Why are you against same sex marriage?

[roguenuke]

So, allowing a non-Mexican to wear a serape during Halloween isn't appropriation, either? Better tell that to SJWs...and colleges.

First those are 2 different things.

Second, I don't have to tell people anything. Go watch some Buffy and come back to me (an episode where everyone dresses up in clothing of a different culture). Hell there was a story about someone dressing up as basically the 9/11 terrorists strike (twin towers being hit by planes).

I don't care what some idiots think. They are not the law.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

A same sex marriage in those before judges' interventionist times wasn't legally a marriage even though the wish for marriage was evident between the couple.
BTW, how did those who called themselves married before judges intervened list their union on a tax form, for example?

But you were talking about using the term, not legality. They could legally call themselves married, they just could not claim as such on official forms. That in itself says that we are discussing mainly legal marriage, how the law views marriage. And the law treated same sex couples differently in that regard than opposite sex couples based solely on the relative sexes of those in the relationship.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[cabse5]

First those are 2 different things.

Second, I don't have to tell people anything. Go watch some Buffy and come back to me (an episode where everyone dresses up in clothing of a different culture). Hell there was a story about someone dressing up as basically the 9/11 terrorists strike (twin towers being hit by planes).

I don't care what some idiots think. They are not the law.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Fine. Why doesn't the dem party break away from SJW influence especially when it is hypocritical?

 

[roguenuke]

That's nice, pushing through the courts to force something the public was against without taking other measures created animosity that was unnecessary. A Civil Union with the SAME RIGHTS as marriage would have allowed the legal angle to be covered, and let the public both get used to the idea and over time people would have seen how silly it was to be against Gay "marriage" and it would have resolved itself. Ergo my point is there were better ways without pissing off a lot of people, but the agenda must be worshipped I guess.

I have seen no increase in animosity. Any that may have occurred was very shortlived. The vast majority of those against same sex marriage now were against it before any same sex couples could legally marry. And many people have in fact simply changed their views to be more accepting of same sex marriage in the last 7 years.

Show evidence of any increase in animosity.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[cabse5]

But you were talking about using the term, not legality. They could legally call themselves married, they just could not claim as such on official forms. That in itself says that we are discussing mainly legal marriage, how the law views marriage. And the law treated same sex couples differently in that regard than opposite sex couples based solely on the relative sexes of those in the relationship.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

You're saying anyone can use any term they want even terms which aren't legal or correct? :lamo I think you're describing slang.

 

[roguenuke]

Fine. Why doesn't the dem party break away from SJW influence especially when it is hypocritical?

I don't know, don't care. I'm not a member of any political party. I support same sex marriage because it is the right thing to do, for equality, not because any party supports it.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

You're saying anyone can use any term they want even terms which aren't legal or correct? :lamo I think you're describing slang.

Yes. That is part of freedom of speech.

There was an episode of L&O:SVU where teens were calling themselves married, referring to their boyfriends/girlfriends as true husband/wife, because they cant legally get married as teenagers without parent permission.

It isnt slang, just the differences between the use of the word. You don't need the law to recognize your marriage to use the term in a personal setting. Just as there are some that are legally married just for some benefit of marriage but don't call themselves such other than on legal paperwork.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[cabse5]

Is marriage only to be defined between white heterosexual Christian couples in the US, or do you permit other religions and races to be married?

The Obergfell decision is legally identical to the Loving v. Virginia decision that guaranteed that interracial people and people in interracial relationship have the right to marry, so if you seek to wipe away one of them you must be consistent and wipe away both of them and as a result, admit to being a racist as well as being homophobic/transphobic.

How has your life or that of your church been negatively changed since either of those SCOTUS decisions on equal rights?

I don't belong to a church but am against appropriation...which gays and judges did with gay marriage.

 

[calamity]

There’s nothing wrong with same sex marriage. If it’s an honest marriage derived from love, I’m sure all 10,000 gods that don’t really exist approve too.

 

[Daisy]

Run,......................run away.

Some of us actually sleep at night instead of setting on the net until 2:26 AM...:2razz:

 

[danielpalos]

I don't belong to a church but am against appropriation...which gays and judges did with gay marriage.

This is our supreme law of the land:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[TheGoverness]

People can call it whatever they want, the law can call it whatever they want...there is only one definition of a marriage and God set the precedent for what true marriage is when He united the 1st man and woman...

Can I invite God to my wedding in the future? I know two women getting married triggers him so.

 

[calamity]

People can call it whatever they want, the law can call it whatever they want...there is only one definition of a marriage and God set the precedent for what true marriage is when He united the 1st man and woman...

Let me guess. This first couple was Adam and Eve, not Steve. :doh

BTW: that's a myth.

 

[cabse5]

This is our supreme law of the land:

That above doesn't prove everyone is entitled to marriage. It above means everyone is entitled to gov't protected unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

 

[AGENT J]

I don't belong to a church but am against appropriation...which gays and judges did with gay marriage.

Nope that never happened in this country no matter how many times you try to seel that lie LMAO

 

[Lisa]

I don't belong to a church but am against appropriation...which gays and judges did with gay marriage.

Did blacks and judges also appropriate interracial marriage that was previously banned?

LGBT couples have been getting married long before the Christian church existed, so they could have not have appropriated anything brecause marriage does not belong to any church.

 

[Divine_Wind]

This was an interesting discussion I was having with people.

