NY Gay Marriage Baggage

[bodecea]

Since no one is demanding Catholic churches marry them, what's your point?

The stance of the church in gay marriage has nothing to do with the procreation of children. They have no problems with infertile heterosexual couples marrying.

You have no idea what's going on political, legislatively or judicially, or you're pretending not to understand:

HOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Is Suppressing Religious Liberty the Point of SSM Bills?

Conservative Activists Argue Gay Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty


Whereas morality is the underlying foundation of liberty, empathy is the operative substance of morality in the political arena. The first casualty of immorality is empathy. As empathy declines, so does liberty.

I can see your point with all those churches being forced by the government to marry interracial and interfaith couples......

 

[Intense]

Personally I do not support Consensus, there is no concept not twisted and warped, and unrecognizable from the original vision. What we Incorporate under Federalism is the Power of the Super Majority 75%, not Consensus which requires a Unanimous Vote. Consensus is a way to obstruct, while the Super Majority, is rooted more on Conviction, stronger than impulse or the flavor of the day.

1. Hmmm, most people say that until someone abuses majority rule to bulldoze over the consent of the governed, mainly theirs!

2 I'm talking more specifically about cases where people do not agree to majority rule, but insist on having their beliefs protected equally, whether that is the minority or what.

Are you saying it is okay for Christianity to be declared the national religion if the majority voted to make this exception (for whatever reason if it did happen)

I think people's answers to such questions involve whether they feel threatened or not.

3. No, Consensus does not need have a unanimous vote.
For example, in writing out which options to vote for, people can agree 100% on
several options and then AGREE to accept whatever the majority votes for!

So you still have consensus, but by that consensus you agree what options
are acceptable for majority to rule on.

In the case of the gay marriage, immigation or health care debates
the ways these laws were written NO people did NOT agree to those options.
They have objections not fully addressed.

So that is where consensus would allow all conflicts to be addressed
BEFORE YOU AGREE TO A VOTE.

1. Hmmm, most people say that until someone abuses majority rule to bulldoze over the consent of the governed, mainly theirs!

Not at all. No system is perfect, 75% approval for Constitutional Amendment, is the best we have so far. Allot better than 51% shoving down their will over the 49% minority. Super Majority rings Truer.

2 I'm talking more specifically about cases where people do not agree to majority rule, but insist on having their beliefs protected equally, whether that is the minority or what.

Nobody's belief is protected under Consensus. On the contrary it is dissected.

3. No, Consensus does not need have a unanimous vote.
For example, in writing out which options to vote for, people can agree 100% on
several options and then AGREE to accept whatever the majority votes for!

Sorry, without consensus, you cannot even agree on what options to put in writing. You may argue on different forms of consensus, some requiring unanimous consent, some offering alternatives, like agreeing to disagree or standing aside, still manipulative. Remember Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I see the issues addressed just the same under free speech. Yes it is nice to know what is agreed upon and removed from debate, consensus is not the only means for that.

So you still have consensus, but by that consensus you agree what options
are acceptable for majority to rule on.

Same holds for having a Platform.

Sorry but, years back I had too many negative experiences working through the consensus process. I find it too easily corrupts and leads astray from principle and vision.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Since no one is demanding Catholic churches marry them, what's your point?

The stance of the church in gay marriage has nothing to do with the procreation of children. They have no problems with infertile heterosexual couples marrying.

You have no idea what's going on political, legislatively or judicially, or you're pretending not to understand:

HOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Is Suppressing Religious Liberty the Point of SSM Bills?

Conservative Activists Argue Gay Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty


Whereas morality is the underlying foundation of liberty, empathy is the operative substance of morality in the political arena. The first casualty of immorality is empathy. As empathy declines, so does liberty.

I can see your point with all those churches being forced by the government to marry interracial and interfaith couples......

Interracial? Interfaith?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

By Justin Raimondo
October 20, 2010
Freedom of Expression
Free Speech, Religious Liberty

It's time to challenge the fiction that the “gay rights” movement speaks for all or even most gay people. It does not.

The leadership of the gay movement is playing with fire. The great tragedy is that they will not be the only ones burned. The volatility of the issues they are raising—which involve religion, family, and the most basic assumptions of what it is to be human—risks a social explosion for which they must be held accountable. The boldness of the attempt to introduce a "gay positive" curriculum into the public schools, the militant victim stance that brooks no questioning, the blunt intolerance once they gain power in urban ghettos like San Francisco–all this, combined with the fact that the gay rights paradigm itself represents an intolerable invasion of liberty, is bound to produce a reaction from the majority.

