• 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:
1.)When the societal pressure is from a massive bigotry against religion then the government's failure to protect or defend the religion from the mob means that the government is intervening on the side of that mob.
2.)Also and specifically that societal pressure based on its massive bigotry against religion is empowered by the government who has taken control of the institution of marriage by the violation of the Church by the State.
3.)There would not be any social pressure except by the brute force backing of the government.
4.)If this is not violating the separation of the Church by the State then those words have no meaning at all.
Click to expand...

1.) what massive bigotry against religion? this is another false strawman
2.) see #1 youll have to explain what you are talking about because i know of no massive bigotry against religion on this topic
3.) what brute force?
4.) its not because the things you are talking about are made up or already separated. If you disagree simply provide ONE face that makes this a violation . . .one
 
NonConformer said:
The national battle over gay marriage rages on. Hardly a day goes by without yet another legal skirmish somewhere; the most recent one is in Nebraska, I think.

Allow me to break apart this thing we call "marriage". There are really at least two separate aspects:

First there is the love, sex, and romance aspect. To be blunt, the government has no business here. Nothing in the history books, nor the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution, nor the Bible remotely suggest that love, sex, and romance should have governmental oversight.

The second aspect is the legal contract. This contract, signed by both parties, covers matters such as inheritance, survivor benefits, medical decisions, and such. Now it can be argued that government does have role in the enforcement of legal contracts. And I have no problem at all if two, or more, people of ANY relationship choose to enter unto a binding legal contract covering matters like inheritance and such.

The problem arises when said legal contract includes the word "marriage", because by word association, we're now getting into matters of love, sex, and romance, which are clearly out of governmental jurisdiction.

Therefore the solution to this whole same-sex marriage dilemma is obvious: just re-name the darned contract. Call it something that does not include the word "marriage." The name "civil union" has been proposed; sounds Ok by me. And anybody who wants one can have one!

Meanwhile, keep "marriage" about love, sex, and romance, and if two (or more) people want to participate in it, well that's between them, and their God, assuming they believe in God and so choose to involve him too. But keep government out of it.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect.

Government calling a particular legal contract "marriage" does not get the government involved in overseeing love, sex, or romance. There aren't any marriage laws that require you to love your partner, or have sex with them. I can bump into any woman on the street and marry her today, if she and I want that.

Similarly, the government has no religious attachment to marriage. A Christian can marry a Jew. An atheist can marry a Buddhist. Two atheists can marry each other. It can happen in a church, or at a courthouse, or in a McDonald's.

Your religion does not own the word marriage. There is absolutely no reason the government should use a different one.
 
I've been saying this for a long time:

To the extent the State's position is that it has an interest in promoting family stability only for those children who are being raised by both of their biological parents, the notion that some children should receive fewer legal protections than others based on the circumstances of their birth is not only irrational — it is constitutionally repugnant.

The State's emphasis on a biological connection creates a further discriminatory classification drawing a distinction between biological and adopted children.
Click to expand...
 
JP Cusick said:
The problem is that marriage was originally an institution of religion, and instead of the separation of church from State the States took over control of marriage away from religion thereby violating the institution, and after that then the State laws and Federal laws have no basis in morality and thereby the secular laws do not have any authority to say "no" to the same sex marriage.

It is a violation of the church by the State.

Of course we never see that position argued in the Courts.

All the State has is civil unions so calling a civil union as a marriage is just a play on words.

Of course now the Churches have mostly bowed to the demands and orders of the States and thereby the institution of marriage is violated.

The irony of it is that marriages for religious people and for natural partners was already being destroyed by the laws so letting the homosexuals have that dead institution of marriage is ironic since they are the only ones left in the USA who sees marriage as desirable or as valuable or as having any meaning.

A lot (if not most or all) of the States have local representatives who are trying to show their self to be politically against the same sex marriage in order to get that vote so they create those unsound laws which can never stand up in Court so THEN those representatives can pretend to be against it when really it is just a charade.
Click to expand...

I find it fascinating that if this was an important religious right or privilege, that no religions chose to fight against non-religious persons from participating in it at any time in our history (that I am aware of). They also claim that they object to gays marrying because it's a sin...yet they have never fought to change the laws allowing adulterers or fornicators to marry (or remarry). They have not fought to keep convicted murderers in jail from marrying.