If you are against same-sex marriage I would like to hear your explanation as to why keep in mind if you responding you give an explanation I may ask you to rationalize. I won't call you a bigot or attack you in anyway and I expect the same reciprocated. I can't speak for other posters I would ask that they not do that but sometimes people got to do what they got to do what they do.

That being said please explain if you are against same-sex marriage why you are and be prepared to rationalize.

I’m not against it. I support two things very strongly; The Constitution of the United States, in this case, specifically the Equal Protection Clause, and the universal law of “Live and Let Live” AKA “Mind your own f***ing business”.

Protecting all of our rights under the Constitution helps ensure my rights will remain protected. Protecting the right of two people to share the same rights and benefits as another couple is part of that protection. Remember the “First they came for the Socialists, but I wasn’t a socialist”?

Minding one’s own business is smart because life is complicated and people should focuse on their own lives, not snoop on the lives of others.

 

[Lisa]

That above doesn't prove everyone is entitled to marriage. It above means everyone is entitled to gov't protected unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Marriage is a secular civil contract between 2 adults and the state. There is nothing religious involved in it. The religious action and ceremony are known as matrimony if you would bother to read religious views. No church or relgion is required to do anything or have any part in LGBT marriage. Marriage is a secular civil union, but you disgree agree with LGBT people being able to use the word marriage.

Episcopal

"______, wilt thou have this woman/man to be thy wedded wife/husband to live together after God's ordinance in the Holy Estate of matrimony? Wilt thou love her/him? Comfort her/him, honor and keep her/him, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others keep thee only unto her/him as long as you both shall live?"

"In the name of God, I, ______, take you, ______, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow."

 

[Lisa]

Some of us actually sleep at night instead of setting on the net until 2:26 AM...:2razz:

I have severe insomnia, so I don't sleep much before 3am. I use that time to read, draw or do researach.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I don't belong to a church but am against appropriation...which gays and judges did with gay marriage.

No, that's not what happened. Gays and judges didn't 'appropriate' anything. You should really go look that word up.

Why do you hate freedom and liberty?

 

[Divine_Wind]

Marriage before judges intervened was between a man and woman. Therefore gays appropriated marriage.

...and slavery was legal before those dumbass Christians interfered and pushed for abolitionism.

Do you think the Constitution and SCOTUS should be expanding rights of American citizens? Limiting those rights? Or pushing to increase the limitation of those rights?

I believe the first one; it’s the way the enlightened Founders would have wanted our nation to grow: more freedom for everyone. You, OTOH, are seeking to limit the rights of people you don’t like or with whom you disapprove. Adult Americans have a right to choose how they want to live and those choices should be fair to all so don’t bring up the marrying a donkey or a 10 year old because that’s just lame lying.

 

[PeacefulPartier]

I'm against the government controlling a social construct such as marriage. But that started because Henry the VIII wanted a divorce and couldn't get it. So he created his own church and made himself the head of the church. Can we say theocracy. Unfortunately, when we floated over the big blue pound, we brought with us this idea that the government should approve and deny marriage. That is in direct conflict with the first amendment.

The problem with the government regulating a social construct, especially one that is deeply rooted in several religions, is that any regulation will ultimately violate the beliefs of several religions. Ultimately, people of those religions are forced to abide by, and in some cases participate in, marriages that violate their religious beliefs. And we have seen that in some notable cases with same sex couples and cakes and photographers.

I would rather the government ended all recognition of marriages.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm against the government controlling a social construct such as marriage. But that started because Henry the VIII wanted a divorce and couldn't get it. So he created his own church and made himself the head of the church. Can we say theocracy. Unfortunately, when we floated over the big blue pound, we brought with us this idea that the government should approve and deny marriage. That is in direct conflict with the first amendment.

2.) The problem with the government regulating a social construct, especially one that is deeply rooted in several religions, is that any regulation will ultimately violate the beliefs of several religions. Ultimately, people of those religions are forced to abide by, and in some cases participate in, marriages that violate their religious beliefs. And we have seen that in some notable cases with same sex couples and cakes and photographers.

3.) I would rather the government ended all recognition of marriages.

1.) dont know what country you are from but you should come to american if you can and youll be in luck because in America the government factually does not control it :shrug:
2.) again thats terrible luckily for me in american nobody is forced to do any of that
3.) well again here in the US where we have rights and freedoms its awesome that the government protects are legal contracts from others that may wish to violate them and violate our rights . . .seriously i hope you can get here because its much better than wherever you are from!

 

[PeacefulPartier]

1.) dont know what country you are from but you should come to american if you can and youll be in luck because in America the government factually does not control it :shrug:

Did you file your taxes as single or married?

2.) again thats terrible luckily for me in american nobody is forced to do any of that

Of course they are. There have been several well publicized cases. You are just playing ignorant...right?

3.) well again here in the US where we have rights and freedoms its awesome that the government protects are legal contracts from others that may wish to violate them and violate our rights . . .seriously i hope you can get here because its much better than wherever you are from!

Am I supposed to take legal advice from a man that doesn't know the difference between our and are? The intent of certain laws is to protect rights, but in so doing the federal and state governments have inadvertently created two classes of citizens, a protected class and a serving class. The protected class is a group of people that liberals have declared have more rights than the serving class. Examples would be muslims, homosexuals, transgender, feminists (not all women), Jews that vote liberal, dogs and cats. Everyone that encounters these people must serve them regardless of their ability or own rights.

 

[roguenuke]

I don't belong to a church but am against appropriation...which gays and judges did with gay marriage.

Not even close to the definition of appropriation.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk