Defense of Marriage Act ruled Unconstitutional

[NOK222]

Marriage itself should be cast aside, it's a silly thing left over from the old ages that simply wont hold up to the future of humanity.

 

Disclaimer: Not Sarcasm

Edited June 26, 2013 by NKKKK

[BruceVC]

Marriage itself should be cast aside, it's a silly thing left over from the old ages that simply wont hold up to the future of humanity.

 

Disclaimer: Not Sarcasm

 

You make an interesting point, but I still think it should be optional for those that feel its appropriate?

[Calax]

well, do those that thing it's appropriate think that because they actually believe it, or because they were taught that it's the only way?

[Orogun01]

Marriage itself should be cast aside, it's a silly thing left over from the old ages that simply wont hold up to the future of humanity.

 

Disclaimer: Not Sarcasm

Nonsense, a lot of talentless women still depend on child support payments to make a living. Why do you want to force them to work?

[Elerond]

Dead of DOMA is good, but I think that there is still long way to go before there is gender neutral marriage laws in every state.

 

It is always interesting in this debate how people fear that churches would be forced to marry same-sex partners, but nobody ever is concerned that some churches are now forbidden to not marry same-sex partners, even though their dogma recognize such and even some cases advocate them.  

[BruceVC]

well, do those that thing it's appropriate think that because they actually believe it, or because they were taught that it's the only way?

 

Good point, I don't know to be honest. Maybe a combination?

 

Dead of DOMA is good, but I think that there is still long way to go before there is gender neutral marriage laws in every state.

 

It is always interesting in this debate how people fear that churches would be forced to marry same-sex partners, but nobody ever is concerned that some churches are now forbidden to not marry same-sex partners, even though their dogma recognize such and even some cases advocate them.  

 

That's a valid point, what about  the rights of those churches that are prepared to marry gay couples but legally can't. Very good point actually

[decado]

 

Are you pleased with the Supreme Court decision Gfted? Its probably a stupid question as how can anyone not be pleased with the legal progression of equality in the greatest country of Western Democracy and ideology? I'm not even American and I'm ecstatic

No Im not, but that's because I don't feel anyone's sexuality should be forced on another group and Im pretty sure someone somewhere is already drafting up a lawsuit against <insert church that wont marry you>. Regarding homosexuality? I don't care who sticks which sexual organ into which orifice, as long as everyone is consenting.

 

 

No such lawsuit will ever be worth the paper it is printed on.  Private groups like religions and churches can discriminate against whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. Nobody will be able to sue a Catholic Church for failing to marry a gay couple in much the same way that they can't sue the Catholic Church for failing to make women priests.  They're a private organization and they can do whatever the hell they want.

Edited June 26, 2013 by decado

[Malcador]

Well in one case they're forced, hypothetically, to go against their beliefs whereas in the other they are willing but unable to due to the law (although they can still perform the religious aspect of it in their case).

[Gfted1]

 

Dead of DOMA is good, but I think that there is still long way to go before there is gender neutral marriage laws in every state.

 

It is always interesting in this debate how people fear that churches would be forced to marry same-sex partners, but nobody ever is concerned that some churches are now forbidden to not marry same-sex partners, even though their dogma recognize such and even some cases advocate them.

 

That's a valid point, what about  the rights of those churches that are prepared to marry gay couples but legally can't. Very good point actually

 

There is no "legality" to it. A church does or does not marry homosexuals based on the churches internal dogma.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Marriage itself should be cast aside, it's a silly thing left over from the old ages that simply wont hold up to the future of humanity.

 

Disclaimer: Not Sarcasm

 

Nonsense, a lot of talentless women still depend on child support payments to make a living. Why do you want to force them to work?

Because NKKKK is an evil misogynist who serves the High Council of the Patriarchy.

[decado]

 

well, do those that thing it's appropriate think that because they actually believe it, or because they were taught that it's the only way?

 

Good point, I don't know to be honest. Maybe a combination?

