This is why I H A T E partisan politics...

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503811
Plenty of churches refuse to marry heterosexual couples for many reasons. If you logic was true these churches would be already exposed to lawsuits. Simple fix, don't reqire or prevent any private institution from performing whatever religious rites they choose and if the government decides to acknowledge one rite from one group, then acknowledge them all.
Yeah BUT if they refused to marry someone based on being a member of a protected class they would be open to lawsuits. I can refuse you service at my business for any reason, except for being gay, a woman, handicapped, a "minority" etc.

 

[jerthunter]

Yeah BUT if they refused to marry someone based on being a member of a protected class they would be open to lawsuits. I can refuse you service at my business for any reason, except for being gay, a woman, handicapped, a "minority" etc.
So the issue isn't with gay marriage, its with protected classes... Maybe if people addressed the correct issue there wouldn't be these problems.

 

[jerthunter]

The government using marriage the way it has made sense once upon a time. Now it presents a problem that isn't that hard to fix. Just start issuing civil union licenses that can be finalized by a minister or a clerk, whatever floats your boat.
Why not just call it what it is? What's the big roadblock with accepting marriage as a religious instituion. If a church accepts marrying people regardless of gender, why should the government insist on calling it something else.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503815
So the issue isn't with gay marriage, its with protected classes... Maybe if people addressed the correct issue there wouldn't be these problems.
You are trying to place the rights of a protected class ahead of everyone's basic constitutional right of freedom of religion.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503817
Why not just call it what it is? What's the big roadblock with accepting marriage as a religious instituion. If a church accepts marrying people regardless of gender, why should the government insist on calling it something else.
I don't know how to draw you a picture to make it any more clear. A church can make the decision for themselves. The government is constitutionally prohibited from making laws establishing religion or preventing the free exercise thereof. If the government changes the law to say marriage is gender neutral they just redefined a religious tradition.

 

[jerthunter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503823
You are trying to place the rights of a protected class ahead of everyone's basic constitutional right of freedom of religion.
No, I am saying get rid of the protected class, or get rid of governments involvement in religion. Let the churchs decide who to marry and get rid of the governments role for or agianst it. Make marriage the same as communion, I've used that example before. And if someone can sue a chuch for refusing them communion, then deal with that issue through the courts by preventing bs lawsuits.

 

[jerthunter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503824
I don't know how to draw you a picture to make it any more clear. A church can make the decision for themselves. The government is constitutionally prohibited from making laws establishing religion or preventing the free exercise thereof. If the government changes the law to say marriage is gender neutral they just redefined a religious tradition.
If the government makes a law that defines marriage as between a man and woman they also violate religious freedom, What about the churches that support gay marriage? And way do you assume marriage is a religious tradition? I don't know anywhere in the bible or other religious text where it says, "And on the eighth day god created marriage". Just because marriages often occur in churches does not mean that one church or group of churches own the entire tradition. Every church I've been too has picnic meals a few times a years, that doesn't mean picnics are an exclusive church tradition.
P.S. If you are just going to claim,"well god created man and woman, so he must have created marriage" you might as well just skip to the end and claim that your religion is the only correct one and save some time.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503836
If the government makes a law that defines marriage as between a man and woman they also violate religious freedom, What about the churches that support gay marriage? And way do you assume marriage is a religious tradition? I don't know anywhere in the bible or other religious text where it says, "And on the eighth day god created marriage". Just because marriages often occur in churches does not mean that one church or group of churches own the entire tradition. Every church I've been too has picnic meals a few times a years, that doesn't mean picnics are an exclusive church tradition.
P.S. If you are just going to claim,"well god created man and woman, so he must have created marriage" you might as well just skip to the end and claim that your religion is the only correct one and save some time.

Deuteronomy 24:5
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503776
Why? You can mock it all you want, but why?
I'm simply pointing out that we've made it legal to kill millions upon millions of kids, who couldn't do a dang thing to stop it... Roe vs wade has ended more people's lives than hitler ever did...
I'm just pointing out the obvious... Lets call it what it is. Am I a kook for Advocating for a baby who can't speak for himself?
How do you quantify atrocities? number of deaths? The Heinousness of the action? Taking advantage of the helpless?
You've yet to back up anything you've said. More than a couple thing arguments about guilt by association, Then just mockery. You've not defending your opionions on Ryan. Just called him a pathological liar, but won't say how.
You've claimed Walker was a puppet but won't support it.
you've tried to tie all republicans to a person they kicked out of the party, for all intents and purposes.
Back up what your claim...
I gave you the answer you seek. You just refuse to listen to it. Like I said, a parent has a right to "kill their kid" if a medical condition allows it. What's the difference?
Ryan. Ayn Rand. You ignore that one as well.

