• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

JP Cusick said:
By the means of respect.

The means of virtue.

By the means of voluntary consent.

Those kinds of means.

They matter far more then most people realize, and at some level they matter to everyone.
Click to expand...

I know! Like how schools and public accommodations were desegregated! Like how interracial marriage bans were thrown out! Those pesky federal judges overthrowing the will of the people with their damned US Constitution! The nerve of not allowing states to enforce laws on moral disapproval and tradition alone! We should be free to pass laws to discriminate against any group we want! Equal Protection Clause be damned!
 
roguenuke said:
Same sex couples have been getting married in some churches and in general, just not legally recognized, for decades, if not longer. It has always been just as voluntary as opposite couples getting married.
Click to expand...
If not longer then decades - :2party:


==========================================


Cephus said:
None of those matter to the law.
Click to expand...
You asked a direct question and I gave you a direct answer.

And yes those do not matter to the law - that was the point.

And clearly they do not matter to you either.

But those matter to me far more than any law.

Cephus said:
At the end of the day, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what religions decide. Marriage is a secular institution.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a secular institution NOW, but it was in the past just a religious institution which has now been violated by the State.

Cephus said:
There are a lot of people who think religion is more important than everything else, a person's religious beliefs gives them the right to violate the law and deserves complete freedom to do whatever they want to in the pursuit of their religious beliefs. These people are crazy.
Click to expand...
That is not being crazy - as that is being liberated and free.

People that hide behind the laws are usurpers.
 
JP Cusick said:
If not longer then decades - :2party:


==========================================



You asked a direct question and I gave you a direct answer.

And yes those do not matter to the law - that was the point.

And clearly they do not matter to you either.

But those matter to me far more than any law.


Marriage is a secular institution NOW, but it was in the past just a religious institution which has now been violated by the State.


That is not being crazy - as that is being liberated and free.

People that hide behind the laws are usurpers.
Click to expand...

No idea what your reply to me means. As to the rest, you are wrong. Marriage has involved religion of varying cultures on a varying level. But not all cultures involved religion in marriage and even Christianity was not involved in most marriages until the 10th or 11th century. Many people of many cultures of the past, including cultures where Christianity dominated or was popular, married without religion. It was for social and power and financial reasons.
 
roguenuke said:
No idea what your reply to me means. As to the rest, you are wrong. Marriage has involved religion of varying cultures on a varying level. But not all cultures involved religion in marriage and even Christianity was not involved in most marriages until the 10th or 11th century. Many people of many cultures of the past, including cultures where Christianity dominated or was popular, married without religion. It was for social and power and financial reasons.
Click to expand...
That is complete nonsense.

Marriage without religion = mid to late 20th century.
 
JP Cusick said:
That is complete nonsense.

Marriage without religion = mid to late 20th century.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're wrong. It was very often about property.
 
JP Cusick said:
You asked a direct question and I gave you a direct answer.

And yes those do not matter to the law - that was the point.

And clearly they do not matter to you either.
Click to expand...

But your answer was abjectly stupid, that's the problem. :roll:


Marriage is a secular institution NOW, but it was in the past just a religious institution which has now been violated by the State.
Click to expand...

It's really never been a religious institution in the United States. It's ALWAYS been a secular institution. The state provides the legal benefits, the church provides a ceremony. That's all the church provides. It's a show. It has no validity beyond the show.

It's too bad you can't separate the two.
 
JP Cusick said:
That is complete nonsense.

Marriage without religion = mid to late 20th century.
Click to expand...


That is complete nonsense.

Ignoring history from Europe and Common Law marriages which we inhereted and which most state recognized for generations:


The shortage of ministers in Virginia during and after the American Revolution made it difficult for Virginians,
especially those living in the state’s western regions, to be married by Anglican ministers. As a result, marriages
were performed by those who did not have authority to perform the marriage ceremony. In the 1783 “Act
to Authorize and Confirm Marriages in Certain Cases,” the General Assembly validated these marriages and
empowered the county courts to name a justice of the peace to perform the marriage ceremony.​


A Justice of the Peace is a secular lower court or magistrate position, a Justice of the Peace is not a minister or member of the clergy, their duties are civil not religious.


http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/research_note_26.pdf


>>>>
 
JP Cusick said:
That is complete nonsense.

Marriage without religion = mid to late 20th century.
Click to expand...

Here you go.

13 Facts on the History of Marriage

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history

Sexual moral codes changed how we view relationships, but the main purpose of marriage from the beginning was to basically help to identify a man's children were his by a certain woman. It had pretty much nothing to do with religion.

