Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 16:40:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 9:04:32 GMT -5
You really want people to be able to use religious reasons to exempt themselves from law?
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 30, 2015 9:10:34 GMT -5
I used to like Bill Maher (the guy behind Religulous) but I now see him as one of those atheists that is just as bad as the far right Christians. He isn't speaking out against radical extremists, he is just ridiculing average people.
I don't get people of faith, in the sense that I literally can't understand how they have it. My brain just can't make that leap, to believe in something so..unprovable..seems highly illogical. That doesn't make them bad people, and that doesn't make them stupid.
Regarding that exchange from the movie (I have never seen it) I assume it was used partly to illustrate the lack of biblical knowledge, and how it is hypocritical for them to claim to be "against" one thing, while being unaware of all the other things they "should" be against if they actually read the text. It is an argument you see a LOT of in any comment section discussing gay marriage.
Person A: Well the bible says that gay marriage is wrong in xxxx verse Person B: Oh well what about all these other things that the bible says are wrong but you are fine with.
On the one hand I get it. They are trying to "prove" that gay marriage is wrong; it even says so in this book! The problem with that is that they are cherry picking verses to condemn things they don't like, all the while ignoring the things they are okay with. I don't necessarily agree with the tactic, but when try to offer "proof", its not exactly shocking that those being attacked are going to counter in kind. I think it is a mistake to think you can convince a person on a matter of faith, with logic and facts. Faith doesn't seem to work that way.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 30, 2015 9:19:15 GMT -5
I view it that it doesn't affect my life, one way or the other. My very unhappily married friend thinks gays have a right to be as miserable as he is. Sigh.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 30, 2015 9:36:20 GMT -5
That will be the first step in the war against religion, the removal of tax exempt status from churches.
step two will be the challenging of churches renting public venues for church meetings and events.
Step three will be fines and possible jail time for refusing to perform same sex weddings.
all because we can't violate "civil rights."
a perfect illustration of how closely related ignorance and fear are. /\ edit: i am POSITIVE that this won't blow up into a religious freedom issue, unless the religious community effectively boycotts gays from marrying, somehow (which i don't see happening. in states that have ruled in favor of gay marriage, gays seem perfectly happy getting married under ANY circumstances, and having it recognized by the state). To ensure that, I took some legal actions that ensured I could officiate a marriage in Tennessee and the surrounding states. So far, at least in my city and county, there are more ministers ready to marry same sex couples than there are same sex couples seeking marriage licenses and ready to marry on the spot. I have not had the opportunity to offer my services at this time. But time will tell.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 30, 2015 9:53:23 GMT -5
But I'm not in favor of cats and dogs marrying ever and no legislation is going to change my mind.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 30, 2015 10:04:11 GMT -5
But I'm not in favor of cats and dogs marrying ever and no legislation is going to change my mind. But...but... And will their offspring be dats or cogs?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 30, 2015 10:07:56 GMT -5
Why am I not surprised that there's a picture like that!!!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 30, 2015 10:08:22 GMT -5
Mixed marriages-not pretty.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 30, 2015 10:09:17 GMT -5
Cat's tail strategically placed btw
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 16:40:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 10:19:27 GMT -5
So, I've been seeing some people IRL argue that 1) the state shouldnt be able to change the definition of marriage 2) marriage is religious institution not government 3) their should be civil unions and for government and then marriage...
But ultimately, if they were separate, gay people would have been getting married a long time ago...if marriage is separate from government all you have to do is convince someone with the capacity to marry that you should be able to marry. It has only been by dint of the state that the religious have been able to deny gay people the right thus far...
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 30, 2015 10:27:22 GMT -5
So, I've been seeing some people IRL argue that 1) the state shouldnt be able to change the definition of marriage 2) marriage is religious institution not government 3) their should be civil unions and for government and then marriage... But ultimately, if they were separate, gay people would have been getting married a long time ago...if marriage is separate from government all you have to do is convince someone with the capacity to marry that you should be able to marry. It has only been by dint of the state that the religious have been able to deny gay people the right thus far... Some religious Christian ministers and Jewish rabbis have been officiating religious same sex marriages for some time now. Christian ministers even performed same sex marriages here the other day when it became legal in Tennessee. Of course some would say the branch of Christian or Hebrew religion these religious leaders who are performing same sex marriages is not really Christian or Jewish. Do we now start qualifying who is a really Christian and Jewish enough and who isn't when it comes to religious ministers?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 30, 2015 10:27:58 GMT -5
I do agree that marriages should be civil unions. If you want a religious ceremony as well, fine. I got married civilly. I still want a religious ceremony. But that's me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 16:40:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 10:31:37 GMT -5
That's what I'm saying. If the government had no part in marriage, gays would have been married a long time ago...
And now that came out in my head to the cottoneeyed joe song, damn, gays been a married a long time ago is going to be going through my head all day.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 16:40:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 10:34:30 GMT -5
You saying about getting ordained made me think of it Tenn... Don't know why I didn't before. Separating them would not have stopped gay marriage, just expedited it...