LINK

For those pretending that the gay rights movement is about liberty, prattling the absurdity that the movement's agenda is amicable to the conservatism or libertarianism of classical liberalism: it's nothing but the mobocracy of collectivism overthrowing individual liberty and free association in the public and private sectors.

 

[nitroz]

Nailed what exactly??? What am I complaining about??? I'm just stating fact. We Each have a Right to Expression. Learn to live with it.

You aren't complaining. XD
You nailed the freedom of speech and everyone's rights on the head.

Now everyone should stop complaining about what everyone preaches and either listen to it or ignore it.

Do you apply the same to the atheist in court suing about a cross or a street sign?
That the atheist has the right to sue, but the state does not have to respond in favor?
It seems whether the state responds for or against the suit,
doesn't that show bias toward one view or another? How is this equal protection for all views if the state is being asked to take sides?

Hi Nitroz: What about the right to petition? At what point is government NOT responsible for fully redressing someone's petition "as long as it has been given due process and heard"

I happen to have a MAJOR MAJOR issue with this point about petitioning and grievances.
And equal due process in a legal system where people don't have equal resources or access or influence.
I find many cases where ending the process where the laws says it's legal to stop
FAILED to REDRESS the petition and grievance, to the point where people were
DENIED justice and equal protection of the laws. I have a REAL problem with this!

So I believe
A. government authority is determined by who/which entity successfully resolves the petition, because the people's consent determines public authority
so if you shirk your responsibility, then you are not acting as government
the people are the government, whoever accepts that responsibility to redress a grievance is basically acting as government either for themselves or on behalf of protecting others
B. conflicts should be resolved by consensus wherever possible
in order to protect interests equally (by the 14th Amendment) and consent of the governed to prevent imposition of a private bias (whether deemed religious or not, I consider
it within religious freedom whether it is a religious opinion or what, it's someone's belief)

If people agree to disagree, then their consent is not violated.
but if conflicts continue, such as over crosses or gay marriage, over immigration or abortion, the Terri Schiavo case, etc. etc. you can usually find some religious or spiritual element that people aren't willing to compromise which well should not be!

So I believe consensus decisions on such matters are the responsiblity of the
people and not for the state to "step in and impose a decision" biased one way or another

Now if people AGREE to that imposition, for the sake of law and order, fine!
I generally do not.

I generally end up putting up with the "majority rule" because that is more objective to enforce while "equal protection of the laws" is relative and subjective and harder to prove.

It is ironic that by my beliefs about consent, I do not go around imposing my views on others, as an atheist suing to remove a cross or reference to heaven. I respect the consent of others even if it disagrees with mine. Only if there is a consensus to change it a certain way, I would go with that, which usually involves mediation and prevents litigation.

So all these cases, from Terri Schiavo to the reference to heaven on a street sign, if I were the judge I would state that the government has no right to decide for one side or the other in an issue of religious views or spiritual interpretations. So I would be compelled to order the groups to mediate to form a solution they can all live with
as protecting their constitutional rights equally, including agreement how to share the costs involved. If they agree to take a vote, what are the agreed rules?

I think I would be a mean and impossible judge, asking people to mediate conflicts!
That's why I stay away from politics and support mediating conflicts in private instead.
If you make peace there, these issues do not have to escalate to the public arena.

You cannot order or force people to respect each other's consent, they have to consent freely, or you contradict that very principle! So the only way I know is to promote good examples of cases that have been mediated, to work out conflicts and show how the process works, or ought to work, and let that standard influence the political process.

So ironic that the one approach I believe would stop these issues from being put in state hands where they don't belong is mediation; but that has to be freely chosen in order to work and cannot be forced to work. That is why we see these issues going unresolved.

You cannot force people to work out their personal issues, but that is what they would have to do to prevent these no-win situations. Otherwise, no matter which side the laws rule in favor of, that is going to carry a bias that discriminates against the other views unless the sides agree on a policy by consensus accommodating their interests equally!

tl;dr


Now I read a paragraph or 2 and that was about all before my ADHD kicked in.