History of Marriage | The History, Origins and Customs of Marriage
 
WorldWatcher said:

Ignoring history from Europe and Common Law marriages which we inhereted and which most state recognized for generations:


The shortage of ministers in Virginia during and after the American Revolution made it difficult for Virginians,
especially those living in the state’s western regions, to be married by Anglican ministers. As a result, marriages
were performed by those who did not have authority to perform the marriage ceremony. In the 1783 “Act
to Authorize and Confirm Marriages in Certain Cases,” the General Assembly validated these marriages and
empowered the county courts to name a justice of the peace to perform the marriage ceremony.​

A Justice of the Peace is a secular lower court or magistrate position, a Justice of the Peace is not a minister or member of the clergy, their duties are civil not religious.

http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/research_note_26.pdf
Click to expand...
I agree that the violation of the Church by the State really began here in the USA.

It was Christianity that trusted the State, as in Christians viewed the USA as being a Christian Country which was a BIG mistake, so Christians gave away their authority to the States and the States took it and as a result the religious institution of marriage became secular and marriage is now nothing more than one big civil union.

The idea that the USA was a Christian Nation is trampled under foot = The United States as NOT a Christian nation - RationalWiki

And if marriage is NOT religious then there would not be such a push of homosexual marriages to be done by religions.
 
JP Cusick said:
I agree that the violation of the Church by the State really began here in the USA.

It was Christianity that trusted the State, as in Christians viewed the USA as being a Christian Country which was a BIG mistake, so Christians gave away their authority to the States and the States took it and as a result the religious institution of marriage became secular and marriage is now nothing more than one big civil union.

The idea that the USA was a Christian Nation is trampled under foot = The United States as NOT a Christian nation - RationalWiki

And if marriage is NOT religious then there would not be such a push of homosexual marriages to be done by religions.
Click to expand...

You really aren't making any sense. Something doesn't have to be religious in nature, completely, to involve religion in some way. I can involve religion in naming my child, their coming of age, death, and other aspects of my life if I choose, as can others, but it doesn't make those things exclusively religious.

As for America being the place that added government to marriage, you are very wrong, as I've already shown.
 
JP Cusick said:
I agree that the violation of the Church by the State really began here in the USA.

It was Christianity that trusted the State, as in Christians viewed the USA as being a Christian Country which was a BIG mistake, so Christians gave away their authority to the States and the States took it and as a result the religious institution of marriage became secular and marriage is now nothing more than one big civil union.

The idea that the USA was a Christian Nation is trampled under foot = The United States as NOT a Christian nation - RationalWiki

And if marriage is NOT religious then there would not be such a push of homosexual marriages to be done by religions.
Click to expand...


You may have not seen a previous question posted to you earlier, so let me repeat it...

WorldWatcher said:
So let me ask you.

Do you recognize that same-sex couple who receive a religious marriage in a religious organization as married and that the government should recognize that equally as different-sex couples married in a religious organization?



If the government doesn't recognize those marriages equally, isn't that the government interfering with religious authority?

>>>>
Click to expand...



So if marriage is a religious only institution, isn't it discriminatory against those institutions that perform same-sex religious marriage to not recognize them equally?



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
You may have not seen a previous question posted to you earlier, so let me repeat it...
Click to expand...
Yes I saw it, along with a few other comments / questions which I see no reason for me to feed into.

I happen to agree that banning SSM is not Constitutional, but that is because the Constitution and the US gov never had any authority over marriage and it is a violation of religion which can be done under this secular and immoral Constitution.

I do not argue against the law - as I just moan and groan the violation of the Church by the State for the purpose of homosexuality.

It is like the past Super Bowl - the cheaters really do win.

WorldWatcher said:
If the government doesn't recognize those marriages equally, isn't that the government interfering with religious authority?

So if marriage is a religious only institution, isn't it discriminatory against those institutions that perform same-sex religious marriage to not recognize them equally?
Click to expand...
Of course the government must recognize people equally.

But religion was one of the protected categories = Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
JP Cusick said:
I just moan and groan the violation of the Church by the State for the purpose of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

yes you are definitely doing that


now can you back up your claims and provide any evidence and facts supporting them?

or will you just continue to "in your own words" moan and grown about the falsehood you keep repeating and have poster after poster prove them wrong.
 
JP Cusick said:
...this secular and immoral Constitution...
Click to expand...
What is immoral about the Constitution?

as I just moan and groan the violation of the Church by the State for the purpose of homosexuality.
Click to expand...
You think that priests now will be sexually abused by gay people from the stare?

But religion was one of the protected categories = Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Did anyone say that religious people should not be allowed to marry?
 
prometeus said:
Did anyone say that religious people should not be allowed to marry?
Click to expand...

He doesn't deny that they can marry, he wants them to control who else can get married because somehow, the religious own marriage. Yeah, it is as stupid as it sounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom