I had no idea (caution gay thread)

[BigK]

It seems to me from all this arguing that we all actually agree that gays should not be barred any privileges that heteros get. That being said, we are only really arguing about what it's called.

If we agree that murder, stealing, lying, etc are NOT morals that only Christians believe in, then we should agree that the gov should get out of the marriage biz and quit recognizing the religious ceremony.

If everyone that believes the word "marriage" is sacred agree that gays should get all the rights they deserve, is it asking too much to not use a religious term to describe that union (even if that word has been watered down)?

[strickj]

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.

Oh, I see. If you don't accept the words of an accredited school, you'll just say that Christians started higher education.

the same education system you recently bad-mouthed because they teach blasphemy science

But let me try to explain this to you again. There are two parts (or two clauses).

The first clause is about state sponsored and/or mandated religion.

The second part, the Establishment Clause, is the part that you are ignoring.

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.

Bold XL emphasis for your viewing pleasure.

Now, which part is so hard to comprehend? The part about laws that favor one religion over others, or the part about laws that favor religion over non-religion?

[strickj]

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?

Yes, there is a big difference between those.

The government can recognize marriage all it want's.

The problem is that the government is favoring one religious belief over others by the legislation and restrictions that are currently in place.

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.

I have no idea is there is an increase in "gayness". Do you think that it might just be that we're just more accepting now then before?

People have been having premarital sex since the beginning. Says so right there in the bible. But a hundred years ago people were not willing to talk openly about it. Today they are. The amount of people having premarital sex hasn't changed, just the openness to it has changed.... therefore, we "see" it more.

Far as the "why now" comment;

Slavery went on for ~200 years (before this country was actually a country) before it was an issue, right? Even after it ended, there was still another couple hundred before black rights was an issue.

Similar for womens rights.

Similar for disabled rights.

[Oh Shoot]

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.

No preacher gets charged with a hate crime now if he refuses to marry a black/white couple. Or a rabbi refuses a Jewish/atheist couple. Etc.

Although I don't know exactly what law it is, but obviously states MUST marry folks who qualify by paying the license fee, getting blood test or whatever if that's still required anywhere. The same folks would simply have to marry same sex couples.

The gummit is NOT gonna take on any denomination to force it to marry anyone, just as it is now. Hell, the Obamacare contraception/abortion stink may well lose the Catholic vote for BHO. This flap has not been lost on pols, and it's a tempest in a teapot compared to same sex "marriage".

- OS

Edited September 6, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's actually a good answer for me to think about, whether or not it's the case, but it does answer our ability

to grasp topics when they become more open for discussion.

As far as the more "gayness", it does seem to be that a lot of folks are calling themselves gay, nowadays. No scientific

studies that I know of, but as I was reminded by my wife, not long ago, the loudest are not necessarily the largest in number.

It's almost like an explosion onto the scene with all the media coverage of gay groups and related news. Any time the media

is involved so heavily in something I become suspicious. That's just me.

You could very well be right about the openness thing. Fair enough? It still doesn't change my view on their attaining

marriage status. Civil unions are acceptable, but leave the church out of it.

[Smith]

Oh, I see. If you don't accept the words of an accredited school, you'll just say that Christians started higher education.

the same education system you recently bad-mouthed because they teach blasphemy science

But let me try to explain this to you again. There are two parts (or two clauses).

The first clause is about state sponsored and/or mandated religion.

The second part, the Establishment Clause, is the part that you are ignoring.

Bold XL emphasis for your viewing pleasure.

Now, which part is so hard to comprehend? The part about laws that favor one religion over others, or the part about laws that favor religion over non-religion?

Strick, we're going in circles. I don't know about you but I've got degree's in Philosophy, History, and finishing masters work in Theology from two different accredited universities and will be starting my doctorate work shortly. I've got plenty of "time" on many aspects of this subject from many different angles. And no I didn't just go to private Bible colleges. Just because I don't embrace all aspects of secular education doesn't mean that I throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm critical and do not apologize for that.

BTW - If you accept all opines from accredited schools I guarantee you will be agreeing with me shortly.

I've made my points and answered questions ad nauseam. Agree to disagree I'm still going to take you up on those family portraits one of these days!

Edited September 6, 2012 by Smith

[Mike.357]

Civil unions are acceptable, but leave the church out of it.

No one will need to force a pastor to perform a gay union. There will be Christian churchs and other pastors that will happily do it.

You are gonna need a law preventing it from being called marriage.

[strickj]

Smith:

Still do not believe liberal law schools about the Establishment Clause and what it means? See the case of Loving vs. Virgina.

The SCOTUS ruled that any law restricting interracial couples from marrying is unconstitutional the Establishment Clause. That was the first case that went to SCOTUS and it lad to all states removing those laws fro their books.

Replace race with sex and it applies here.

You can also see the hundreds of court cases regarding prayer led by government officials and school leaders/teachers. Establishment Clause in action again.

Tell me again that's it's about the feds sponsoring and mandating a religion. There is a couple hundred years of documents that say differently.

But let me follow up with a question, since you feel it's perfectly acceptable to legislate your traditions.

Would you be ok with a law that outlaws the eating of porkl? Or how about one that forces women to cover their faces and hair?