Just gays. Hmmm. If it's a religious instititution...or was...why did they never fight for it on those grounds before? Like I said, most esp. when non-believers increased in numbers, marrying in the courthouses, etc? Why...to my knowledge they never even demanded that those 'marriages' be called 'civil unions.'


Charles Manson, in jail, no chance of ever reproducing, a convicted sinner...have any religious organizations objected to his proposed marriage (before the mercenary fool female backed out)?
 
Deuce said:
Similarly, the government has no religious attachment to marriage. A Christian can marry a Jew. An atheist can marry a Buddhist. Two atheists can marry each other. It can happen in a church, or at a courthouse, or in a McDonald's.
Click to expand...
This is the point that government has violated the religious institution of marriage and now marriage is nothing more than an government joke of a marriage.

Now marriage is a temporary contract based only on the government, along with the huge divorce industry.

My own suggestion is for religious people to only get married within their faith under God, and do NOT get entrapped by the immoral and baseless government marriages.

They would lose some government benefits - yes, but that would also give them some protection from the government chopping block for their marriage and for their family.

Just let the homosexuals have the legal marriages since they are now the ones left who see any value to it.



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



Lursa said:
Just gays. Hmmm. If it's a religious instititution...or was...why did they never fight for it on those grounds before?
Click to expand...
The reason there has never been a fight like this before is because the government is now forcing this onto the religion.

The religions are under attack by the State violating the religious authority.

It did not happen before because the government had not invaded the religions before.
 
JP Cusick said:
This is the point that government has violated the religious institution of marriage and now marriage is nothing more than an government joke of a marriage.
.
Click to expand...

No, the point is that religious organizations made no objections to any of those changes, except perhaps in the case of polygamy, until SSM came up.

I asked you...why didnt religions object EVER to non-religious people marrying? To marrying in courthouses? To other sinners like adulterers and fornicators?

How about: to the state even 'sanctioning a religious institution' and regulating it? Requiring licenses for it?

Got any asnwers at all?
 
JP Cusick said:
Maybe not solely religious but it was always religious - until now when the State violated the religious Institution.

The various governments did step into marriage from the beginning of governments, but marriages NEVER happened without religion included.

The separation of Church from State is now officially violated.
Click to expand...


Maybe not solely religious but it was always religious
Click to expand...

That is nonsensical. Not all marriages are religious...period.
 
JP Cusick said:
1.)This is the point that government has violated the religious institution of marriage and now marriage is nothing more than an government joke of a marriage.
2.)Now marriage is a temporary contract based only on the government, along with the huge divorce industry.
3.)My own suggestion is for religious people to only get married within their faith under God, and do NOT get entrapped by the immoral and baseless government marriages.
4.)They would lose some government benefits - yes, but that would also give them some protection from the government chopping block for their marriage and for their family.
5.)Just let the homosexuals have the legal marriages since they are now the ones left who see any value to it.


6.)The reason there has never been a fight like this before is because the government is now forcing this onto the religion.
7.)The religions are under attack by the State violating the religious authority
8.)It did not happen before because the government had not invaded the religions before.
Click to expand...

1.) nobody educated, honest and objective buys this lie
please explain how this is being done. Are churches not free to do religious marriages ass they see fit anymore? i missed that announcement and constitutional change
2.) false there still is religious, and spiritual marriage that have ZERO to do with a marriage contract
3.) you and who ever wants are free to do this subjective opinion
4.) again you are free to do so and what do the government protects matter to your RELIGIOUS marriage??? i thought the whole point was you dont want them involved so its a win for you
5.) actually just like us heterosexuals they already have access to religious and spiritual marriage and have for avery long time in this country but finally equal rights is winning and they now have access to legal marriage also in the majority of the country and by summer everywhere
6.) again this lie has no legs if you disagree please provide ONE single fact that supports your post lie . . . one lol
7._) see 6 and 1 your claim is factually wrong
8.) and it is factually not happening now

like i said, you wont be able to, butf you disagree please simply post one fact that supports you, thank you

facts win again
 
JP Cusick said:
This is the point that government has violated the religious institution of marriage and now marriage is nothing more than an government joke of a marriage.

Now marriage is a temporary contract based only on the government, along with the huge divorce industry.

My own suggestion is for religious people to only get married within their faith under God, and do NOT get entrapped by the immoral and baseless government marriages.

They would lose some government benefits - yes, but that would also give them some protection from the government chopping block for their marriage and for their family.

Just let the homosexuals have the legal marriages since they are now the ones left who see any value to it.
Click to expand...