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Jun 30, 2015 10:38:31 GMT -5
1. languages and word usage changes all the time. Justice Ginsburg apparently did a wonderful job of tracing the linguistic meanings of legislature from the Founding Fathers on, in the Arizona redistricting case. And in poking around Google, we (i.e. Western Civilization) have apparently been playing with the definition of marriage since 1922 In The History of Human Marriage (1922), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[9] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law".[10] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage2. if that's what they want to work for, fine. Go ahead and try (I expect them to fail but if it keeps them out of trouble...) But that leads into 3. Which means all gov't entities must recognize and permit those unions (whatever they want to call them.) Which is pretty much what the Court ruled. So why are they arguing this? They've just argued themselves into agreeing with the decision and being against Texas and anyone else trying to avoid marrying gays. edited to add Oped's quote as there's a few responses inbetween.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 30, 2015 10:38:43 GMT -5
I do agree that marriages should be civil unions. If you want a religious ceremony as well, fine. I got married civilly. I still want a religious ceremony. But that's me. But if a same sex couple want a religious ceremony and a Christian minister or Jewish rabbi agrees to and performs it in their sanctuary, should the same sex couple be allowed to call their union marriage? After all, it was performed by minister or Rabbi. To me that is where the folks who are not okay with same sex marriage but okay with calling a same sex couple's union a civil union get into problem with semantics. If a marriage can only be called a marriage if it is a religious ceremony, and some Christian churches and synagogues perform religious same sex unions, then the same sex couple's union should be designated a marriage as defined by those who wish to separate marriage from civil unions. Or does it simply come down to what some people simply want: no marriages at all for same sex couples-just for straight couples. Period.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 30, 2015 10:41:54 GMT -5
fighting for the right to use the word "marriage" when half of those that get married end up undoing it seems superficially ridiculous to me.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 30, 2015 10:43:31 GMT -5
fighting for the right to use the word "marriage" when half of those that get married end up undoing it seems superficially ridiculous to me. words MEAN something
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 16:40:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 10:57:36 GMT -5
The thing is if its really just a religious thing... then anyone can use the word however they like... one thing the state absolutely can not do is regulate religion. How could they have ever denied them the right to use the word marriage if the word marriage had no legal/non religious definition?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 30, 2015 12:23:10 GMT -5
fighting for the right to use the word "marriage" when half of those that get married end up undoing it seems superficially ridiculous to me. words MEAN something yes. in the case of marriage, it MEANS to bring two together to make one. thus the need for the term "gay" in front of it.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 30, 2015 12:26:26 GMT -5
I do agree that marriages should be civil unions. If you want a religious ceremony as well, fine. I got married civilly. I still want a religious ceremony. But that's me. But if a same sex couple want a religious ceremony and a Christian minister or Jewish rabbi agrees to and performs it in their sanctuary, should the same sex couple be allowed to call their union marriage? After all, it was performed by minister or Rabbi. To me that is where the folks who are not okay with same sex marriage but okay with calling a same sex couple's union a civil union get into problem with semantics. If a marriage can only be called a marriage if it is a religious ceremony, and some Christian churches and synagogues perform religious same sex unions, then the same sex couple's union should be designated a marriage as defined by those who wish to separate marriage from civil unions. Or does it simply come down to what some people simply want: no marriages at all for same sex couples-just for straight couples. Period. It's actually financially stupid for people to marry. Regardless of sex/gender.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 30, 2015 12:28:57 GMT -5
But if a same sex couple want a religious ceremony and a Christian minister or Jewish rabbi agrees to and performs it in their sanctuary, should the same sex couple be allowed to call their union marriage? After all, it was performed by minister or Rabbi. To me that is where the folks who are not okay with same sex marriage but okay with calling a same sex couple's union a civil union get into problem with semantics. If a marriage can only be called a marriage if it is a religious ceremony, and some Christian churches and synagogues perform religious same sex unions, then the same sex couple's union should be designated a marriage as defined by those who wish to separate marriage from civil unions. Or does it simply come down to what some people simply want: no marriages at all for same sex couples-just for straight couples. Period. It's actually financially stupid for people to marry. Regardless of sex/gender. It is more financially stupid to get divorced.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jun 30, 2015 12:30:08 GMT -5
Some church apparently had on their billboard on the front lawn something that said: " we are sorry for the fact that same sex marriage offends the sanctity of your fourth marriage". I think is pretty funny especially coming from an evangelical church.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 30, 2015 12:43:29 GMT -5
That will be the first step in the war against religion, the removal of tax exempt status from churches.
step two will be the challenging of churches renting public venues for church meetings and events.
Step three will be fines and possible jail time for refusing to perform same sex weddings.
all because we can't violate "civil rights."
a perfect illustration of how closely related ignorance and fear are. /\ edit: i am POSITIVE that this won't blow up into a religious freedom issue, unless the religious community effectively boycotts gays from marrying, somehow (which i don't see happening. in states that have ruled in favor of gay marriage, gays seem perfectly happy getting married under ANY circumstances, and having it recognized by the state). Agreed. The First Amendment will protect churches from being forced to perform wedding ceremonies that run counter to their religious beliefs and rituals.
