dadman
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
- Messages
- 304
- Reaction score
- 24
- Location
- just passn thru =:0]
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You may personally believe it to be religious, but as soon as the Marriage License came into existence; marriage left the realm of religion and entered the realm of the State.
Please point out where my argument hinges on marriage being religious?
I said morally my religion says it is wrong. Has nothing to do with marriage being a religious or government institution.
I personally would like to see the government get out of the marriage business. It has very little to do with my argument.
My reasons for being against gay marriage is purely religious and semantics.
Really?
I mean, I had even quoted it. As I said, you may feel that you're religiously motivated in this. But it doesn't matter. As soon as the Marriage License was created, marriage left the realm of religion and entered the realm of the State. You cannot, thus, use religious arguments what so ever so long as the Marriage License exists.
That right doesn't exist, for anyone. It's rumor which has been repeated so many times that people believe it, but there is no actual law establishing hospital visitation. That issue is dealt with by the specific hospital, and the typical example is that anyone is allowed during visitation hours. Also, I had non relatives stay with me when I spent a week in the hospital as a teen, so I know first hand that you don't have to be family.
Also, I'm not married to my mother but I'm inheriting everything she has when she passes. There is no law helping me out there, either, because if she didn't have a will then my oldest sister would have legal favor under CA law. So obviously gays don't need 'marriage' to take care of that, either.
Really?
I mean, I had even quoted it. As I said, you may feel that you're religiously motivated in this. But it doesn't matter. As soon as the Marriage License was created, marriage left the realm of religion and entered the realm of the State. You cannot, thus, use religious arguments what so ever so long as the Marriage License exists.
Marriage is social, with sub-categories of religious, legal, economic, etc. Some marriages may be more or less religious or legal than others, but they are all social. Marriage never left the religious subcategory, that's just an ignorant thing to say.
Yes I can. My religion says it is wrong. My moral compass says it is wrong. Since God, comes before government for me (and almost everything else). I most certainly can, have and will continue. :2wave:
It did as soon as the State usurped it. Religion and State are separate, the State cannot rule along religious lines; it must respect the rights of the individual. When the State claimed the Marriage License, they claimed Marriage. It is not a religious institution any longer, as the State is forbidden from being a religion institution. The Marriage License is a State granted and recognized contract, the individual has right to contract. That's that. Claiming that marriage is still a religious possession is just an ignorant thing to say.
Being from the UK, I can't really comment on the specifics of Californian law. But if it is anything like UK law (and I suspect it is any many ways) then there will almost certainly be certain "rights" and protections that are afforded to hetrosexual couples that are definately not extended to homosexual couples.
Personally I don't care about whether its called marriage, civil partnerships or whatever, but I think gay couples should be afforded exactly the same rights as hetrosexual couples.
I take your point that at the moment in the US, visitation rights are an issue for each hospital. But clearly enough hospitals were actively preventing gay people from seeing their loved ones that Obama felt it was necessary to intervene to prevent it at a federal level. If this weren't happening I don't think the feds would have intervened at all.
Best Regards
S
It did as soon as the State usurped it.
We know that's a false statement because Clergy can solemnize and certify marriage.
A specific marriage may not have a religious component, but marriage as an institution retains a strong religious element.
So thanks for admitting you are making it based upon religion.
I don't know where your little indignant remark came from then since you seemed to know your opinion was based solely on your religious opinion.
And since the Marriage License is property of State and not Church, your religious opinion has no functional, rightful, or legal bearing on the subject.
The State has granted privilege to organizations to issue the marriage contract. That doesn't mean that marriage is solely religious. As long as it's a state issued contract, that's what it is.
I'm not crying for more government, I'm telling you exactly what it is. Marriage is a State issued contract; that's the reality of the situation. People are still trying to use government to enforce their religious bigotries, and that's what's going too far.
That's what the marriage license was invented for, and that's what is sadly still being used for. Like we didn't get out of the dark ages on some level.
So I must give up my freedom to support your way of thinking or be a bigot. I see.
It was invented to keep blacks and whites from marrying.
I'm not crying for more government, I'm telling you exactly what it is. Marriage is a State issued contract; that's the reality of the situation. People are still trying to use government to enforce their religious bigotries, and that's what's going too far. That's what the marriage license was invented for, and that's what is sadly still being used for. Like we didn't get out of the dark ages on some level.
Exactly. It was enforced bigotries of the day, people thought it an abomination for interracial couples to get married. Just as some see it an abomination for gays to get married. The marriage license hasn't changed function, it remains a power used to enforce bigotries against a people.
You're not giving up any freedom, that's just propaganda on your part to try to excuse your behavior.
My mother in-law is married and there's no legal aspect to it at all. She doesn't have a marriage license, she doesn't file "married-joint" on her taxes, etc. She and her husband had a religious ceremony, wear rings, and live as a married couple. The family regards them as married.
They are married, just as many gay couples are married now without the law.
A specific marriage may have no religious component just as a specific marriage may have no legal component, but marriage per-se as an institution maintains religious and legal elements.
It is not the same. Marriage is one man and a woman. In this country it has always been that way. Race is nothing more than a social construct and so it should not be relevant. Going against human biology is different.
Propaganda? LOL!
No, I am standing by what I believe to be right as an American citizen.
And the Marriage License is free from any religious mandate since it is property of the State. So any religious argument built upon marriage being solely between a man and a woman has no regard within the Marriage License itself. Religiously married and legally married are two different things, and the Marriage License is not product of religion, but product of State. Thus it is subjected to all the limitations and requirements that government is made to observe.
According to you based on religious belief, marriage is one man and one woman. You cannot use religious belief to enforce bigotry through government contract.
There is no requirement for a vote to be free from religious mandate, and it's a person's vote which is the target of the discussion, not the marriage license.
If The People decide that they don't want gay marriage, then it's a "communal" law, not a religious mandate.
Also, you're just assuming that there is no objective merit in a religious argument, merit which could be supported with secular reasoning.
According to you based on religious belief, marriage is one man and one woman. You cannot use religious belief to enforce bigotry through government contract. That is nothing short of tyranny.
You're not standing for jack **** beside trying to push your religious beliefs on other people and enforce it through State contract.