The religious have never controlled marriage, it isn't a religious institution and if they want to refuse to perform gay marriages in their private churches, they're more than welcome to do so. They are claiming control over something that has never been theirs to begin with. Being married in a church doesn't make you married. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state and this has been true for a very, very, very long time. Churches claiming that they somehow own the word "marriage" are delusional, which isn't at all surprising considering what other crap they preach from those pulpits.

The religious need to get the hell over themselves.
 
1750Texan said:
That is nonsensical. Not all marriages are religious...period.
Click to expand...

Wrong. *NO* marriages are religious. Religions perform ceremonies. They do not provide marriages. They can perform all the ceremonies they want, they can speak all the sacred words they want, they haven't married anyone who doesn't get that document from the state that says they are married.
 
JP Cusick said:
Maybe not solely religious but it was always religious - until now when the State violated the religious Institution.

The various governments did step into marriage from the beginning of governments, but marriages NEVER happened without religion included.

The separation of Church from State is now officially violated.
Click to expand...
Go back in history- SSM was widely practiced. Then Christians deemed it a sin. Then thru the next part of history Church's assumed the role of solemnizing Marriages. Ya had to get married there- or...........
Look to Henry the VIII. Did not like the RCC version- Poof we got a new church- a State Church.


Henry VIII of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
JP Cusick said:
This is the point that government has violated the religious institution of marriage...

<<SNIP>>

The religions are under attack by the State violating the religious authority.
Click to expand...


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?

>>>>
 
Lursa said:
No, the point is that religious organizations made no objections to any of those changes, except perhaps in the case of polygamy, until SSM came up.

I asked you...why didnt religions object EVER to non-religious people marrying? To marrying in courthouses? To other sinners like adulterers and fornicators?

How about: to the state even 'sanctioning a religious institution' and regulating it? Requiring licenses for it?

Got any asnwers at all?
Click to expand...
I certainly agree and accept that religion (particularly Protestant Christianity) was the ring leader in their own destruction because Christianity made the huge mistake of viewing the government as the hand of God and they viewed the USA as a Christian Nation which it was NOT, and so the government eventually turned against the foolish religion that gave its power over to an immoral entity of government.

So yes the Christians are at fault for their own ruin, but it is still the government that violates the Institution of marriage.



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


1750Texan said:
That is nonsensical. Not all marriages are religious...period.
Click to expand...
They are not now, but 100 years ago and forever before that then they were all religious or sanctioned by religion and none were not.

We have non-religious marriages now because the government has taken away the authority of the religions, and the State has violated the religious institution of marriage.

Now today it is different because the government has violated marriages.
 
JP Cusick said:
1.) but it is still the government that violates the Institution of marriage.


2.) They are not now, but 100 years ago and forever before that then they were all religious or sanctioned by religion and none were not.
3.) We have non-religious marriages now because the government has taken away the authority of the religions
4.) and the State has violated the religious institution of marriage.
5.)Now today it is different because the government has violated marriages.
Click to expand...

1.) you keep reposting this lie but havent been able to provide ONE single fact to support it? please do so in your next post, thanks
2.) another lie, see #1
3.) another lie, no authority was taken from religion, see #1
4.) see #1
5.) see #1

you can keep repeating the lie that 2 + 2 = 678 but nobody is buying it. HOnest educated and objective people need something called proof and facts. Please provide those now, thanks
 
JP Cusick said:
I certainly agree and accept that religion (particularly Protestant Christianity) was the ring leader in their own destruction because Christianity made the huge mistake of viewing the government as the hand of God and they viewed the USA as a Christian Nation which it was NOT, and so the government eventually turned against the foolish religion that gave its power over to an immoral entity of government.

So yes the Christians are at fault for their own ruin, but it is still the government that violates the Institution of marriage.
Click to expand...

I dont think the govt is immoral just because of how it recognizes marriage...or in general. It may be 'amoral' but I'm thinking "objective' here, not 'empty of morals.' The recognition and protection of rights for individuals is not an *immoral* basis for governing IMO. It does mean however, that it should try to protect those rights as equally (fairly) as possible.

May I ask how the govt allowing atheists to marry has harmed your marriage? Anyone's marriage? Has made marriage 'less religious' for religious people? How as it harmed religion in America? Has it taken God out of your life or marriage somehow?
 
JP Cusick said:
They are not now, but 100 years ago and forever before that then they were all religious or sanctioned by religion and none were not.

