RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed"

RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News

Message

TheHungryTiger -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 9:02:49 AM)
Instances where someone who said 'I wont do that because it violates my faith' winds up getting sued? Sure ..... http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20289/transgenderism http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-me-doctor29-2008may29,0,3526450.story?track=rss http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/10/12/news/top_stories/20_25_0510_11_05.txt http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=14743 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_Jan_24/ai_69438642 Now as far as the spicific instance when the 'that' inside the statement 'I refuse to do that because it woudl violate my faith' is gay mariage? Not yet ..... but is it so far fetched to imagine that when a lawsuit results when the 'that' is all these other issues, then eventualy the same thing will happen when the 'that' is gay mariage? I hope that it never does happen. But is it realy 'unfounded' to imagine it could? Especialy in light of all the other lawsuits that result from 'I refuse to do that because it woudl violate my faith'.

Alumbrado -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 9:21:18 AM)
quote: But is it realy 'unfounded' to imagine it could? Since you could only find examples that had nothing to do with a marriage license being used to force someone to administer a religious ceremony, I'm going with 'Yeah, completely unfounded'.

AquaticSub -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 9:40:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub California (like the other states that allow gay marriages) is not attempting to enforce their law in the other states. Then why didnt california just keep on with their Registered Domestic Partners Act? As long as you are inside the borders of california, there is no difrence at all between the Registered Domestic Partners Act and a mariage licens. Why institute change when the only result of that change is going to be impacting laws outside your borders? Because I want the right to marry a woman, not just have a domestic partnership with her. Many heterosexuals don't realize the difference between the two because they've never been forced to consider not being able to marry the person they love. I applaud the state's actions and hopefully others will follow suit. California can't make other states honor their law - the federal government can and probably won't. We had a Civil War to determine that States Rights are not paramount. I don't think you realize the purpose of the Full Faith and Credit clause. quote: Ya meen in te same way that if a catholic who dosent believe in abortion cant be sued for not fillign a preciption for morning after pills? Or how a catholic hospital cant be sued for discrimination for not offering abortions on equal terms as a cecular hospital? You can be sued for not doing your job. If your job is fill scripts, fill the damn thing. Not all women on are birth control to prevent babies - some on it because their periods are so intense they would bleed to death otherwise and it's none of your damn business which one it is. If you have an ethical problem with it, find a new job - exactly the same as someone whose religion requires them not to shave their beard should either wear a mask when handling food or not handle food. Nobody is going to be sued for not performing a marriage. The government does not make clergy marry anyone. If that were true there would already be tons of lawsuits from people who couldn't get married where they wanted to because they were living with their partner. It's becoming a problem for heterosexual couples who don't feel like waiting till marriage to have sex.

TheHungryTiger -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 9:59:22 AM)
Ok, lets run with that idea ..... Nobody has ever actualy been arested for 2257 violations. Theirfore any worry that they could be is unfounded. Nobody practicing bdsm has ever actualy been charged with obscenity under the CDA. Theirfore any worry that they could be is unfounded. The new 'violent porn' pan in the U.K. hasent been used to go after BDSM porn. Theirfore any worry that they could be is unfounded. The recent ruling from the supreme court in US v Williams says that people can be acused of pandering child porn even if the porn isnt real. Now so far nobody into ageplay or adult baby fetish hasent been proscuted under this rule. Theirfore any worry that they could be is unfounded. Remember the push for a .xxx top level domain name? Well, no adult website had yet been pused into a 'gheto' section of the net with inferious services and lower quality. So all the people complaining that the .xxx domain name would lead to the ghetoization of porn on the net had their fears unfounded as well. Or what about the Securing Adolescents from Exploitation-Online Act? Since the law hasent yet to be used againt non-kiddiporn pedalers, then any worry about ISPs spying on your web trafic is unfounded. For that matter, despite all the state bans on gay marriage, there are no state bans on gay civial unions. Now since no bans on 'equal protection under the law' for gays has ever happene4d, its unfounded to express concern that it could happen in the future. Yeah, that whole 'first they came for the (blank) and I did nothing' quote by Martin Niemöller is a lod of bunk. Just because people have been sued for folowing their faith in other situations, there is nothing to worry about untill the same thing happens to gay marriage.

AquaticSub -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 10:08:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger Yeah, that whole 'first they came for the (blank) and I did nothing' quote by Martin Niemöller is a lod of bunk. Just because people have been sued for folowing their faith in other situations, there is nothing to worry about untill the same thing happens to gay marriage. Wow. You just compared expecting someone to do their job as mandated to the Nazis taking millions of people to their deaths. Really, it's ok to not give women drugs that will save their life, even though that is what you are paid to do and the doctor says to do it. It doesn't matter the law requiring states to respect other state's marriages is a NATIONAL law and hence the state is not, in any way, requiring other states to do anything. I'm throughly disgusted. When the government starts saying that priests have to preform marriages I'll agree with you. I expect people to do their jobs. I would turn down a job that required me to eat pork every day, not whine that my religion wasn't being respected.

TheHungryTiger -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 10:11:13 AM)
quote: Many heterosexuals don't realize the difference between the two because ..... Not only do I realise the difrence, I think there SHOULD be a difrence. I cant understand why the government is in the mariage business in the first place. Why cant the government just get out of the whole mariage business in the first place? No straight mariage. No gay mariage. Have 'equal protection under the law' be a totaly cecular issue. If you want the equal protection under the law, why not support the change to have straight couples equal protection be civial unions? That woudl make gay unions and straight unions equal under the law. If you want the emotional and spiritual fufilment of being married, why not find a church (unitertians, some episcopal) that preforms gay wedings?

Madame4a -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 10:14:20 AM)
yes no bans on civil unions but only two states in the union actually have civil unions and they are not recognized anywhere...

AquaticSub -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 10:14:58 AM)
shrugs I'd be fine with that but it's never going to happen. It would turn every marriage the US into a civil union. It strikes me as far more likely to simply make marriage equal and I'm going to go with the path that I think will be easier on the country to accept.

TheHungryTiger -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 10:15:40 AM)
quote: When the government starts saying that priests have to preform marriages I'll agree with you. If the goal ISNT abotu forcing the church to go againt the tenets of their faith, and IS about equal protection under the law, they was was the Domestic Partner Regestration rejected when its goal was to provide equal protection under the law?

TheHungryTiger -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 10:18:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub shrugs I'd be fine with that but it's never going to happen. It would turn every marriage the US into a civil union. It strikes me as far more likely to simply make marriage equal and I'm going to go with the path that I think will be easier on the country to accept. Government controls group A. Government dosent control group B. Since this is not 'equal' we theirfore have to have government controling group B as well????? Yeah, limiting government control is just 'too hard'. So the next best thing is to have the government controling everyone.

AquaticSub -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 10:18:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger quote: When the government starts saying that priests have to preform marriages I'll agree with you. If the goal ISNT abotu forcing the church to go againt the tenets of their faith, and IS about equal protection under the law, they was was the Domestic Partner Regestration rejected when its goal was to provide equal protection under the law? No marriage requires a paster/rabbi/priest/shamen/priestess/etc to be legal. Athiests go through the same process to marry and choose to not have a religious offical. The government does not require any religious person to officate a marriage they are uncomfortable doing so. This is why we have a Justice of the Peace. Marriages and civil unions, however, are unequal. Many people don't realize how unequal they are, but they do not provide all the same legal benfits. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

AquaticSub -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 10:20:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub shrugs I'd be fine with that but it's never going to happen. It would turn every marriage the US into a civil union. It strikes me as far more likely to simply make marriage equal and I'm going to go with the path that I think will be easier on the country to accept. Government controls group A. Government dosent control group B. Since this is not 'equal' we theirfore have to have government controling group B as well????? Yeah, limiting government control is just 'too hard'. So the next best thing is to have the government controling everyone. Being legally married comes with legal benfits - hence the government must be involved. If you can convince everyone to give up those benfits and switch to civil unions, more power to you.

TheHungryTiger -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 10:23:51 AM)
quote: The government does not require any religious person to officate a marriage they are uncomfortable doing so. This is why we have a Justice of the Peace. In in those situations, I am totaly oposed to calling such situations 'mariage'. If you enter into a legal arangement for cohabatiation and have that contract precided over by a justice of the peace, that absoutly should be 'civial union' regardless of the sexual orientation of the people involved in the contract. Yet even suggesting such a thing has consitantly and repeatidly got me labled as a hatemonger and a homophobe. Not just online, but also when I have tried to debate this issue with people I know in 3-D

TheHungryTiger -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 10:25:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub Being legally married comes with legal benfits - hence the government must be involved. If you can convince everyone to give up those benfits and switch to civil unions, more power to you. Its an uphill battel I know, but I feel that LIMITING government involvement in our private relationships is a battel worth fighting.

AquaticSub -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 10:25:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger quote: The government does not require any religious person to officate a marriage they are uncomfortable doing so. This is why we have a Justice of the Peace. In in those situations, I am totaly oposed to calling such situations 'mariage'. If you enter into a legal arangement for cohabatiation and have that contract precided over by a justice of the peace, that absoutly should be 'civial union' regardless of the sexual orientation of the people involved in the contract. Yet even suggesting such a thing has consitantly and repeatidly got me labled as a hatemonger and a homophobe. Not just online, but also when I have tried to debate this issue with people I know in 3-D I dunno if I'd call you a hatemonger or homophobe but I certainly don't agree with you.

GreedyTop -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 11:29:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger quote: When the government starts saying that priests have to preform marriages I'll agree with you. If the goal ISNT abotu forcing the church to go againt the tenets of their faith, and IS about equal protection under the law, they was was the Domestic Partner Regestration rejected when its goal was to provide equal protection under the law? marriage with paperwork is a societal thing. Handfasting, anyone?? CHURCHES are involved because of the society. GOVERNMENTAL recogniton of marriage is a SOCIETAL thing. just sayin'

Alumbrado -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 5:47:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger Yet even suggesting such a thing has consitantly and repeatidly got me labled as a hatemonger and a homophobe. Not just online, but also when I have tried to debate this issue with people I know in 3-D And what's the common factor there? Perhaps your insistence on repeating the untrue notion that a marriage license has anything to do with religion? Perhaps repeating it in the face of all common sense, let alone proof to the contrary, until people wonder what the hell your real point must be?

TheHungryTiger -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 7:25:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado ..... until people wonder what the hell your real point must be? The reason people cant understand my point is because it dosent fit neatly into the political-left / political right talking points that usualy get used. Im not christian. I dont believe in a literal translation of the bible. I dont accept the divinity of jesus. I dont think 'fags will burn in hell'. Yet I am still againt gay mariage. So my views dont fit neatly into the preformed ideas of what people assume a 'anti gay mariage' person should be saying? Simple fix. Just call the person crazy.

Alumbrado -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/5/2008 7:34:11 PM)
And which side of this "political-left / political right " divide is the 'a marriage license has no control over religious ceremonies' viewpoint from?

TheHungryTiger -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/11/2008 2:34:47 PM)
WHat the hell .... I'll bite ..... "a marriage license has no control over religious ceremonies" is a rightest issue. "a marriage has no control over religious ceremonies" is a leftest issue. Just scrambel up the definition of 'mariage' and 'mariage license' and you can always claim that its the other side that is the hatemongers.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1933594