 

[jerthunter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503837

Deuteronomy 24:5
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house
Sounds more like it is defining divorce... but okay, it REFERENCES marriage, does not create it. About the only way you could go is to say that god created man and woman, therefore he created marriage, BUT, another religion could claim that marriage orginiated from them and it all boils down to a "I'm right and your wrong arguement" when you go down that road.
The point is, looking at natural history, monogamus relationships existed prior to the modern religions we observe these days, so it seems likely that marriage predated current religions, giving them no more right to owning the tradition than any other religion.
Which brings me back to the beginning, the government should have no more concern over marriage than it does over baptism.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503823
You are trying to place the rights of a protected class ahead of everyone's basic constitutional right of freedom of religion.
Your definition of "freedon of religion" is too broad. Interesting how the religious zealots use that speel when it's something they want. Look at the Hassan idiot. Goes and kills a bunch of innocent people at Ft. Hood, then keeps himself from being tried for over two years because his "Muslim faith" affords him the right to grow a beard. The morons in the military sit there going back and forth about the issue, when they should be simply saying "Fine. Keep your beard. Let the trial begin".
I explained that churches don't have exclusivity to performing marriages. I got married by a judge in my second wedding. My wife and I thought about getting married in a Catholic Church (she wanted it, not me), but those nutjobs with their anteqauted practices stated I couldn't because I didin't get my first wedding annuled by "the church". I signed off on my first marriage legally. We have no other ties whatsoever. My first marriage is null and void in the eyes of the courts. But somewhere in the annuls of the Catholic Church records, I'm still "religiously married" to my first wife. That's how ridficulous that practice is. You keep harping that all these gay couples want to get married in a church. Where are the polls? Where is the proof that's the case? I know two gay couples right now that want to get married (sure can't do it here in Texas), and they have absolutely no desire to do it in a church. They want to have it in a nice banquet hall, or one of the multitude of places that hold wedding receptions. It's one less expense to deal with. For them, it's completely a legal aspect. They want the right to legally hold property together. They want the right to be able to make one another's medical decisions if it comes down to that. If they choose to adopt children, they want them to have the legal name they decide to use. There's a multitude of legal roadblocks that gay couples face because they aren't "legally married". The religious institutions just want to protect their little territories, regardless if they have the right to do so. I don't practice a religion, so I shouldn't be forced to practice their "traditions".

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503841
Sounds more like it is defining divorce... but okay, it REFERENCES marriage, does not create it. About the only way you could go is to say that god created man and woman, therefore he created marriage, BUT, another religion could claim that marriage orginiated from them and it all boils down to a "I'm right and your wrong arguement" when you go down that road.
The point is, looking at natural history, monogamus relationships existed prior to the modern religions we observe these days, so it seems likely that marriage predated current religions, giving them no more right to owning the tradition than any other religion.
Which brings me back to the beginning, the government should have no more concern over marriage than it does over baptism.
The government has to be involved for the legal aspects of marriage. Go walk into a Catholic Church and tell a priest you want to get married. One of the first things he'll tell you is you'll need a marriage license to proceed. If marriage is a "religious tradition", why do these religious institutions require a GOVERNMENT document before they can finalize the marriage?

 

[jerthunter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503843
The government has to be involved for the legal aspects of marriage. Go walk into a Catholic Church and tell a priest you want to get married. One of the first things he'll tell you is you'll need a marriage license to proceed. If marriage is a "religious tradition", why do these religious institutions require a GOVERNMENT document before they can finalize the marriage?
My personal opinion is that the government shouldn't even issue marriage licenses, married people should pay the same tax and unmarried people... But if the government does insist on being involved in marriage, then they shouldn't discriminate regarding who can and cannot marry.

 

[darthtang aw]

I gave you the answer you seek.  You just refuse to listen to it.  Like I said, a parent has a right to "kill their kid" if a medical condition allows it.  What's the difference?
Ryan. Ayn Rand.  You ignore that one as well.
Since Roe V Wade 54.5 Million abortions have been performed in this country. The number means there are more than 3,300 abortions daily and 137 abortions per hour every hour in the United States. Translated another way, an abortion is done about every 30 seconds in the United States.
How has this affected society? A recent study showed 2 in 5 women (sexually active and not wanting to get pregnant) do not use any form of birth control or std protection during sex.

