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.
The whole concept that Civil and Religious Marriage are not the same, continues to be missed.
I think the reason for this is because both often occur at the same time and many people are unaware that they are not just taking part in a religious ceremony, they are also being licensed for certain benefits under state law.
There is a similar issue for us Muslims in a few states that have outlawed all Sharia Law. In those states our Nikkah (Marriage Contract) is not recognized as a valid marriage, even if we have a valid Marriage License. We can not get a Marriage certificate in those States.
Get a lawyer to draw up a contract between 2 individuals.
Considering the failure rate of "marriage", it almost seems that this would be a better way to go from a civil/legal standpoint. As it is now...it's just a windfall for divorce attorneys, and a "make-work" set-up for the government personnel.
Leave "marriage" as a religious/sacred/spiritual thing...that has no legal effect. Get the government out of it.
From a legal standpoint...just file civil unions...that spell out everything.
General estate/probate/survivorship laws and other "spousal rights" under law probably don't conform exactly to ones wishes anyway. Create a document that is filed that customizes it so there is no questions about what each wants in all possible situations.
No one wouldn't be eligible. Let anyone "union" with anyone else (of age) they want.
If people want a religious ceremony like a "wedding", they could have that...but without it having any secular legal standing.
All I have to do is show that the laws discriminate, and that the state has no rational basis for denying me equal protections. That has been done in every SSM case easily.
I have repeatedly shown how every person has to live by the same laws regardless of sexuality. There is no discrimination. If you're unwilling to see that and continue with nonsensical statements like this, there isn't much we can do.
Quote:
Why are you afraid to answer my questions?
What questions that are relevant to this discussion have I avoided?
I know this is pointless. But I'll ask it again anyway. How is this any different than allowing interracial marriage? Using your logic, no one was being denied anything. Every single person had the same rights to marry someone of the same race. So no one was being discriminated against.
Your side really needs to make the case that sexual choices/preferences = skin color. I haven't seen that case made yet. Until you can make that case, there is no basis for comparison.
Your side really needs to make the case that sexual choices/preferences = skin color. I haven't seen that case made yet. Until you can make that case, there is no basis for comparison.
You haven't made the case that homosexuality is a "sexual choice/preference" so now we're back to comparing it with skin color. Yay!
You haven't made the case that homosexuality is a "sexual choice/preference" so now we're back to comparing it with skin color. Yay!
How do we identify gay people? Is there a hair color? A dimple on their chin? Feather boas or faaaaaaaaaaaaaabulous shoes? A lisp? How exactly do we identify such a person......other than the people they are intimate with?
We don't make laws based on how they will affect other people. It's completely irrelevant.
Most laws are made with respect to how it affects people. In fact, our entire Bill of Rights exists to prevent excesses by the government AND other people ... because how people act DOES in fact affect other people. That's what living in a society, a civilization, is all about. It means treading carefully and respectfully so our social contract doesn't collapse.
Thus a large portion of our laws exist to prevent Person A from affecting Person B ... and usually by "affect," the laws mean "doing harm."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
My arguments have been mostly non-religious on this thread. I really haven't quoted any Bible verses, or argued from a religious point of view. Why would you now be suggesting this nonsense?
Well, for starters, you admitted that you think homosexuality is immoral based ONLY on the fact that the Bible says it is. When I asked for a reason other than the Bible, you said "I don't need a better reason" and never actually answered my question.
Which means, of course, that the ROOT of this nonsense is religion. It is the casus belli of your entire thought stream on this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
The loving nature of your comments just makes me want to run up and hug an atheist!
Especially if that atheist is gay. YUCK! EWWW! ICKY! You might actually "catch" homosexuality! God might decide to burn you forever because you let a gay person touch you!
How do we identify gay people? Is there a hair color? A dimple on their chin? Feather boas or faaaaaaaaaaaaaabulous shoes? A lisp? How exactly do we identify such a person......other than the people they are intimate with?
It's not the same as skin color.
How do we identify a Christian? Do they have a cross tatooed on their foreheads? Do they wear a uniform? Or is it hair color, a dimple, or maybe death head symbols on black caps and swastikas? Yeah, you deserved the Nazi reference for your childish and ignorant "faaaaaaaabulous shoes" remark.
So how DO you identify a Christian? Because religion is a protected status just like skin color is. So tell me how to identify a Christian without having to ask him?
Go on, please, let me know how!
Do you even think about your arguments before posting them? It just sounds like to me that you have some "Pastor Database" where you go to get all of your prefabricated objections to gay marriage. Not very much thought is going into your posts given how obviously incorrect they are.
Your side really needs to make the case that sexual choices/preferences = skin color. I haven't seen that case made yet. Until you can make that case, there is no basis for comparison.
So what you are saying is your "logic" is completely flawed and you have no answer. This has nothing to do with equating sexual preference to skin color.
Your "logic" as you have posted is that no one is being denied anything since everyone has the same rights (to marry someone of the opposite sex). This is exactly the same in the example you seem to have no answer for.
Let's use another example that has been brought up though and see how you fare with that. What if every person was only allowed to practice the same religion or none at all? And let's say the one being chosen is not yours. Again using your logic, this is completely fair. Every single person has the same right to practice that religion. No one is being treated any differently than anyone else. No discrimination.
EDIT: Sorry Shirina, you beat me to it.
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.
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.
