Message boards :
Politics :
Same Gender Marriage
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
Maybe it is time to change the law so priests can't be officiants at weddings. Unnecessary. The religious marriage ceremonies in which priests perform are already separate from the civil paperwork which defines marriage, legally. Same word ("marriage"), totally different beasts. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19013 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
A lot of the Laws in the USA are based on the Common law of England. There never has been any law on marriage in English common law. In England it was the Church of England canon law that applied. So you have to look for any marriage laws in canon law, but isn't the church and state separate in the US, so if you don't belong to a church were there any marriage laws in 1776. The UK marriage act of 1753, might be applied but Jews and Quakers were exempt, and so probably one could argue other religions are as well. The Royal Family is also exempt. So far all I have found on marriage laws before 1776 and shortly after is things like banning interracial marriage. So at this stage I feel like doing an I.D. and suggest you revert to the laws applying in 1776. As there is no mention of marriage laws in the Constitution then presumably you should be able to do what you want. (N.B. You might like to question the age at which people could get married, canon law in England stated you had to be over 21.) |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
No one said that your children should go hungry and you are right that every work place is suitable but I doubt that you are shingling houses or a welder in a ship yard so you already have made choices I am simply saying to look farther at what they are It sounds to me like a home business likely would be better for you and your kids than what you do. Find something you like that can make enough money get the skills and do it. |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
And just so you do not think me heartless, I think any company that can should Dancer, I think you are making some assumptions about me that are probably confusing. I'll give you some background. I'm very educated. I have post graduate qualifications and I'm a physics teacher. I am sure you are aware that teachers are constantly expected to pick up the pieces of everyone else's poor child rearing, but our own children are not considered important. They do not have flexible working hours. Schools teach between set times and you are there or else. You are expected to work long hours without extra pay. Attending parents evenings is compulasory. As a colleague of mine used to say "every child matters except your own." Before I was a teacher I was a civil servant. The working conditions were great and I was given flexible hours and allowed to work from home. Unfortunately when I first started to work there it actually cost me money to work by the time I had paid childcare. It is non sustainable. You can't pay to go to work. As a single mother you are constantly stuck between a rock and a hard place. You make the best choices you can and you damned from every direction. Perhaps if someone had forced my the father of my children to help I wouldn't have had to make those choices. How do you force someone to act like a father? Reality Internet Personality |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
No such thing as a marriage license in my Country till after the civil war. It is just another way for the Fed/state to get into your life and pocket. There wasn't a marriage law till after the civil war because some people didn't want blacks to marry whites. This is also why gay people point to the change in our Constitution as a right for them to marry. This also isn't true, back then no one who was gay dared to ask for marriage. The amendments added after the war was to grant in stone the fact that black people a people just like anyone else. The case cant be made that gay people are not people, of coarse they are. The case is do they have a marriage, and that is not true. Over 230 years of prescendance is in fact the law already. DOMA can and should be made as an Amendment. The vote is there for it and Prop 8 confirms that FACT. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
Maybe it is time to change the law so priests can't be officiants at weddings. ===================================================== A marriage is simply a pubic demonstration of a private decision two people have already made to each other that the two are one and will take on all comers who oppose they happiness. as was stated earlier the demonstration and the paper work is separate. As to churches preforming same sex marriage's I think they should be allowed but not compelled. As to is it ok, If I had a family member that choose to live in a committed relationship with a same sex partner I would first not want them hurt because of this and second I would want the same protections afforded married couples to not have people outside that bond inter-fear with decisions that should be family decisions. And I would want insurance and other benefits to be the same. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
You would have to find God as the source of love, just like Descartes to understand any of it. ID, you use the term socialist quite frequently. In my studies of economics your usage in the above statement is incongruent. Could you please define what the word means to you. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Quite true. If they want some mumbling by an appointed enlightened one, they can have that. If they want to be able to check the married box on the tax return and have anyone recognize it to be a marriage, they better head to the government and get the license. Maybe it is time to change the law so priests can't be officiants at weddings. After all the church and state should be separate. After all the church and state should be separate. Once again you show your lack of knowledge of the Constitution. The wall statement was Jefferson's quote and the socialist left are the ones who stands this up and incorrectly so. YOU MISAPPLY his statement. Jefferson held Anglican Church services right in the Halls of Congress and this fact crushes you weak and futile argument. The government doesn't sanction marriage, they get in your pocket for the money and that is all. God sanction marriage. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
I believe he uses it to mean anyone who disagrees with him. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
I thought socialist was a term used in economics, silly me. I really would like to hear his definition. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Jefferson wrote: "government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions." So if God sanction's marriage as ID suggests, then government can't promote this and would have to drop the married check box off the tax form, drop all the provisions in the codes about estates, drop all provisions in medical laws, get rid of divorce, all children would be bastards, the list goes on an on. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
If you believe in god that is ok. If someone else does not believe in god that also is ok. When you attempt to force your belief in god on another that is not ok. You believe there is a god and that he, she, or it sanctions marriage, ok. I believe there is no god or at best it is unknowable, so asking the unknowable to sanction marriage seems silly to me. I make no attempt to force you to believe as I but I do expect you to respect my belief as I respect you's. |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Really? Gay people are still fertile. Reality Internet Personality |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Clearly, in ID's world gay men are prohibited from donating sperm to gay women. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Jefferson wrote:"government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions." Oh dear, it seems a poster here has not realized that your comment was written in the context of the subject at hand, the provisions you referenced relate to marriage status, didn't they? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Jefferson wrote:"government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions." Of course they do. But, bobby, I'm a them. And as we all know in some posters world a them can never be correct. So if I were to say the sky is blue, it would have find fault with the statement. That and the post points out the circular logic some posters here cling to more stridently than any faith. But his rejection of the IRS must mean he rejects the sixteenth amendment. That makes me wonder if he rejects all amendments such as the first and second. Have we uncovered more circular logic? |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
Jefferson wrote:"government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions." this is dancers room mate i know of religions that allow same sex and multiple partner marriages since there are religions out there tat accept these as valid forms of marriage any laws preventing them from having a marriage of those forms other then man with women are unconstitutional by the second amendment of the us constitution by stating that the only marriage allowed is one man and one women they are accepting the religious beliefs of those religions that believe that way over that of ones that don't. |
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
... 90% of the world is heterosexual, the other 10% are gay. True. (At least, it's a close enough approximation for Internet punditry.) Therefore 90% of the world, or the vast majority, view same gender relationships as un-natural, whatever any religion may teach. False. Not all heterosexuals are bigots, do not condemn everything which differs from ourselves as "un-natural." |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
... 90% of the world is heterosexual, the other 10% are gay. +1 |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
False. Not all heterosexuals are bigots, do not condemn everything which differs from ourselves as "un-natural." Every human on this planet is a bigot, and you aren't the exception. The simple fact that our languages have pigeon holes to call others is the proof of our being bigots. We had to make a judgement to create the pigeon hole and place someone in a pigeon hole and that judgement alone is bigotry. Acting upon it is where it can get ugly. The best any of us can do is attempt to ignore classification. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.