Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Care to point to a single verse in the Bible that outlines what a marriage is or isn't?
God didn't say, get hitched in front of the preacher then go out and have some young'n.
Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the
image of God he created him; male and female he created
them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and
increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the
fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living
creature that moves on the ground.”
In fact gawd makes the whole "marriage" thing sound more like an employment issue.
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be
alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 19 Now the LORD
God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all
the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he
would name them; and whatever the man called each living
creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the
livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for
Adam no suitable helper was found.
Who cares what the Bible says? It has no bearing on civil marriage law.
Not at all. It's right because it correctly reflects the application of equal protection as to gender discrimination. That it is correct is the reason it is popular, not the other way around.
That's how stare decisis works.
Quote:
I honestly have not been shown that a reasonable argument has been made. You have yet to tell me how someone's rights are being denied.
Yes you have, and yes we have.
Again, cognitive dissonance. We will never convince or persuade you, not because we are wrong and you are right, but because you are not psychologically capable of accepting the argument in the first place. Hence the Nietzsche quote.
This case is a perfect example: bankruptcy laws were being applied differently on a basis that was clearly a violation of equal protection. The government tried to deny two legally married MEN a joint bankruptcy filing because they were BOTH MEN. That's gender discrimination.
Who cares what the Bible says? It has no bearing on civil marriage law.
Our society's legal system is largely based on judeo-Christian values. A good portion of our country also considers themselves to be Christian. how could it not be relevant?
Not at all. It's right because it correctly reflects the application of equal protection as to gender discrimination. That it is correct is the reason it is popular, not the other way around.
That's how stare decisis works.
Yes you have, and yes we have.
Again, cognitive dissonance. We will never convince or persuade you, not because we are wrong and you are right, but because you are not psychologically capable of accepting the argument in the first place. Hence the Nietzsche quote.
This case is a perfect example: bankruptcy laws were being applied differently on a basis that was clearly a violation of equal protection. The government tried to deny two legally married MEN a joint bankruptcy filing because they were BOTH MEN. That's gender discrimination.
Now let's do this right for a change: you read the decision linked above and tell us where the judge got it wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
Not at all. It's right because it correctly reflects the application of equal protection as to gender discrimination. That it is correct is the reason it is popular, not the other way around.
That's how stare decisis works.
Yes you have, and yes we have.
Again, cognitive dissonance. We will never convince or persuade you, not because we are wrong and you are right, but because you are not psychologically capable of accepting the argument in the first place. Hence the Nietzsche quote.
This case is a perfect example: bankruptcy laws were being applied differently on a basis that was clearly a violation of equal protection. The government tried to deny two legally married MEN a joint bankruptcy filing because they were BOTH MEN. That's gender discrimination.
Our society's legal system is largely based on judeo-Christian values. A good portion of our country also considers themselves to be Christian. how could it not be relevant?
Our society's legal system is based on the Constitution.
I honestly don't care that much. I'd like to hear it in your own words.
I agree with every single thing the judge said.
I figured you would not "care" to read the actual court opinion.
//cop out
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
This case is a perfect example: bankruptcy laws were being applied differently on a basis that was clearly a violation of equal protection. The government tried to deny two legally married MEN a joint bankruptcy filing because they were BOTH MEN. That's gender discrimination.
Our society's legal system is largely based on judeo-Christian values. A good portion of our country also considers themselves to be Christian. how could it not be relevant?
Because the First Amendment renders it irrelevant.
Been done for quite some time in our country's past without requiring government involvement. Courts can tell if there's a marriage because the church in question has a document.
You may be overlooking the fact that courts are part of the government.
Others responded with multiple alternatives for state controlled marriages.
I'm not worried. The government doesn't control my marriage, and I don't know anyone whose marriage is state controlled.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.