We have non-religious marriages now because the government has taken away the authority of the religions, and the State has violated the religious institution of marriage.

Now today it is different because the government has violated marriages.
Click to expand...

That's simply wrong. Marriage has been about property rights and inheritance, it only became about religion because religion insisted on shoving it's nose where it was never invited, at a time where religion and the government were largely one and the same. Nobody ever granted religion control over marriage, they simply insisted that they had it. They were wrong. They are still wrong. And even if 100 years ago they pretended to control marriage, things change. Civil marriage and government control of marriage has existed in America dating back to the early 1800s. This is nothing new. The religious have been screaming discrimination for a long time and it holds no more traction today than it did when the Mormons were screaming about polygamy back in the 1850s.
 
Deuce said:
U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional | Reuters



The order:
8:14-cv-00356 #54 - Nebraska Memo and Order



The order also references one of my favorite judicial smackdowns in the history of this issue, Baskin v Bogan:



Again and again, proponents of same-sex marriage bans simply cannot make a reasonable case for their personal beliefs to be law.
Click to expand...

I don't have a horse in the race, and I don't care much about it, but this is really a done deal in the U.S. Same sex marriage is here to stay, and it soon will be country-wide.
 
Lursa said:
I dont think the govt is immoral just because of how it recognizes marriage...or in general. It may be 'amoral' but I'm thinking "objective' here, not 'empty of morals.' The recognition and protection of rights for individuals is not an *immoral* basis for governing IMO. It does mean however, that it should try to protect those rights as equally (fairly) as possible.
Click to expand...
It is true that the USA government is not immoral simply because of violating the institution of marriage, and yes the gov immorality goes far deeper than just that.

And I reject the pretense of amoral as there really is no such thing.

Claiming amoral is just a cowardly way of being immoral - IMO.

There is no individual right in marriage as every marriage takes two (2), and marriage includes the government now instead of God so that still makes three (3) and not an individual.

Lursa said:
May I ask how the govt allowing atheists to marry has harmed your marriage? Anyone's marriage? Has made marriage 'less religious' for religious people? How as it harmed religion in America? Has it taken God out of your life or marriage somehow?
Click to expand...
Atheist do not get married in any Church, unless they want the blessing of that religion.

If the Atheist is marrying a religious person in a religious sacrament of marriage then that Atheist is getting the religious blessing.

The discussion here is NOT about Atheist, even though I concede that the homosexual marriages are really in that same box.
 
JP Cusick said:
It is true that the USA government is not immoral simply because of violating the institution of marriage, and yes the gov immorality goes far deeper than just that.

And I reject the pretense of amoral as there really is no such thing.

Claiming amoral is just a cowardly way of being immoral - IMO.

There is no individual right in marriage as every marriage takes two (2), and marriage includes the government now instead of God so that still makes three (3) and not an individual.


Atheist do not get married in any Church, unless they want the blessing of that religion.

If the Atheist is marrying a religious person in a religious sacrament of marriage then that Atheist is getting the religious blessing.

The discussion here is NOT about Atheist, even though I concede that the homosexual marriages are really in that same box.
Click to expand...

One can look at 'amoral' as 'neutral' IMO. There are laws that are neither moral or immoral. Marriage is also considered an individual right because you cannot force an individual to marry. It's an individual act to marry someone. But yes, marriages are comprised of 2 people.

But athiests do marry. They also marry in churches because they are pretty places where people get married, lots of people can sit, and the clergy of most religions will even marry them. Why is that? Why will religious clergy marry people that arent religious?

Anyway, you didnt answer my questions about how non-religious people marrying has changed the institution of marriage for religious people or their marriages. Can you show any changes? Any affects on these married people or their marriages? This goes back to your original reasons for objecting to SSM. You also never explained why no religions tried to stop non-religious people from marrying the way they have attempted to do so with SSM. Can you say?
 
JP Cusick said:
The problem is that marriage was originally an institution of religion, and instead of the separation of church from State the States took over control of marriage away from religion thereby violating the institution, and after that then the State laws and Federal laws have no basis in morality and thereby the secular laws do not have any authority to say "no" to the same sex marriage.

It is a violation of the church by the State.

Of course we never see that position argued in the Courts.

All the State has is civil unions so calling a civil union as a marriage is just a play on words.

Of course now the Churches have mostly bowed to the demands and orders of the States and thereby the institution of marriage is violated.