If an Atheist did sue because of a cross, then he should automatically lose. (unless the cross was put on federal property by a federal employee, then the lawsuit may actually have potential.)

You go to church and explain/preach your ways to others and there is nothing I can do about that. You can post huge signs that preach to others on your property and there is nothing I can do about that. (but everyone's property value in the area may go down cause they might think you are a loony.)

I can explain/preach why I dislike/don't care about religion and there is nothing you can do. I can post huge signs on my property and there is nothing you can do. I can excersize my right to gay marriage if I wanted to and there is nothing you can do. (NY is going to trigger a chain reaction).


We have different views and oppose eachother, but we also have equal rights. It should be up to the judicial system and the government to decide when we infringe on one another's rights. Even if we both disagree with their decision.

 

[bodecea]

You have no idea what's going on political, legislatively or judicially, or you're pretending not to understand:

HOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Is Suppressing Religious Liberty the Point of SSM Bills?

Conservative Activists Argue Gay Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty


Whereas morality is the underlying foundation of liberty, empathy is the operative substance of morality in the political arena. The first casualty of immorality is empathy. As empathy declines, so does liberty.

I can see your point with all those churches being forced by the government to marry interracial and interfaith couples......

Interracial? Interfaith?

Yep...surely you've read about how the government FORCES churches against their will to marry interracial and interfaith couples all the time because of anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Intense]

I can see your point with all those churches being forced by the government to marry interracial and interfaith couples......

Interracial? Interfaith?

Yep...surely you've read about how the government FORCES churches against their will to marry interracial and interfaith couples all the time because of anti-discrimination laws.

That's stretching it a bit Dearest. Stick with what you know.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I can see your point with all those churches being forced by the government to marry interracial and interfaith couples......

Interracial? Interfaith?

Yep...surely you've read about how the government FORCES churches against their will to marry interracial and interfaith couples all the time because of anti-discrimination laws.

No. I haven't. But in any event, what's your point?



Again, the theme of homo intolerance of individual liberty and free association continued: Gay Activists Admit to Online Hoax Targeting Southern Baptist Convention

 

[WorldWatcher]

Interracial? Interfaith?

Yep...surely you've read about how the government FORCES churches against their will to marry interracial and interfaith couples all the time because of anti-discrimination laws.

That's stretching it a bit Dearest. Stick with what you know.

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but the talking point is that allowing Same-sex Civil Marriage will cause the government to force clergy and Churches to have to perform Religious Marriages for same-sex couples.

The question is to provide evidence that clergey or a Church (Temple, Synagogue, Mosque, etc.) has ever been forced by the government to perform any one of the following:

1. Interracial marriage against the dogma of that Church,

2. Interfaith marriage against the dogma of that Church,

3. Marriage for a couple when one (or both) are divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, or

4. Since Same-sex Civil Marriage has existed in some parts of the United States for 7 years, a case of clergy or a Church being forced to perform a Same-sex Civil Marriage.​

If this had been happening then the implication that it would happen with Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid, but to date no evidence that it has happened in the past has been provided.


>>>>

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yep...surely you've read about how the government FORCES churches against their will to marry interracial and interfaith couples all the time because of anti-discrimination laws.

That's stretching it a bit Dearest. Stick with what you know.

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but the talking point is that allowing Same-sex Civil Marriage will cause the government to force clergy and Churches to have to perform Religious Marriages for same-sex couples.

The question is to provide evidence that clergey or a Church (Temple, Synagogue, Mosque, etc.) has ever been forced by the government to perform any one of the following:

1. Interracial marriage against the dogma of that Church,

2. Interfaith marriage against the dogma of that Church,

3. Marriage for a couple when one (or both) are divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, or

4. Since Same-sex Civil Marriage has existed in some parts of the United States for 7 years, a case of clergy or a Church being forced to perform a Same-sex Civil Marriage.​

If this had been happening then the implication that it would happen with Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid, but to date no evidence that it has happened in the past has been provided.


>>>>

Her comment makes no sense at all that I can tell. She asks her question while quoting the post in which I showed her that the gay rights movement intent is to force churches to perform gay marriages. Hello!

HOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Is Suppressing Religious Liberty the Point of SSM Bills?

Conservative Activists Argue Gay Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty

 

[Gadawg73]

That's stretching it a bit Dearest. Stick with what you know.

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but the talking point is that allowing Same-sex Civil Marriage will cause the government to force clergy and Churches to have to perform Religious Marriages for same-sex couples.

The question is to provide evidence that clergey or a Church (Temple, Synagogue, Mosque, etc.) has ever been forced by the government to perform any one of the following:

1. Interracial marriage against the dogma of that Church,

2. Interfaith marriage against the dogma of that Church,

3. Marriage for a couple when one (or both) are divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, or

4. Since Same-sex Civil Marriage has existed in some parts of the United States for 7 years, a case of clergy or a Church being forced to perform a Same-sex Civil Marriage.​

If this had been happening then the implication that it would happen with Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid, but to date no evidence that it has happened in the past has been provided.


>>>>

Her comment makes no sense at all that I can tell. She asks her question while quoting the post in which I showed her that the gay rights movement intent is to force churches to perform gay marriages. Hello!

HOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Is Suppressing Religious Liberty the Point of SSM Bills?

Conservative Activists Argue Gay Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty

So a beauty queen possibly losing a pageant crown is "suppressing religous liberty"?
Your link Moe, not mine.
You have no evidence. Come up with something, anything, somewhere, someplace.
Otherwise, it ain't looking good for you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's stretching it a bit Dearest. Stick with what you know.

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but the talking point is that allowing Same-sex Civil Marriage will cause the government to force clergy and Churches to have to perform Religious Marriages for same-sex couples.

The question is to provide evidence that clergey or a Church (Temple, Synagogue, Mosque, etc.) has ever been forced by the government to perform any one of the following:

1. Interracial marriage against the dogma of that Church,

2. Interfaith marriage against the dogma of that Church,

3. Marriage for a couple when one (or both) are divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, or

4. Since Same-sex Civil Marriage has existed in some parts of the United States for 7 years, a case of clergy or a Church being forced to perform a Same-sex Civil Marriage.​

If this had been happening then the implication that it would happen with Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid, but to date no evidence that it has happened in the past has been provided.


>>>>

Her comment makes no sense at all that I can tell. She asks her question while quoting the post in which I showed her that the gay rights movement intent is to force churches to perform gay marriages. Hello!

HOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

"Document Not Found"

Is Suppressing Religious Liberty the Point of SSM Bills?

Nope, not example of a Church or member of the clergy being forced to perform interracial, interfaith, Divorced couple, or Same-sex religious ceremony.

Conservative Activists Argue Gay Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Miss USA Pagent is a PRIVATE organization - if they choose to not crown Ms. Prejean that is their choice and has nothing to do with the government forcing any Church or clergy to perform a religious ceremony.


From the article:

"After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004, for example, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston stopped providing adoption services, saying that placing children with same-sex parents would violate church teaching."​

What isn't pointed out is that you can Google "Catholic Charities Adoption Massachusetts" and find multiple Catholic Charities in MA still providing serves even through MA has Same-sex Civil Marriage. Chatholic Charities of Boston? Maybe be they closed their doors because they were taking taxpayer reimbursements to the tune of $1,000,000 as part of the adoption business. (LINK) They could have still functioned as a private adoption agency just like other Catholic Charities in MA.


Also from your article:

"The states that have legalized gay marriage—Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and Maine, in addition to Massachusetts—have carved out exemptions protecting clergy and houses of worship from having to perform same-sex weddings. Most gay rights groups say they're fine with that. "Churches are never going to have to perform or recognize a marriage that they object to," says Brian Moulton, chief counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group."​

Well that backfired.

>>>>

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but the talking point is that allowing Same-sex Civil Marriage will cause the government to force clergy and Churches to have to perform Religious Marriages for same-sex couples.

The question is to provide evidence that clergey or a Church (Temple, Synagogue, Mosque, etc.) has ever been forced by the government to perform any one of the following:

1. Interracial marriage against the dogma of that Church,

2. Interfaith marriage against the dogma of that Church,

3. Marriage for a couple when one (or both) are divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, or

4. Since Same-sex Civil Marriage has existed in some parts of the United States for 7 years, a case of clergy or a Church being forced to perform a Same-sex Civil Marriage.​

If this had been happening then the implication that it would happen with Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid, but to date no evidence that it has happened in the past has been provided.