 

Dead of DOMA is good, but I think that there is still long way to go before there is gender neutral marriage laws in every state.

 

It is always interesting in this debate how people fear that churches would be forced to marry same-sex partners, but nobody ever is concerned that some churches are now forbidden to not marry same-sex partners, even though their dogma recognize such and even some cases advocate them.  

 

That's a valid point, what about  the rights of those churches that are prepared to marry gay couples but legally can't. Very good point actually

 

Churches can marry whoever they want.  Churches conduct marriages between gay couples all the time.  

 

From the legal point of view, the only thing that determines whether or not you are married is your marriage license, which is a document you get from the state. If you get married in a church, but you never get a marriage license, you are not considered married as far as the state is concerned (though there are ways around this, like having a common-law partner, etc).  But the bottom line is, there is nothing stopping churches from performing marriages of any kind.

Edited June 26, 2013 by decado

[Elerond]

Well in one case they're forced, hypothetically, to go against their beliefs whereas in the other they are willing but unable to due to the law (although they can still perform the religious aspect of it in their case).

 

That is true, at least that sense that you are free to practice you religion even that you don't have legal recognition to do so.

 

 

 

Dead of DOMA is good, but I think that there is still long way to go before there is gender neutral marriage laws in every state.

 

It is always interesting in this debate how people fear that churches would be forced to marry same-sex partners, but nobody ever is concerned that some churches are now forbidden to not marry same-sex partners, even though their dogma recognize such and even some cases advocate them.

 

That's a valid point, what about  the rights of those churches that are prepared to marry gay couples but legally can't. Very good point actually

 

These is no "legality" to it. A church does or does not marry homosexuals based on the churches internal dogma.

 

 

So there should not then be any problems to force churches to perform weddings for same-sex partners if you give them freedom not to use ceremonies and rituals that their dogma says to be used only for heterosexual weddings, as then they much only do weddings as legal entities and not as religious entities? Or would it be better if churches didn't have right to perform legally binding marriages, so there would be no need for debate if they should or should not perform weddings for some people?

 

PS. This is only hypothetical pondering from my part, as I fully support freedom of religion and churches right to include and exclude people from their ceremonies as they see their beliefs dictate.  

[NOK222]

 

 

Marriage itself should be cast aside, it's a silly thing left over from the old ages that simply wont hold up to the future of humanity.

 

Disclaimer: Not Sarcasm

Nonsense, a lot of talentless women still depend on child support payments to make a living. Why do you want to force them to work?

Because NKKKK is an evil misogynist who serves the High Council of the Patriarchy.

 

I don't serve the high council.

 

I am in the High Council. 

[Gfted1]

So there should not then be any problems to force churches to perform weddings for same-sex partners if you give them freedom not to use ceremonies and rituals that their dogma says to be used only for heterosexual weddings, as then they much only do weddings as legal entities and not as religious entities?

Agreed. The problem they run into though is that ceremonies performed in churches, by clergy, are deemed by the church to have been performed under the "eyes of god".

 

Or would it be better if churches didn't have right to perform legally binding marriages, so there would be no need for debate if they should or should not perform weddings for some people?

In the US, you don't have to be married in a church. Many marriages are performed by judges, or justice of the peace, or a drive through in Vegas. There are many alternatives.

 

PS. This is only hypothetical pondering from my part, as I fully support freedom of religion and churches right to include and exclude people from their ceremonies as they see their beliefs dictate.

Me too. It irks me when private organizations (Boy Scouts anyone?) are railroaded into accepting things they don't approve of.

[ShadySands]

I really don't mind what happened to the Boy Scouts, honestly. I agree that any private group should be able to discriminate if they so choose but I don't think they should be protected from the fallout of such actions (bad press, declining membership/donations, etc).

[decado]

I really don't mind what happened to the Boy Scouts, honestly. I agree that any private group should be able to discriminate if they so choose but I don't think they should be protected from the fallout of such actions (bad press, declining membership/donations, etc).