Or how about one that would put people to death for disrespecting a bible?

I await your answer.

[Oh Shoot]

....You are gonna need a law preventing it from being called marriage.

Why? The piece of paper that says Marriage License on it is already issued by the state, not a religious entity.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, already has no religious significance.

- OS

[Mike.357]

Why? The piece of paper that says Marriage License on it is already issued by the state, not a religious entity.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, already has no religious significance.

- OS

What I meant was that the big issue seems to be simply calling a gay union a marriage, not the fact there will be legal gay unions one day.

[Oh Shoot]

What I meant was that the big issue seems to be simply calling a gay union a marriage, not the fact there will be legal gay unions one day.

Religious bodies will just have to get over the word. It has no religious lexical connotation in English. You're just as married whether by justice of the peace or bishop -- as long as you have paid for the official state document.

Churches can add "holy" or something to it if they like for "their" marriages.

- OS

Edited September 6, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No one will need to force a pastor to perform a gay union. There will be Christian churchs and other pastors that will happily do it.

You are gonna need a law preventing it from being called marriage.

You might find a few here and there that will bend to PC attitudes. I don't doubt anything nowadays. Call it what you wish.

You da man!

[TripleDigitRide]

Your marriage is gay. Your religion is gay. So there.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not really sure how to take that. I'll have to ask my wife, and a priest.

[Guest ThePunisher]

If only everyone was as passionate about getting rid of the commie as they are about same sex marriage.....

[Chucktshoes]

If only everyone was as passionate about getting rid of the commie as they are about same sex marriage.....

Some of us are. We just won't vote for someone whom we view as essentially more of the same according to their record. Remember, Romney actually signed an Assault Weapons Ban into law in MA, or is it convenient to forget that little fact?

Also, let's take a look at the facts of the TN electorate. Other than Shelby,Davidson and maybe Knox counties, the rest of the state is going as red as it gets. Therefore, my voting my conscience by casting my vote for Gary Johnson (who has the record as in New Mexico you wish Romney had in MA) changes nothing in the short term. What it does do is possibly help the Libertarian Party get a little bit closer to being a viable 3rd party.

[Oh Shoot]

... What it does do is possibly help the Libertarian Party get a little bit closer to being a viable 3rd party.

Nah. Bout the same half percent or less as always I'd say.

If it should get a whole 1% as in 1980, I'd be impressed. Really.

- OS

Edited September 6, 2012 by OhShoot

[jtmaze]

The one that matters for inheritance, survivor benefits, insurance matters, tax purposes, etc beau coup, is granted by the state.

- OS

This is what this is about. I work for a company who recognizes "domestic partners" for insurance and other benefits. I have not done the research but I am willing to bet that the biggest lobby against gay marriage is the insurance companies just due to the fact that corporate policies will have to cover gay couples on there family plans for medical purposes. That is a the way big business sees it.

JTM

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

This is what this is about. I work for a company who recognizes "domestic partners" for insurance and other benefits. I have not done the research but I am willing to bet that the biggest lobby against gay marriage is the insurance companies just due to the fact that corporate policies will have to cover gay couples on there family plans for medical purposes. That is a the way big business sees it.

JTM

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I dunno, I just don't see it affecting their margins enough to care.... at least not enough to stick their necks out about it and risk the potential fall out related to being on the wrong side of the issue (according to liberal media). Besides, there are plenty of religious groups keeping up that fight.

Unless, of course, folks are right about society indoctrinating our children to be gay, then the entire next generation will be gay and will make up the majority of couples wanting benefits. That presupposes that folks would have to choose to ignore primal instincts which tell them that Robin Meade is hot and voluntarily take a penis up their rectum, but I guess it's possible in bizarro world. I honestly didn't know what "gay" was when I was 11, but that was the age that I saw my first Playboy and I knew exactly what I wanted to do. Can't say I would have had those same thoughts if it was a grown man's ass.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, if they're indoctrinating our kids to be anti-capitalists and dependent on the government, who knows

what else they will work on? Global warming gets a bit of air play.

TMF, I didn't know, also, at that age, and Robin Meade is hot. I'd just as soon see bizarro world stay away.

[Chucktshoes]

We all agree that Robin Meade is hot.

I think that this is a good place to end this thread. Quick! Someone lock before somebody else chimes in with a "meh."

[daddyo]

Meh.

[TripleDigitRide]

HOW 'BOUT THEM COWBOYS

[45guy]

Help me please, if as some say being gay is normal for them or they were born that way then what about all the ex gays that are no longer living the gay lifestyle and are now living the hetro lifestyle. Did they change, we're they living a lie, are they still gay and living a lie now? There are organizations out there that have helped thousands of people leave the gay lifestyle. How can this be?

Edited September 6, 2012 by 45guy

[Guest bkelm18]

Help me please, if as some say being gay is normal for them or they were born that way then what about all the ex gays that are no longer living the gay lifestyle and are now living the hetro lifestyle. Did they change, we're they living a lie, are they still gay and living a lie now? There are organizations out there that have helped thousands of people leave the gay lifestyle. How can this be?

Jesus happened. He sprinkled his magic Jesus dust on them and they stopped being heathens. True story.