 

[jerthunter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503846
Since Roe V Wade 54.5 Million abortions have been performed in this country. The number means there are more than 3,300 abortions daily and 137 abortions per hour every hour in the United States. Translated another way, an abortion is done about every 30 seconds in the United States.
How has this affected society? A recent study showed 2 in 5 women (sexually active and not wanting to get pregnant) do not use any form of birth control or std protection during sex.
How many abortions occured prior to Roe V Wade? How many woman back then used or did not use birth control or std protection during sex?
Your numbers mean nothing if you have nothing to compare them to.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503841
Sounds more like it is defining divorce... but okay, it REFERENCES marriage, does not create it. About the only way you could go is to say that god created man and woman, therefore he created marriage, BUT, another religion could claim that marriage orginiated from them and it all boils down to a "I'm right and your wrong arguement" when you go down that road.
The point is, looking at natural history, monogamus relationships existed prior to the modern religions we observe these days, so it seems likely that marriage predated current religions, giving them no more right to owning the tradition than any other religion.
Which brings me back to the beginning, the government should have no more concern over marriage than it does over baptism.
We have the institution of marriage because of churches. Argue until you are blue in the face but that's the fact. And no, the government shouldn't be involved in it at all. That solves the whole issue but that would be too easy.

 

[darthtang aw]

How many abortions occured prior to Roe V Wade?  How many woman back then used or did not use birth control or std protection during sex?
Your numbers mean nothing if you have nothing to compare them to.
Contraception products for women, such as the pill, were banned in the U.S. only until some years before Roe V Wade. Roughly 10 million women were on the pill before Roe Vs. Wade. That number is roughly the same today. Of all "birth control" options only 38 million women used one or more than one of them from 2006-2008.
Abortion statistics before roe v wade are not very accurate.There are a widfe range of numbers thrown out. However none of them are accurate. But if one looks at the deaths tallied from abortions before roe v wade this can give us an idea of how prevalant they may have been. No single year had a reporting of higher than 59. the year before roe v wade the total was 4 deaths due to illegal abortion procedures.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503842
Your definition of "freedon of religion" is too broad. Interesting how the religious zealots use that speel when it's something they want. Look at the Hassan idiot. Goes and kills a bunch of innocent people at Ft. Hood, then keeps himself from being tried for over two years because his "Muslim faith" affords him the right to grow a beard. The morons in the military sit there going back and forth about the issue, when they should be simply saying "Fine. Keep your beard. Let the trial begin".
I explained that churches don't have exclusivity to performing marriages. I got married by a judge in my second wedding. My wife and I thought about getting married in a Catholic Church (she wanted it, not me), but those nutjobs with their anteqauted practices stated I couldn't because I didin't get my first wedding annuled by "the church". I signed off on my first marriage legally. We have no other ties whatsoever. My first marriage is null and void in the eyes of the courts. But somewhere in the annuls of the Catholic Church records, I'm still "religiously married" to my first wife. That's how ridficulous that practice is. You keep harping that all these gay couples want to get married in a church. Where are the polls? Where is the proof that's the case? I know two gay couples right now that want to get married (sure can't do it here in Texas), and they have absolutely no desire to do it in a church. They want to have it in a nice banquet hall, or one of the multitude of places that hold wedding receptions. It's one less expense to deal with. For them, it's completely a legal aspect. They want the right to legally hold property together. They want the right to be able to make one another's medical decisions if it comes down to that. If they choose to adopt children, they want them to have the legal name they decide to use. There's a multitude of legal roadblocks that gay couples face because they aren't "legally married". The religious institutions just want to protect their little territories, regardless if they have the right to do so. I don't practice a religion, so I shouldn't be forced to practice their "traditions".
I got married by a judge the second time around too, so what? I could have just as easy jumped over a broom and had witnesses sign off on it and I would have all the protections and rights I do now. That's the point. You can give gays the same rights with a civil union and not screw with someone's religious rights. It isn't up to the government to redefine religious traditions.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/320#post_3503843
The government has to be involved for the legal aspects of marriage. Go walk into a Catholic Church and tell a priest you want to get married. One of the first things he'll tell you is you'll need a marriage license to proceed. If marriage is a "religious tradition", why do these religious institutions require a GOVERNMENT document before they can finalize the marriage?
That is their choice. A preist or Pastor can perform the ceremony with no license if they wish. It just wouldn't be legally binding.

 

[beth]

Because government has to insert itself in to everything....and charge a fee.