The irony of it is that marriages for religious people and for natural partners was already being destroyed by the laws so letting the homosexuals have that dead institution of marriage is ironic since they are the only ones left in the USA who sees marriage as desirable or as valuable or as having any meaning.

A lot (if not most or all) of the States have local representatives who are trying to show their self to be politically against the same sex marriage in order to get that vote so they create those unsound laws which can never stand up in Court so THEN those representatives can pretend to be against it when really it is just a charade.
Click to expand...

No, not really...since ancient times and even today, marriages were not out of religious reason (or tenet) but for both business and social reasons of joining specific families together for sharing status, power in numbers and/or wealth.

Arranged marriage happens in a lot countries today that might be performed in church - but far from doing it to satisfy a religious tenet.
 
Lursa said:
One can look at 'amoral' as 'neutral' IMO. There are laws that are neither moral or immoral. Marriage is also considered an individual right because you cannot force an individual to marry. It's an individual act to marry someone. But yes, marriages are comprised of 2 people.

But athiests do marry. They also marry in churches because they are pretty places where people get married, lots of people can sit, and the clergy of most religions will even marry them. Why is that? Why will religious clergy marry people that arent religious?

Anyway, you didnt answer my questions about how non-religious people marrying has changed the institution of marriage for religious people or their marriages. Can you show any changes? Any affects on these married people or their marriages? This goes back to your original reasons for objecting to SSM. You also never explained why no religions tried to stop non-religious people from marrying the way they have attempted to do so with SSM. Can you say?
Click to expand...
I do not want you to just think that I am ignoring your comment, which in fact I am doing.

It is all irrelevant and sidetracking and there is really nothing for me to say to it.

:peace
 
JP Cusick said:
I do not want you to just think that I am ignoring your comment, which in fact I am doing.

It is all irrelevant and sidetracking and there is really nothing for me to say to it.

:peace
Click to expand...

OK, then if you cant answer those questions, your earlier position is nullified...it's not valid if there arent actually reasons for it.

:peace
 
JP Cusick said:
This is the point that government has violated the religious institution of marriage and now marriage is nothing more than an government joke of a marriage.
Click to expand...
Religion never owned it in the first place.

Now marriage is a temporary contract based only on the government, along with the huge divorce industry.

My own suggestion is for religious people to only get married within their faith under God, and do NOT get entrapped by the immoral and baseless government marriages.
Click to expand...
So, don't. No religious person has ever been forced to have the government recognize their union. Just don't sign the paperwork. Easy enough.

They would lose some government benefits - yes, but that would also give them some protection from the government chopping block for their marriage and for their family.

Just let the homosexuals have the legal marriages since they are now the ones left who see any value to it.
Click to expand...
I really don't see what your problem is. Every single religious person already has the right to do what you suggest.


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


The reason there has never been a fight like this before is because the government is now forcing this onto the religion.
Click to expand...
No they aren't. You don't have to marry a dude.
 
JumpinJack said:
I don't have a horse in the race, and I don't care much about it, but this is really a done deal in the U.S. Same sex marriage is here to stay, and it soon will be country-wide.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is a done deal, and if somehow it ever gets turned back in the future then that would be abrupt and extremely uncomfortable.

My point was simply to include the reality that this action marks the violation of the Church by the State and I see that as noteworthy.

There is no reason why we would not properly morn the huge loss of our old compatriots.

Both religion and marriage have been violated by the State for the purpose of homosexuality.
 
JP Cusick said:
I certainly agree and accept that religion (particularly Protestant Christianity) was the ring leader in their own destruction because Christianity made the huge mistake of viewing the government as the hand of God and they viewed the USA as a Christian Nation which it was NOT, and so the government eventually turned against the foolish religion that gave its power over to an immoral entity of government.

So yes the Christians are at fault for their own ruin, but it is still the government that violates the Institution of marriage.



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



They are not now, but 100 years ago and forever before that then they were all religious or sanctioned by religion and none were not.

We have non-religious marriages now because the government has taken away the authority of the religions, and the State has violated the religious institution of marriage.

Now today it is different because the government has violated marriages.
Click to expand...

This is not true. Many marriages had no religious involvement at all, even 100, 200, 500, 1000 years ago and further. Several civilizations didn't include religion at all in marriage. Even in early Christianity, European cultures, religion really wasn't important for determining marriage, hence why there were decrees in about the 10th Century or so from the Church (because they had gained enough power at that time) to involve religion in marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom