Why the definition of marriage matters

[DeletedUser10415]

Proposals for civil unions did, in fact, include all of the rights referred to above- tax breaks, insurance, hospital visitation, next-of-kin rights, etc. It was the intransigence of the radical gay spokesmen who decided, for their entire 'constituency', that only a debauched definition of marriage, with the purpose to denigrate Christianity (and, indeed, most religions) and to further break down society, would do.

Since you seem unable to restrain yourself to the facts and it's unlikely any source I provide would meet with your approval, I'll just go ahead and use a a GLAD source:
https://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf

No, DOMA was not a violation of the Constitution. No, there is no violation of the First Amendment in opposing SSM. Again, you ignore the second portion of the Establishment Clause, which prevents the Federal government from inhibiting the right to the free exercise of one's religion.

As defining marriage between one man and one woman has it's foundation in religion and nothing else, DOMA violated the First Ammendment as it respects an establishment of religion. To your other point, please tell me exactly how same sex couples getting married inhibit free exercise of religion?

- - - Updated - - -

Because words mean things.
Someone in a SS relationship is not "married" in the sacred sense of the word (marriage being a province of religion).

Words do mean things, and I'm glad you brought that up. For example, 'religion' encompasses more meaning than just 'Christianity'.

By the way, as Christians go, a recent Pew research poll shows 62% of White mainline Protestants supporting SSM, 57% of Catholics supporting SSM, 34% of Black Protestants supporting SSM, and 24% of White evangelical Protestants supporting SSM.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

As a Right Reverend of the Universal Life Church, a Discordian Pope, and a Pirate Pastor of The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, I can guarantee any marriages I'd perform, be they any of HGLBTQ+, would be sacred, according to the tenets of my churches and faiths.

 

[Mustapha00]

First off, I have said that you were right and I wrong on the issue of DOMA. If you had read the post immediately above yours, you would have read that.

Second...using GLAAD as an objective source for anything pertaining to marriage is like seeking out the KKK for their opinions on race relations. It's nice to know that even you admit to your bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

Wikipedia notes a gradual trend, beginning in 2000 in California, of states recognizing civil unions and/or domestic partnerships and according those relationships equal legal status, in most cases, with marriage. This trend would have continued, with gays getting the equal protection under the law that they sought without religious peoples having a sacred institution debauched. But that was not enough for the radical gay movement, and so we are having the same sort of cultural wars that followed Roe v Wade. Thanks a whole bunch.

Your statistics that religious peoples favor SSM are underwhelming. 34% of black Protestants supporting SSM means 66% do not. 24% of evangelical Protestants supporting SSM mean 76% do not. If a candidate for office lost a vote by a margin of 32% or 52%, we wouldn't consider that candidate to have had much of an impact, now would we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_religion
Most religions take a position on homosexuality (and, therefore, SSM) of "Love the sinner but hate the sin". That is true of most Christian denominations, yes, but also of many other religions throughout the world. Non-Western religions tend to range from neutrality to disapproval, with some exceptions of course among scholars.
In your favor is that Pagans and Satanists are firmly in your corner! Congratulations!
If your particular belief (or nonbelief) system tells you that SSM is in accord with its tenets, then fine. Support SSM in any way up to an including participation, officiation and approval. But tht same right extends to those who disagree with you, whether you like it or not.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

In your favor is that Pagans and Satanists are firmly in your corner! Congratulations!

I think this quote pretty well sums up your argument, and why you lost it, both in the Supreme Court, and here. The U.S. is not a Christian Theocracy, fundamentalist or otherwise, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

 

[Mustapha00]

You are free to draw any conclusion you desire, grounded in fantasy as it is.
I merely point out which (pitifully few) groups agree with your position. It's not my fault that they are every bit as fringe as you are.
The United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Founders enshrined the Free Exercise Of Religion clause in the First Amendment because they feared the damage to religion that a secular government could do. If you bothered to acquaint yourself with any of the writings of the Founders- The Federalist Papers would be a great place to start- you'd know that.
I certainly do not contend that this country was intended to be a theocracy, Christian or otherwise, so please spare me your feeble straw-man argument. But to suggest that it was founded upon disapproval of religion, or even neutrality towards religion, is equally ludicrous.
I would suggest that, if you want to experience firsthand what a theocracy is like, please book a flight to Tehran straightaway, as they actually have one over there. But we already know that your perspective on this is so warped that you would see no difference between the United States and Iran. That just goes to show what poor judgement you suffer from.

 

[cbalto1927]

You are free to draw any conclusion you desire, grounded in fantasy as it is.
I merely point out which (pitifully few) groups agree with your position. It's not my fault that they are every bit as fringe as you are.
The United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Founders enshrined the Free Exercise Of Religion clause in the First Amendment because they feared the damage to religion that a secular government could do. If you bothered to acquaint yourself with any of the writings of the Founders- The Federalist Papers would be a great place to start- you'd know that.
I certainly do not contend that this country was intended to be a theocracy, Christian or otherwise, so please spare me your feeble straw-man argument. But to suggest that it was founded upon disapproval of religion, or even neutrality towards religion, is equally ludicrous.
I would suggest that, if you want to experience firsthand what a theocracy is like, please book a flight to Tehran straightaway, as they actually have one over there. But we already know that your perspective on this is so warped that you would see no difference between the United States and Iran. That just goes to show what poor judgement you suffer from.

I need to remind you that over 300 years ago issues we have today weren't around then. the word Gay or Same Sex marriage was unheard of. At the time of writing and signing the US Constitution. It was much later with Amendments which added Marriage shall be man and woman. One thing you need to look at, is You have the freedom of religion, and no state shall make law/policy on religious matters. In plain English " Church and state" Separation. This ruling by allowing SSM actually violated the " Church and state" separation clause.

 

[Mustapha00]

I need to remind you that over 300 years ago issues we have today weren't around then. the word Gay or Same Sex marriage was unheard of. At the time of writing and signing the US Constitution. It was much later with Amendments which added Marriage shall be man and woman. One thing you need to look at, is You have the freedom of religion, and no state shall make law/policy on religious matters. In plain English " Church and state" Separation. This ruling by allowing SSM actually violated the " Church and state" separation clause.

Same sex relationships were hardly unknown to the Founders, as they have been around as long as species capable of having any sort of sexual relationship have been around. The Founders did not see marriage as a matter with which the Federal government had any business interfering. They set out a very clearly delineated list of powers vested in the national government and left any not explicitly mentioned to the states (under the Tenth Amendment).

Your reading of the First Amendment is inaccurate. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof"; it says nothing about states having such a prohibition. In fact, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, several states had official state religions (Massachusetts and Connecticut among them). There is no Constitutional concept of "separation of church and state" in the sense that the Federal government must be neutral towards religion in general (or, as Progressives would prefer it, actively hostile towards religion). The earliest reference to such a term is in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he mentions a "wall of separation between church and State" in which he praises the decision of the Founders not to have a single official State religion (such as England had with the Anglican Church). Nowhere in the letter does Jefferson advocate quashing religious liberty, as those who have twisted his words would have us believe.

 

[DawnLight the Just]

To me the main problem is that there is a distinction about what the government and religious groups consider to be a marriage. A religious group can have any definition they want (as long as it's consensual) but that doesn't convey any legal rights. On the other hand, the definition of marriage by the government does convey certain legal rights (in terms of inheritance, insurance and custody and divorce/separation etc.). For example, you can legally divorce your spouse even if that divorce is not recognized by the catholic church. That means you can legally remarry even if that marriage is not valid according to the catholic church. In such an event, who determines custody of any children and other issues resulting from the divorce (child support, alimony, spouse gets the house, etc.)? It's the court not the church.

And as was mentioned earlier in this discussion, it is the state which has (mis)appropriated the idea of marriage from religion, and now seeks to control it. The state should stay OUT of the marriage business, since it is a religious institution. If they want to create ways to stick their grubby paws into our private lives in order to take our money or force us to acknowledge whatever fringe beliefs they want us to acknowledge, let them come up with an alternative method and leave marriage alone. If they want to change laws to let gays have the right to inheritance, then do that, but leave marriage out of it. Why do gays feel the need for a religious piece of paper when they want to form a union? They can have civil unions, but leave marriage out of it. It is just a way to try to force opinions on people who don't want or need to accept it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's fine for christians to define marriage that way but not everyone is a christian.

You don't seem to understand. Marriage is a religious institution. Most all religions have a definition for marriage, and until extremely recently, it has been one man and one woman.

- - - Updated - - -

If there is no distinction in the legal sense between civil unions and marriage then why should they be referred to as separate institutions? Are you requiring people who are married vs being in a civil union to identify thjemselves as such when requesting their legal rights?

One is legal (secular), the other is religious. You talk about the separation of church and state, and then turn around and try to force marriage on everyone whether they are religious or not. And, sorry, marriage is not a "right" granted under the Constitution. It's just ridiculous that people try to make that argument.

