I had no idea (caution gay thread)

[TMF]

It's called change. It has been going on since the beginning of time and will go on long after you and I are dust.

[daddyo]

I can't tell you how much I despise change just for the sake of change.

[mav]

It's called change. It has been going on since the beginning of time and will go on long after you and I are dust.

Wow, how profound. I guess I need to just jump onboard the Obama bandwagon since he represents hope and "change." There is really no reason for me to resist "change" since it has been going on since the begining of time and will go on long after I am dead.

[daddyo]

After he won the 2008 election, Barry declared "Change has come to America". I guess we just need to embrace it whether we like it or not.

Those old silly traditions are outdated anyway, just like the Constitution.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Wow, how profound. I guess I need to just jump onboard the Obama bandwagon since he represents hope and "change." There is really no reason for me to resist "change" since it has been going on since the begining of time and will go on long after I am dead.

Yeah, if you embrace the commie's hope and "change", you will get a tingling up your leg.

[Guest ThePunisher]

After he won the 2008 election, Barry declared "Change has come to America". I guess we just need to embrace it whether we like it or not.

Those old silly traditions are outdated anyway, just like the Constitution.

Those old traditions might make you seem like an old fogy just like those old dumb founding fathers that wrote that worthless piece of paper.

[TMF]

Wow, how profound. I guess I need to just jump onboard the Obama bandwagon since he represents hope and "change." There is really no reason for me to resist "change" since it has been going on since the begining of time and will go on long after I am dead.

Blah blah blah... How does the pointing out of someone's inability to grasp the natural evolution of traditions and societal norms suddenly put me in a category if endorsing Obama? Because I used the word "change"? Is that an off limits word worthy of eliciting a response regarding a presidential campaign from four years ago? God help me if I ever use the word "forward" in a sentence. Geez.

[strickj]

Those old traditions might make you seem like an old fogy just like those old dumb founding fathers that wrote that worthless piece of paper.

...that you seem to be ignoring.

the first thing within it says that I do not have to believe in your bible, your religion, your church or your God. So why do you feel I should have to believe in your religious traditions?

Next we'll be legislating turkey carving traditions.

[Smith]

...that you seem to be ignoring.

the first thing within it says that I do not have to believe in your bible, your religion, your church or your God. So why do you feel I should have to believe in your religious traditions?

Next we'll be legislating turkey carving traditions.

Strick, as has been covered before - Marriage has been a religious tradition between a man and a women in almost every culture since the beginning of recorded history irregardless of the religious context it was tied to. This is not just about the Christians Biblical tradition. It is one of the few and rare traditions, understandings, and truth's that have transcended culture and time.

To be so arrogant as to throw all that out for an experiment of a few that holds no evident benefit for the vast majority of humanity is neither logical, wise, or beneficial.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Smith

[Oh Shoot]

Government mandated marriage would mean dictating to the Church mandates that would carry with it penalty of law if not adhered to.

That's quite a stretch. Churches are not required to marry anyone now by law.

Certain government offices are, like county clerk -- don't know if there's a federal law about it at all, maybe handled state by state law? But none require any minister in any church to marry anyone.

Why should it change from whoever is legally tasked with doing it now?

- OS

[TMF]

Strick, as has been covered before - Marriage has been a religious tradition between a man and a women in almost every culture since the beginning of recorded history irregardless of the religious context it was tied to. This is not just about the Christians Biblical tradition. It is one of the few and rare traditions, understandings, and truth's that have transcended culture and time.

To be so arrogant as to throw all that out for an experiment of a few that holds no evident benefit for the vast majority of humanity is neither logical, wise, or beneficial.

So what? That argument is the embodiment of "wet monkey theory".

Edited September 5, 2012 by TMF

[strickj]

Strick, as has been covered before - Marriage has been a religious tradition between a man and a women in almost every culture since the beginning of recorded history irregardless of the religious context it was tied to. This is not just about the Christians Biblical tradition. It is one of the few and rare traditions, understandings, and truth's that have transcended culture and time.

To be so arrogant as to throw all that out for an experiment of a few that holds no evident benefit for the vast majority of humanity is neither logical, wise, or beneficial.

Exactly. A religious tradition.

I'll ask again. Why do you feel the need to legislate your religious traditions?

And it has absolutely nothing to do with throwing it out for an experiment. It has everything to do with upholding a document that obviously means nothing to you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[Smith]

That's quite a stretch. Churches are not required to marry anyone now by law.

Certain government offices are, like county clerk -- don't know if there's a federal law about it at all, maybe handled state by state law? But none require any minister in any church to marry anyone.

Why should it change from whoever is legally tasked with doing it now?

- OS

Not so much. You are correct in that I can not be forced to marry under the current structure, but we are talking about creating a "law" or legislation that creates special privileges and benefits to a minority class. By definition legislation carries with it the force of law. It would be protected and prosecuted as a "Hate Crime" not as a marriage law issue per se.

So what? That argument is the embodiment of "wet monkey theory".

Good argument. If I had used it in a scientific study, it would be called fact, but then again you like "change".

[Smith]

Exactly. A religious tradition.

I'll ask again. Why do you feel the need to legislate your religious traditions?

And it has absolutely nothing to do with throwing it out for an experiment. It has everything to do with upholding a document that obviously means nothing to you.

Strick, I don't want to legislate my religious tradition. I want the government not to legislate a minority belief that would affect ALL religious traditions thus establishing the very thing you keep quoting - a government ESTABLISHED religious tradition that encompasses only one minority view.

BTW - there is little debate that what you keep quoting is clearly refereing to a state mandated religion, not the exercise of religion within the statr.

[TMF]

Good argument. If I had used it in a scientific study, it would be called fact, but then again you like "change".

No, I hate change just as much as the next guy. I wish I could turn on the radio and not hate everything I hear or go to the store without seeing every chick dressed like she's working the corner, or actually hear folks say "please" and "thank you". Yes, I generally hate change because I'm not into it and it makes me feel old. What I "like" is freedom... for all, even if it is inconvenient for me. I want freedom for you as well as freedom from you. Everyone is entitled to no more or less.

[RobertNashville]

Strick, I don't want to legislate my religious tradition. I want the government not to legislate a minority belief that would affect ALL religious traditions thus establishing the very thing you keep quoting - a government ESTABLISHED religious tradition that encompasses only one minority view.

BTW - there is little debate that what you keep quoting is clearly refereing to a state mandated religion, not the exercise of religion within the statr.

very well said!

[Smith]

No, I hate change just as much as the next guy. I wish I could turn on the radio and not hate everything I hear or go to the store without seeing every chick dressed like she's working the corner, or actually hear folks say "please" and "thank you". Yes, I generally hate change because I'm not into it and it makes me feel old. What I "like" is freedom... for all, even if it is inconvenient for me. I want freedom for you as well as freedom from you. Everyone is entitled to no more or less.

I agree with everything you said. However, freedom is not anarchy and no man is an island. Truth is what sets us free from the arrogance of our own selfish minds. We are all subjugated to something. I would rather put my trust in a God who loves me and obey His law of freedom than subjugate myself to my own thoughts and ideology. Kinda like when my 9 yr old insist she knows more than me and what is best for her.

[strickj]

Strick, I don't want to legislate my religious tradition. I want the government not to legislate a minority belief that would affect ALL religious traditions thus establishing the very thing you keep quoting - a government ESTABLISHED religious tradition that encompasses only one minority view.

BTW - there is little debate that what you keep quoting is clearly refereing to a state mandated religion, not the exercise of religion within the statr.

WTF are you talking about?

Your religious tradition is law now. How does removing your religious tradition from law affect your tradition?

And I posted this earlier. You ignored it.

Actual text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

What each "clause" means:

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.†This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

http://www.law.corne...lishment_clause

Bold emphasis is the part that you are ignoring.

You will find the same explanation from every legal expert, accredited school and in case law. You will only find your excuse within religious institutions.

Edited September 5, 2012 by strickj

[mav]

Blah blah blah... How does the pointing out of someone's inability to grasp the natural evolution of traditions and societal norms suddenly put me in a category if endorsing Obama? Because I used the word "change"? Is that an off limits word worthy of eliciting a response regarding a presidential campaign from four years ago? God help me if I ever use the word "forward" in a sentence. Geez.

Oh my, natural evolution of traditions and societal norms, I am just outmatched here.

First off, who stated or even implied you were endorsing Obama? I certainly didn't. I made a point in my post regarding the preservation of marriage from a traditional standpoint. As I stated, I am not looking at this concept through a religious prism; I view it entirely secular. The reason I do so is because, as so many have pointed out, marriage, in a religious sense, has become incredibly diluted (at least in this country). However, that does not mean that it has lost it's traditional significance, which I believe should be preserved.

In response to my post, you made an overly simplified statement regarding change, which implied (even as you stated later) that I was unable to grasp changes within the fabric of society. It could also be implied from your post, that it is futile to resist change because as you stated change is always occuring and always will. Therefore, in response to your post I pointed out how simplistic that statement was and could easily be used in similar circumstances to reflect less than desirable results, i.e. accepting Obama policies because changes have occured in "societal traditions and norms."

In regards to marriage maybe I am blind, but I don't see a natural evolution occuring or having occured. The underlying fundamentals have pretty much remained unchanged long before I was born, and will be long after I am gone.

Anyway, I am out of the debate. This topic comes up about every 2 months or so, and neither side ever convinces the other they are correct. Have fun.

[Smith]

WTF are you talking about?

Your religious tradition is law now. How does removing your religious tradition from law affect your tradition?

And I posted this earlier. You ignored it.

Actual text:

What each "clause" means:

http://www.law.corne...lishment_clause

Bold emphasis is the part that you are ignoring.

You will find the same explanation from every legal expert, accredited school and in case law. You will only find your excuse within religious institutions.

Strick, I've ignored nothing. I've answered all these a million times and you won't look past the tree you're stuck in to see the forest. What they are talking about is an established State sponsored and mandated religion, ie Anglican Church, thus the preference language in the explanation you keep posting.

But I'll make it simple: if all recorded history and tradition has it that 1+1=2, is suddenly legislated to the new 1+2=2 then yes you have fundamentally forced me to change how I do the equation.

BTW - it was religious institutions that started higher education as we know it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So you're against calling it marriage - that's fine, I understand that.

Are you against their having a 'civil union' that offers equal benefits under the law?

I already said I accepted that.

[G27]

I already said I accepted that.

Sorry, must've missed that. Good to know.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If the government camel got its nose out from under the tent and recognized a civil union for the benefit of

inheritance, legal rights concerning financial arrangements and life or death issues, a gay could have his or

her cake, then, with another of the same, but it isn't what I would ever call a marriage because I don't believe

it passes muster for reasons I previously stated.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

WTF are you talking about?

Your religious tradition is law now. How does removing your religious tradition from law affect your tradition?

And I posted this earlier. You ignored it.

Actual text:

What each "clause" means:

http://www.law.corne...lishment_clause

Bold emphasis is the part that you are ignoring.

You will find the same explanation from every legal expert, accredited school and in case law. You will only find your excuse within religious institutions.

The establishment of a law concerning marriage doesn't necessarily cause an establishment of a religion, state, federal or otherwise. It is merely recognizing marriage, and licensing it. Not that I think the government should have anything to do with marriage, I don't, but that happened a long time ago and stands the test of time. There has most likely never been a law to allow homosexuals to get married in any government, as far as I know, and I don't understand why it, all of a sudden, seems to be the popular thing for people to get so riled up about.

Recognizing marriage is a lot different from establishing a state religion, isn't it?

The bigger question I have is why are there so many people proposing their gayness, all of a sudden, when not so long ago it was considered to be so rare of an occurence? If one is born gay, there seems to be a bumper crop of the gay gene proliferating in a very short period of time. Also, I wonder how the definition of being gay changed from being a mental illness to something else, seemingly overnight?

Could there be some political component we all seem to not be cluing in on? I think, yes.

At the very least, political correctness.

Edited September 5, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Garufa]

I don't recall it being an issue at all until Dubya started pressing the matter. Rather conveniently I might add when his war in Iraq was not going all that well. Now it's the Republican party mantra.

If I'm wrong please let me know as I really not do remember the "gay marriage" thing being so divisive on the national level before that.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Garufa