>>>>

Her comment makes no sense at all that I can tell. She asks her question while quoting the post in which I showed her that the gay rights movement intent is to force churches to perform gay marriages. Hello!

HOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Is Suppressing Religious Liberty the Point of SSM Bills?

Conservative Activists Argue Gay Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty

So a beauty queen possibly losing a pageant crown is "suppressing religous liberty"?
Your link Moe, not mine.
You have no evidence. Come up with something, anything, somewhere, someplace.
Otherwise, it ain't looking good for you.

It wouldn't matter what I showed you. Those links spell it out. You just ignore the damning parts. You're one of those secularists who do not care about the rights of anyone, but you're own kind.

 

[bodecea]

I have never understood what the big deal was with "gay marriage". Gays can not marry. Marriage is a religious institution.

When me and my wife got married we entered into a civil union based on the states definition and a marriage before God. Let the gays have civil unions so they can share each others health insurance etc. Most states recognize couples living together as being financially linked.

But they will never be married. God does not approve and no matter how many chruches reject what the bible plainly says they can not be married.

Some churches marry gays ...we were married in a church over 20 years before CA legalized marriage for us...great having two anniversaries a year.

 

[bodecea]

Why does anyone want the state involved in marriage in the first place? Get the government out of marriage completely and problem solved.

Here's a poll for you:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ion-to-eliminate-civil-marriage-licenses.html


But it is curious that Tommy agrees with you and thanks you when in that very poll thread he said this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3820559-post7.html

When asked if the government should get out of marriage completely.

Maybe he's already forgotten what he thanked you for when he said "no" earlier today......that can happen.

 

[FauxNews]

I have never understood what the big deal was with "gay marriage". Gays can not marry. Marriage is a religious institution.

When me and my wife got married we entered into a civil union based on the states definition and a marriage before God. Let the gays have civil unions so they can share each others health insurance etc. Most states recognize couples living together as being financially linked.

But they will never be married. God does not approve and no matter how many chruches reject what the bible plainly says they can not be married.

legally marriage is not religious.

 

[Intense]

I have never understood what the big deal was with "gay marriage". Gays can not marry. Marriage is a religious institution.

When me and my wife got married we entered into a civil union based on the states definition and a marriage before God. Let the gays have civil unions so they can share each others health insurance etc. Most states recognize couples living together as being financially linked.

But they will never be married. God does not approve and no matter how many chruches reject what the bible plainly says they can not be married.

legally marriage is not religious.

legally marriage is not religious.

Really now???

History of Marriage

The word marriage may be taken to denote the action, contract, formality, or ceremony by which the conjugal union is formed or the union itself as an enduring condition. In this article we deal for the most part with marriage as a condition, and with its moral and social aspects. It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The last two characters distinguish marriage, respectively, from concubinage and fornication. The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are permitted by the civil law; for in such relationships there are as many marriages as there are individuals of the numerically larger sex. Whether promiscuity, the condition in which all the men of a group maintain relations and live indiscriminately with all the women, can be properly called marriage, may well be doubted. In such a relation cohabitation and domestic life are devoid of that exclusiveness which is commonly associated with the idea of conjugal union.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: History of Marriage

Seems more that Laws are based on Belief, Reason, Experience. Legally, it would seem more that Marriage is First Religious, at least for those that are Religious, something that the State is not above. Seems also that when States try to corrupt the Natural Order they fall, one and all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But they will never be married. God does not approve and no matter how many chruches reject what the bible plainly says they can not be married.

Fortunately the Establishment Clause prevents you and your kind from codifying the above.

Very fortunately.

legally marriage is not religious.

Marriage can be both but is always a civil secular contract.

 

[Intense]

But they will never be married. God does not approve and no matter how many chruches reject what the bible plainly says they can not be married.

Fortunately the Establishment Clause prevents you and your kind from codifying the above.

Very fortunately.

legally marriage is not religious.

Marriage can be both but is always a civil secular contract.

...and Religiously survived and out lasted every known Civilization.

 

[bodecea]

But they will never be married. God does not approve and no matter how many chruches reject what the bible plainly says they can not be married.

Fortunately the Establishment Clause prevents you and your kind from codifying the above.

Very fortunately.

legally marriage is not religious.

Marriage can be both but is always a civil secular contract.

...and Religiously survived and out lasted every known Civilization.

So, the non-religious cannot get married?