I find it very disturbing

[PratchettFan]

You really going to tell me marriage was always decided by the fucking state asshole and not by a man and woman who loved each other?

What a fool

Whether two people love each other is up to them. Whether they are married is up to the society. There are many societies where the couple didn't even meet each other until the marriage. Formalized marriage really began for the aristocracy, and they really didn't check with the kids whether they like the idea of marrying prince Michael or Lady Marian. It was for the purpose of political alliances and land. No one gave a damn what the peasants did.

In our society, marriage is purely secular unless you want to bring religion into it. But at the base, it is secular.

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage is a religious practice

Has nothing to do with the fucking government

Don't any one see this?

Legal contracts are one of the roles government must play in a society. Marriage is and, since the beginning of civilization, always has been a legal contract.

You're right that marraige is a civil contract but, if between consenting adults and harms no one, government should have no say in who Redfish or anyone else, marries.

Yes Luddly Neddite so keep the personal terms of Marriage out of govt,
similar to how Atheists sue to remove references to God from public institutions.
If not all people agree on what these words mean without invoking conflicting BELIEFS,
then remove them by "separation of church and state." be consistent or else it's religious discrimination

I believe that is what people are trying to do. You are free to consider your marriage in any way you like, under any terms you like. The government should not be deciding that for you.

Yes PratchettFan I agree with you that is the goal.
The problem in making that goal is this insistence
on demonizing and excluding people who believe in traditional marriage only,
and failing to recognize this belief equally as a valid protected belief,
which cannot be forced to change by govt nor discriminated against.

Until all people's beliefs about marriage are treated and included equally,
the laws are not written to represent all, and they turn into fights for majority rule or court rulings to decide.

No, I DON'T agree that govt should decide these, and that's my whole point!

If people work together to write the laws by consensus, there wouldn't be these fights.
Something is going wrong with the democratic process, where the sides turn against each other
instead of including them all equally.

Maybe the Greens need to facilitate the legislative writing and reforms on these laws,
some group with experience fielding objections and arriving at a consensus decision on how to write a resolution
that includes everyone in the process. The only failure of that system is allowing people to object without requiring
a correction to the objection to resolve it. Just require that people agree to *correct* any source or cause of objection
to how a law is written and applied, if they want to participate in the process, and a consensus can be reached.

 

[Wyatt earp]

All I can figure is the atheist, dog lovers whom ever to trash religion

That's the only reason why the left wants to control marriage

 

[emilynghiem]

You really going to tell me marriage was always decided by the fucking state asshole and not by a man and woman who loved each other?

What a fool

Whether two people love each other is up to them. Whether they are married is up to the society. There are many societies where the couple didn't even meet each other until the marriage. Formalized marriage really began for the aristocracy, and they really didn't check with the kids whether they like the idea of marrying prince Michael or Lady Marian. It was for the purpose of political alliances and land. No one gave a damn what the peasants did.

In our society, marriage is purely secular unless you want to bring religion into it. But at the base, it is secular.

If people don't agree on the terms, it becomes a conflict of beliefs, so it becomes religious.
If you want to keep it secular, stick to the terms where all people agree independent of and including all beliefs.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You really going to tell me marriage was always decided by the fucking state asshole and not by a man and woman who loved each other?

What a fool

"always" and "Plato" are not germane to the conversation.

The customs regarding marriage are not engraved in stone. There is no such thing as "traditional" marriage.

For example ...

 

[BlindBoo]

We have no political mechanism that enables a national referendum. I believe that is by design. The founders were against the tyranny of Democracy.

 

[emilynghiem]

I find it very disturbing that some people give a shit about who marries whom.

It's become an issue of what is private and what is public.
Same as why Atheists bother suing over crosses that don't really affect them,
but the courts rule in favor of their arguments based on PRINCIPLE of separating public from private.

 

[PratchettFan]

Marriage is a religious practice

Has nothing to do with the fucking government

Don't any one see this?

Legal contracts are one of the roles government must play in a society. Marriage is and, since the beginning of civilization, always has been a legal contract.

You're right that marraige is a civil contract but, if between consenting adults and harms no one, government should have no say in who Redfish or anyone else, marries.

Yes Luddly Neddite so keep the personal terms of Marriage out of govt,
similar to how Atheists sue to remove references to God from public institutions.
If not all people agree on what these words mean without invoking conflicting BELIEFS,
then remove them by "separation of church and state." be consistent or else it's religious discrimination

I believe that is what people are trying to do. You are free to consider your marriage in any way you like, under any terms you like. The government should not be deciding that for you.

Yes PratchettFan I agree with you that is the goal.
The problem in making that goal is this insistence
on demonizing and excluding people who believe in traditional marriage only,
and failing to recognize this belief equally as a valid protected belief,
which cannot be forced to change by govt nor discriminated against.

Until all people's beliefs about marriage are treated and included equally,
the laws are not written to represent all, and they turn into fights for majority rule or court rulings to decide.

No, I DON'T agree that govt should decide these, and that's my whole point!

If people work together to write the laws by consensus, there wouldn't be these fights.
Something is going wrong with the democratic process, where the sides turn against each other
instead of including them all equally.

Maybe the Greens need to facilitate the legislative writing and reforms on these laws,
some group with experience fielding objections and arriving at a consensus decision on how to write a resolution
that includes everyone in the process. The only failure of that system is allowing people to object without requiring
a correction to the objection to resolve it. Just require that people agree to *correct* any source or cause of objection
to how a law is written and applied, if they want to participate in the process, and a consensus can be reached.

No one is demonizing anyone for having a traditional marriage. Not a soul. The only demonizing going on is people who insist only their idea of marriage should be allowed. No one is saying you have to marry a woman or I have to marry a man.

All that is being sought is equality. That is not an attack on marriage. It is a reasonable and rightful goal.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Redfish I would say we need a Constitutional amendment or convention
on political beliefs in general, which issues do we AGREE are beliefs that govt cannot force people to change,
and how do we handle these and keep them from mucking up public policy since people, by human nature, won't change their beliefs by govt and force of law but will always fight for defense. Why isn't that defense already recognized by Constitutional laws? Can we agree that political beliefs count as creeds or religion that are protected by law from discrimination? And quit pushing legislation, politicians or parties that threaten to override the beliefs of one side by pushing other beliefs?

The very last thing we need is Big Government and more invasive laws.

This is an issue that government should not have any say in at all.

Hi @Luddy Neddite
and again, what kind of precedent for "free choice" did Obama and liberals set
by using federal govt to issue health care mandates for all people and states?

How can liberals cheer on the Atheist for having a Cross or Bible removed from public domain
because it "promotes one belief" and yet push gay marriage on others against "other beliefs"

Do you see how the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot?
Pushing one set of beliefs TOO FAR where it starts to exclude, discriminate against and demonize others?

There is NOTHING WRONG with free choice in private.
But if you start pushing beliefs in PUBLIC, then you open the door
for prolife, proChristian, etc. to do the same. Otherwise it is discrimination
to enforce "separation of church and state" for beliefs you don't believe in,
and "inclusion of diversity and free choice" ONLY for beliefs that you support.

False analogy fallacy.

The ACA isn't about freedom of religion or equal treatment under the law as enumerated in the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Separation of Church and State has to do with US citizens ability to worship and believe, or not, as they choose without fear from government force. Christians who are US citizens may not use public resources to express their faith because Hindus, Muslims, atheists, etc. are not then treated equally under the law. To allow one religion to use government resources and not all the others is a form, albeit minor, of discrimination. Since it is impractical to erect religious monuments for each religious belief, not to mention expensive, and, most importantly, unconstitutional, the government should remain entirely secular.

The issue of same sex marriage is that the government is discriminating against one type of person, homosexuals. That isn't constitutional, as laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's no different than interracial couples in the 1960s.