The Fourteenth Amendment was just deemed to protect same-sex couples from being denied their civil rights by churches.
Go back to your corners and get on with your lives, folks.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 30, 2015 12:46:45 GMT -5
The thing is if its really just a religious thing... then anyone can use the word however they like... one thing the state absolutely can not do is regulate religion. How could they have ever denied them the right to use the word marriage if the word marriage had no legal/non religious definition? What the state can control is their own use of language. They could cease issuing "marriage licenses" and only issue paperwork registering a contractual agreement between two people. If a couple wants a piece of paper that looks all official-like with the word "marriage" on it, they would need to get it from some other source.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 30, 2015 12:59:34 GMT -5
Here's the thing I don't understand with the whole church wedding thing: people have been taking out marriage licenses in this country for decades and have gotten married civilly without going anywhere near a church door. Churches have never tried to control those civil marriages. So what has changed? Yep, the same-sex aspect. That's the disingenuous part for me.
You want to control who marries in your church? Fine with me - go ahead! Deny whoever you want. That is your religious right - which I will defend. Just don't try to tell a civil, non-sectarian society that they have to live by your religious rules. Just don't tell same-sex couples they don't have a right to a civil marriage license (and all the civil benefits - read *Equal Rights* - that go with it).
I will always defend religious freedom - it's guaranteed by the First Amendment. But I vehemently disagree that "religious freedom" means that churches can impose religious beliefs as civil law. What we will be doing for the next several years (if not decades) is balancing the 1st and 14th Amendments.
It should be interesting.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 30, 2015 13:13:40 GMT -5
I forgot to copy the link, but Time had an interesting article regarding nonprofits and tax exemption. I think it was dated today, I know I saw it today.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jun 30, 2015 14:43:48 GMT -5
You want to control who marries in your church? Fine with me - go ahead! Deny whoever you want. That is your religious right - which I will defend. Just don't try to tell a civil, non-sectarian society that they have to live by your religious rules. Just don't tell same-sex couples they don't have a right to a civil marriage license (and all the civil benefits - read *Equal Rights* - that go with it).
I will always defend religious freedom - it's guaranteed by the First Amendment. But I vehemently disagree that "religious freedom" means that churches can impose religious beliefs as civil law. What we will be doing for the next several years (if not decades) is balancing the 1st and 14th Amendments.
It should be interesting. Aaa! But then we have elections where each and every single one of those that run is invariably asked: "are you a church going man/woman?" That is if the one that runs doesn't mention at some point that he/she attend a specific church. Just the simple implication of your religious beliefs raises expectations from those that are religious within the electorate. And ofcourse the assumption that you will have a "moral" stance on any issue is forever present. In short, if you declare that you are not a religious person and don't accept the idea of an almighty, overseeing power, you stand very little chance to be elected. As a result, most of those elected are or tend to be more religious. That doesn't mean that they don't lie, cheat, steal! [img]http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png[/img] It might mean the exact opposite. But that shows that despite our best efforts(or claims), the separation of church and state is theoretical and not a reality!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 30, 2015 15:46:25 GMT -5
You want to control who marries in your church? Fine with me - go ahead! Deny whoever you want. That is your religious right - which I will defend. Just don't try to tell a civil, non-sectarian society that they have to live by your religious rules. Just don't tell same-sex couples they don't have a right to a civil marriage license (and all the civil benefits - read *Equal Rights* - that go with it).
I will always defend religious freedom - it's guaranteed by the First Amendment. But I vehemently disagree that "religious freedom" means that churches can impose religious beliefs as civil law. What we will be doing for the next several years (if not decades) is balancing the 1st and 14th Amendments.
It should be interesting. Aaa! But then we have elections where each and every single one of those that run is invariably asked: "are you a church going man/woman?" That is if the one that runs doesn't mention at some point that he/she attend a specific church. Just the simple implication of your religious beliefs raises expectations from those that are religious within the electorate. And ofcourse the assumption that you will have a "moral" stance on any issue is forever present. In short, if you declare that you are not a religious person and don't accept the idea of an almighty, overseeing power, you stand very little chance to be elected.As a result, most of those elected are or tend to be more religious. That doesn't mean that they don't lie, cheat, steal! It might mean the exact opposite. But that shows that despite our best efforts(or claims), the separation of church and state is theoretical and not a reality! In many places, you stand a ZERO chance of getting elected. You can't even run for office
Despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1961, saying states may not maintain a “religious test” for holding public office, seven states still have laws on the books banning atheists and non-believers from serving.
According to the New York Times, people who do not believe in God are ineligible to hold office in Maryland, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. www.alternet.org/belief/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 16:40:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 15:55:02 GMT -5
But just because you believe in God doesn't mean you think same sex marriage should be illegal...
And that is just crazy Weltz...
|
|