agree to sterilization.

If they want to change the law to allow 3 people to marry? Fine. Just be like everyone else and have enough money to support your family. I believe the conservatives bitch about extra children and not enough money, so same deal if you decide to have multiple wives.

2 people of the same gender wanting to get married? Let 'em.

 

[Mr.Nick]

There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......

First off, acknowledge that civil unions carry the same LEGAL rights and benefits as marriage does, and make that a national law, because most of the benefits (as in taxes) are paid to the federal government.

Second, have a box that states either "marriage" or "civil union". If the person is married by a JP, then the person officiating (who isn't a preacher) would check civil union and sign as the officiating person.

However...........

If the gay couple can find a willing to marry them, and the ceremony is performed by an ordained minister (and yes, there are churches that will recognize gay marriage), then the box "marriage" is checked, and the preacher signs as the officiating person.

Wouldn't take too much to change the marriage liscence, and it would fix a lot of problems.

Do I personally think that gays have a right to marry? Yes. It doesn't really matter who you love, it just matters that you love someone, and if you're gonna get married, they gotta be of the age of consent.

Besides, sexuality is determined in the womb, because it happens during brain development. Scientists have proven this.

Civil unions are different than marriage.

Using some of the progressive logic I should have the RIGHT to walk into a Jewish temple (being a Roman Catholic) and they should be obligated to marry me if that was my wish. Oh and of course government should force the church to marry me... WTF...

What happened to the First Amendment again???

 

[ABikerSailor]

There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......

First off, acknowledge that civil unions carry the same LEGAL rights and benefits as marriage does, and make that a national law, because most of the benefits (as in taxes) are paid to the federal government.

Second, have a box that states either "marriage" or "civil union". If the person is married by a JP, then the person officiating (who isn't a preacher) would check civil union and sign as the officiating person.

However...........

If the gay couple can find a church willing to marry them, and the ceremony is performed by an ordained minister (and yes, there are churches that will recognize gay marriage), then the box "marriage" is checked, and the preacher signs as the officiating person.

Wouldn't take too much to change the marriage liscence, and it would fix a lot of problems.

Do I personally think that gays have a right to marry? Yes. It doesn't really matter who you love, it just matters that you love someone, and if you're gonna get married, they gotta be of the age of consent.

Besides, sexuality is determined in the womb, because it happens during brain development. Scientists have proven this.

Civil unions are different than marriage.

Using some of the progressive logic I should have the RIGHT to walk into a Jewish temple (being a Roman Catholic) and they should be obligated to marry me if that was my wish. Oh and of course government should force the church to marry me... WTF...

What happened to the First Amendment again???

I never said anything like that. I said IF the gay couple could find a church who was WILLING to marry them (and yes, some churches are), then since the official who performed the ceremony was ordained, then it would be marriage.

And besides............quite a few churches would be willing to do that, because it would be another revenue stream for them.

And for the record........no, you don't have the right as a Catholic to ask a Jewish Temple to marry you.

Same as you don't have the "right" to demand that your local donut shop also fix your car.

 

[Qball]

There's a pretty simple solution to this problem.......

First off, acknowledge that civil unions carry the same LEGAL rights and benefits as marriage does, and make that a national law, because most of the benefits (as in taxes) are paid to the federal government.

Second, have a box that states either "marriage" or "civil union". If the person is married by a JP, then the person officiating (who isn't a preacher) would check civil union and sign as the officiating person.

However...........

If the gay couple can find a church willing to marry them, and the ceremony is performed by an ordained minister (and yes, there are churches that will recognize gay marriage), then the box "marriage" is checked, and the preacher signs as the officiating person.

Wouldn't take too much to change the marriage liscence, and it would fix a lot of problems.

Do I personally think that gays have a right to marry? Yes. It doesn't really matter who you love, it just matters that you love someone, and if you're gonna get married, they gotta be of the age of consent.

Besides, sexuality is determined in the womb, because it happens during brain development. Scientists have proven this.

When did scientists prove that sexuality is determined in the womb? Do you mean male-or-female sexuality, or sexual orientation?