The ACA is currently the law of the land and the SCOTUS upheld it. It is irrelevant to the discussion regarding same sex marriage.

 

[Iceweasel]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

People have decided in many states and their decisions have been disregarded contrary to the republic's legal process. Don't let the post count fool you, that's what they want you to think. It a very tiny minority that live for those threads. They post all day long every day. It's obviously their job.

 

[PratchettFan]

We have no political mechanism that enables a national referendum. I believe that is by design. The founders were against the tyranny of Democracy.

And rightfully so.

 

[g5000]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

And we should vote on guns and slavery, too!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Maybe the left wants to down.play millions upon millions of peoples faith in religion, who knows

But I have a dick, and love got married twice, it was not a contract from the state

I so loved my first wife who died of cancer in 2004 and second wife

It was no fucking contract with the US government

 

[bodecea]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

So...the answer is to start another thread on gays. Lovely.

 

[g5000]

Let's persuade our resident Jedi Knights, Guardians of The Realm and Keepers of The Faith to open, start, promote and encourage a gay butt-ranger Board so that all of our libturd friends can go there and participate in reach-arounds ad infinitum.

Problem solved.

There aren't a lot of gay rights supporters starting topics on gay rights on this forum, doofus. It's you pants-shitting homophobes who are starting almost every gay topic, including this one.

So maybe you all should STFU if you are tired of seeing gay related topics!

Problem solved.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Both my marriages was a fucking contract with god, in death we depart.

 

[emilynghiem]

You really going to tell me marriage was always decided by the fucking state asshole and not by a man and woman who loved each other?

What a fool

"always" and "Plato" are not germane to the conversation.

The customs regarding marriage are not engraved in stone. There is no such thing as "traditional" marriage.

For example ...

Difference is, Luddly Neddite, the people who don't believe in interracial marriage
were willing to concede that for civil marriage laws.

But not so for people who don't believe in same sex marriage which isn't the same as the race issue.
Govt cannot force people to change their beliefs, but if they agree not to sue, they CHOOSE to let this slide.

Atheists don't have to sue over Crosses, but when they do, they win, because this cannot be forced
on them by govt.

BTW the laws would be the same for heterosexual as for homosexual people
that you CAN marry as male/female husband and wife whether you are gay or straight
and you CANNOT marry as same sex whether you are gay or straight.
Most people I know who don't recognize civil marriage except as male/female
are fine with (1) civil unions and contracts just not calling that marriage
and (2) keeping marriages in churches and not endorsing such marriages through the State
SIMILAR TO ATHEISTS who have no issues with crosses in private but just not through public institutions.

The point of discrimination then boils down to
if you are only going to have civil unions/contracts for same sex couples and not marriage through the
state, then the SAME should be upheld for traditional male/female couples and keep marriage private.

So if that's the only way to "treat them the same" that ALL people of ALL beliefs will agree to,
then keep ALL MARRIAGE private and out of public laws so the terms remain privately decided.
This can be determined per state, and not try decide terms of marriage on the country by federal govt.

 

[PratchettFan]

Maybe the left wants to down.play millions upon millions of peoples faith in religion, who knows

But I have a dick, and love got married twice, it was not a contract from the state

I so loved my first wife who died of cancer in 2004 and second wife

It was no fucking contract with the US government

State governments issue licenses. You didn't have one? When the person performing the marriage said "by the authority of the (insert name of state here)" you weren't paying attention?

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is a religious practice

Has nothing to do with the fucking government

Don't any one see this?

How long have you been working actively to get the government out of marriage.........besides refusing to have a civil marriage license yourself?

 

[hortysir]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

What's disturbing is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gays. If you and others on the right would simply stop trying to deny gay Americans their civil rights, you'd not have to hear about it any more.

And shortly after the SCOTUS ruling here in a couple of months, we won't.

You mean like we never hear any more about the ACA since the SCOTUS made their ruling?