 

[DawnLight the Just]

I need to remind you that over 300 years ago issues we have today weren't around then. the word Gay or Same Sex marriage was unheard of. At the time of writing and signing the US Constitution. It was much later with Amendments which added Marriage shall be man and woman. One thing you need to look at, is You have the freedom of religion, and no state shall make law/policy on religious matters. In plain English " Church and state" Separation. This ruling by allowing SSM actually violated the " Church and state" separation clause.

I am sorry, but I actually have to laugh at the suggestion that 300 years ago there were no gay people, or that there has never, in history, been the depravity we are experiencing today in society. The same suggestion is made of Biblical times, and that, if Jesus came today, he'd be coming to a vastly different society. Boy, are those suggestions wrong. Way wrong. The amount of depravity and debauchery that was present in Biblical times is amazing. They were very hedonistic, hence why Corinthians was written to address sexual sin.

 

[cbalto1927]

I am sorry, but I actually have to laugh at the suggestion that 300 years ago there were no gay people, or that there has never, in history, been the depravity we are experiencing today in society. The same suggestion is made of Biblical times, and that, if Jesus came today, he'd be coming to a vastly different society. Boy, are those suggestions wrong. Way wrong. The amount of depravity and debauchery that was present in Biblical times is amazing. They were very hedonistic, hence why Corinthians was written to address sexual sin.

yeah, i am sure there were gay peoplle back in 300 years but it wasnt widely known or more like hidden. Today gay people voiced themselves loudly and became a known issue. I am sure when the End of days come, then all the questions we have would be answered. I rather to be on the right side instead on the wrong side when the time comes. Amen

 

[DawnLight the Just]

yeah, i am sure there were gay peoplle back in 300 years but it wasnt widely known or more like hidden. Today gay people voiced themselves loudly and became a known issue. I am sure when the End of days come, then all the questions we have would be answered. I rather to be on the right side instead on the wrong side when the time comes. Amen

Have you never watched historical movies that show the hedonism of the times and how prevalent it was? To suggest that it was secret is to not know history.

 

[Algona]

Are you suggesting that watching movies is a good way to learn history?

 

[DawnLight the Just]

Are you suggesting that watching movies is a good way to learn history?

I suggest it is better than not doing anything, and at least, if the movie was not completely accurate, but it stimulated you to do some actual research, it was a step in the right direction.

 

[Mustapha00]

Are you suggesting that watching movies is a good way to learn history?

I guess it depends....."a good way" compared to what?
Certainly, filmmakers of all ideologies are 'guilty' if you want to call it that of inserting their own ideological viewpoint into their works. John Ford took an approach to film that was as unapologetically conservative as James Cameron's approach is unapologetically liberal. You just have to take those viewpoints into account when watching their works.

 

[DeletedUser17759]

The Romans had large bouts of "hedonism". But, let us remember that what we know of that age is from books of ancient writers that are often revisionist in nature and written to provide a certain perspective on an age or time period.

 

[Mustapha00]

The Romans had large bouts of "hedonism". But, let us remember that what we know of that age is from books of ancient writers that are often revisionist in nature and written to provide a certain perspective on an age or time period.

A very fair point.
Remember that many writers had to be very circumspect when it came to not only what they wrote but how they wrote it for fear of retribution from religious and/or secular powers that be.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

Kids react to gay marriage
89% of viewers liked this

Kids react to gay marriage ruling
86% of viewers liked this

The future looks bright for social justice.

 

[Mustapha00]

The producers of the video say they 'interviewed' children from the ages of 5 to 13 on these subjects.

Are you really going to try to argue that a 5 year old has any opinion of gay marriage at which he has arrived at on his own? Heck, expand that to include children of any of those ages. They will almost certainly tell the interviewer what they think the interviewer wants to hear because they lack the ability at that point to make rational, informed decisions on anything- from taking a bath to gay marriage.

Not your best effort here. Not at all.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

Children learn from parents and peers, and even teachers sometimes. That one child was unsure and one child was on your side in the first interview disproves your propaganda argument.

Not your best effort here. Not at all.

 

[iamtheemperor]

Are you really going to try to argue that a 5 year old has any opinion of gay marriage at which he has arrived at on his own? Heck, expand that to include children of any of those ages. They will almost certainly tell the interviewer what they think the interviewer wants to hear because they lack the ability at that point to make rational, informed decisions on anything- from taking a bath to gay marriage...

...to believing in deities they cannot see, hear, or feel.

 

[Mustapha00]

Children learn from parents and peers, and even teachers sometimes. That one child was unsure and one child was on your side in the first interview disproves your propaganda argument.

Not your best effort here. Not at all.

Irrelevant as to which side they were on.

Thank you for admitting that their opinions were not their own but were shaped by outside stimuli.

If you're going to keep digging that hole, here's yet another shovel.