 

Exactly.  The BSA are free to discriminate all they want.  They just have to be willing to withstand the heat. Apparently they were not able to.

[Gfted1]

I really don't mind what happened to the Boy Scouts, honestly. I agree that any private group should be able to discriminate if they so choose but I don't think they should be protected from the fallout of such actions (bad press, declining membership/donations, etc).

Then I presume you also feel the same about churches?

[alanschu]

 

 

Me too. It irks me when private organizations (Boy Scouts anyone?) are railroaded into accepting things they don't approve of.

 

Was it a legal thing, or a public opinion thing?

[Gfted1]

 

Me too. It irks me when private organizations (Boy Scouts anyone?) are railroaded into accepting things they don't approve of.

 

Was it a legal thing, or a public opinion thing?

 

I think a little from column A and a little from column B. IIRC, they were sued years ago and it went all the way to the Supreme Court, where BSA won. But years and years of lawsuits and bad press ground them down.

[John Forseti]

I don't see why it would be a problem to revoke tax-exemptions if religious organisations don't harmonise practices with the law, the right is freedom of religion and worship, not freedom from tax.

 

In the UK there's currently law going through parliament to also allow gay marriage(in addition to the already legal civil partnerships(which will remain and be same-sex only for some reason)) but one of the weird provisions expressly bans the Church of England from performing them. To me, it should be the opposite, they should be forced to perform them since the CofE are the legally established church of the country and their bishops automatically get to set in Parliament.

[ShadySands]

 

I really don't mind what happened to the Boy Scouts, honestly. I agree that any private group should be able to discriminate if they so choose but I don't think they should be protected from the fallout of such actions (bad press, declining membership/donations, etc).

Then I presume you also feel the same about churches?

 

 

Yes, I do

 

Their rights are protected and they can continue to believe as they have and discriminate based on those beliefs. While people are free to hail them as champions of the faith or bigots and support them or not accordingly.

[Zoraptor]

Isn't a chunk of the anti-gay bible aspect in Leviticus?  Which also has the big chunk of "tattoo's are bad, mmkay?",  "you should not cross-breed cattle" and the "you're going to hell if you wear clothes made out of more then one type of material" if I vaguely recall...

 

It does seem to me that if the various churches are okay dropping the latter bunch and not stressing over them, why are they getting so hooked on that part?

It's also justified via Paul, who is NT rather than Leviticus's OT. Jesus himself didn't have any comment on the matter.

 

But then I often think that if Jesus lived today he would be labelled a dangerous liberal subversive by rather a lot of the more strident Christians on the planet.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

Marriage itself should be cast aside, it's a silly thing left over from the old ages that simply wont hold up to the future of humanity.

 

Disclaimer: Not Sarcasm

Nonsense, a lot of talentless women still depend on child support payments to make a living. Why do you want to force them to work?

 

Because NKKKK is an evil misogynist who serves the High Council of the Patriarchy.

 

I don't serve the high council.

 

I am in the High Council.

 

[NOK222]

 

Isn't a chunk of the anti-gay bible aspect in Leviticus?  Which also has the big chunk of "tattoo's are bad, mmkay?",  "you should not cross-breed cattle" and the "you're going to hell if you wear clothes made out of more then one type of material" if I vaguely recall...

 

It does seem to me that if the various churches are okay dropping the latter bunch and not stressing over them, why are they getting so hooked on that part?

It's also justified via Paul, who is NT rather than Leviticus's OT. Jesus himself didn't have any comment on the matter.

 

But then I often think that if Jesus lived today he would be labelled a dangerous liberal subversive by rather a lot of the more strident Christians on the planet.

 

Isn't there something that says modern people don't follow that because it was for gentiles or something?

 

And if it isn't, there's something in the new testament that Jesus said about man lying with man

[Zoraptor]

Do not lie with a man as with a woman is straight (hoho) Leviticus, iirc, but I will check...

 

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

 

ex wikipedia