- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,575
- Reaction score
- 6,767
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
None of what I said was opinion. And no, there's nothing better about light skin color.
And there is nothing worse about contraception either, so please provide the facts that contraceptives are evil. You just make stuff up and lie. Typical Con.
Marriage is a legal institution.
Except that contraception inhibits the natural end of sex.
Wrong, in the state I am in marriage can be performed and not be state recognized. You know nothing about marriage obviously.
And that does not make it evil. It makes it a different outcome. Anti-biotics inhibit the natural end of life, yet I doubt you think they are evil.
What many don't see is that in order for this lawsuit to succeed, you have to establish a Church's right to legally officiate a municipal contract. In other words, you have to join Church and State. Do you really want the Church in government, or do you want the wall of separation respected?
So, I'm against this lawsuit, and my opposition has nothing to do with gay rights.
Gay marriages are harmful to society.
Cars also are known to kill people, but the individual risk is so minimal that they should not be banned.
Gay marriage harms the moral fabric of society because it promotes sodomy.
Why don't you tell me exactly how you are harmed. I agree with you that gay marriage is not traditional, but I also recognize that it is none of my damn business, nor that of the government.
"Moral fabric" is not a measurable harm. It's a poorly-disguised slippery slope fallacy.
Sodomy is already legal, and marriage does not "promote" sodomy. Ask any married man: marriage and sex are not the same thing. In fact, marriage promotes monogamy, which actually reduces the harm caused by sexual activities.
I am not personally harmed, however society is harmed by the acceptance of immorality. And the government has the right to protect the common good.
It's not a fallacy.
A sanction of marriage is a sanction of sexual activity between the married couple. For same-sex couples, this necessarily means sodomy.
I am not personally harmed, however society is harmed by the acceptance of immorality. And the government has the right to protect the common good.
It's not a fallacy.
A sanction of marriage is a sanction of sexual activity between the married couple. For same-sex couples, this necessarily means sodomy.
You want to explain to me how society is harmed? I just don't see it. However, I do see someone in favor of the establishment of a religion here, which is unconstitutional. If one church is allowed to perform heterosexual wedding ceremonies, but another church that, based on their own religious beliefs, is not allowed to perform gay wedding ceremonies, then their first amendment freedom of religion has been violated. It's as simple as that.
And monagamous sex between two men causes what sort of harm, exactly?
UCC ministers are, in fact, ministers. Same as Lutherans or Baptists. The UCC isn't one of those "back of the Rolling Stone get ordained classified ad" deals. In fact one of the spiritual progenitors, and one of the churches that "United" into the UCC, was the Congregational Church of the Plymouth Pilgrims (you know, the Thanksgiving ones). The church that I've been a member of reflects this in it's name - Mayflower. (Though I think my wife got them in the divorce).
It damages societal mores by causing them to accept sodomy.
They do not have a religious right to officiate a legal marriage.
It damages social mores.
Still non-specific, unidentified "harm" to a concept rather than something substantive. This is why your side lost before the Supreme Court. "Societal mores" is not a person, place, or thing that can have some measurable harm caused to it. It's just a vague concept you base on your own personal opinion and wish to force upon the rest of society. Contrary to the core principles of the United States of America, I might add.It damages societal mores by causing them to accept sodomy.
It damages social mores
They do not have a religious right to officiate a legal marriage.
.
If a person presides over a marriage which is plainly invalid by law, they should be punished. UCC ministers (who aren't priests, BTW) are not above the law.
Government issued marriage licenses are more evidence of too much government in our private lives.
Government issued marriage licenses are more evidence of too much government in our private lives.
Yes they do. And you are promoting the establishment of a religion when you deny a recognized mainstream church from practicing their faith.
Still non-specific, unidentified "harm" to a concept rather than something substantive. This is why your side lost before the Supreme Court. "Societal mores" is not a person, place, or thing that can have some measurable harm caused to it. It's just a vague concept you base on your own personal opinion and wish to force upon the rest of society. Contrary to the core principles of the United States of America, I might add.
Same-sex marriage is legal in many states, and sodomy is legal in all of them. Are you telling me this has caused you to accept sodomy?
The marriage in question was not a legal marriage. It was just a private ceremony, which you think should be illegal despite the existence of the first amendment. Clearly, your perception of the first amendment means only the freedom to practice religion when it conforms to your idea of Christianity.
Government issued marriage licenses are more evidence of too much government in our private lives.
I agree with you on that. When our forefathers got married, they didn't get a license. They had a wedding ceremony, and they were married. Marriage licenses were invented in Medieval Europe as a way For the Church to extort money from people, but in the colonies which later became the United States, it began as a way to separate the races. Each state had their own rules, and most states did not grant licenses to a couple, one of whom was white, and the other not.
Beyond that, I would argue that marriage is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and the government has no business regulating it.
I'm not sure about that. Someone will have to explain why the penalty of $200 and/or a Class 1 misdemeanor isn't appropriate for a SSM ceremony. They can't get a license, as required, and can't perform any ceremony without a license. If they do they're subject to fine and charged with a crime.
Marriage is a legal institution. Against a fact there is no argument.
Why don't you tell me exactly how you are harmed. I agree with you that gay marriage is not traditional, but I also recognize that it is none of my damn business, nor that of the government.
Government issued marriage licenses are more evidence of too much government in our private lives.
You haven't been forced to approve. If people change their minds, that's their business. "Approval of sodomy" is not measurable harm.Are you really claiming that laws like this don't make sodomy societally approved of to a greater degree?
North Carolina isn't treating all religions equally. They are fining ministers for holding a private ceremony if the state doesn't approve of that ceremony. You still don't seem to grasp this, it's not a "fraudulent marriage," it's not a legal marriage as far as the state is concerned. Therefore it's just a private ceremony the state is stepping into.Insofar as the government treats all religions as equal, I don't see how they could practically be avoided.
So don't get married, then. If you don't want to, that's your choice. But you still haven't demonstrated any kind of harm caused by two men signing a legal contract with each other.The modern licensing scheme was designed by secular governments, not by the Church.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?