lawmakers declare ‘all-out assault’ on marriage for same-sex and atheist couples in Oklahoma

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

Your anti religion views hurt others.

It is crystal clear is is only about destroying the church and you have alighned your views with lgbt people in order to further your agenda and you really could not give a care for what is best for everyone.

Seems to me every time a Christian gets hit with a dose of rational and reality you guys turn to the go to claim that I am out to destroy your church/religion/beliefs. It is just another form of persecution complex maybe a mental self-defense mechanism because you know your arguments are invalid/ have been thoroughly destroyed by rational.

Here is the thing I believe in equality that is why I argue for them you are arguing against equality. That is a simple fact.

It is true I don't care much for religion but why should I as you have demonstrated you think you all are special and above everyone. If you treated people equally then I wouldn't have much of a reason to be against you.

Also this thread and issue can affect me. Why the eff should I have to go to a religious leader to get married as an atheist? You guys can shove that idea. Marriage does not belong to the religious.

How much of this are you making up and blabbering on about? Our discussion is done I think. If you could be bothered to, you could look for cases of Christians being attacked by Gays because of protesting or simply sharing the Gospel. You can find it, just look. Don't be ignorant.

Your arguments are lacking, but you got spunk, I'll give you that.

Sharing the Gospel? Does that include shouting, "God hates ****!"? Let me shock you by telling you that no one has a right to accost anyone in a public place, threaten them, prevent them from going about their business or proselytize to them against their will. Tell me, what would your response be to a gay person stopping you in public and telling you about the joys of gay sex and telling you that you'll be tortured for eternity if you don't follow him to the local motel? Thought so.

I recommend that everyone carry a compressed air bicycle horn and use it in self-defense when proselytizers accost them against their will. You wouldn't believe how high a proselytizing fundy can jump!

So now I'm an advocate of people who shout obscenities?

You're being idiotic. Please stop.

It was a question not a statement. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

Either way you painted a picture of me that is not true. You know full well the effect of what you wrote, because you wrote it.

a reply to: Tangerine

I actually presented something similar once but I don't think anyone liked it. But here it is again...

This is actually how it's supposed to work too.

Two type of marriage. Religious Marriage and Legal Marriage. Religious Marriage through the Church and Legal Marriage through the State. They each have their own rules and neither of them interfere with the other.

However, Religion doesn't recognize Legal Marriage and the State doesn't recognize Religious Marriage.
Therefore, Religious Marriage get's no benefits from the State but Legal Marriages do.

This is actually how it's supposed to be originally until the State and Church mixed. In fact according to the Church Doctrine the State shouldn't be involved in Religious Marriage because it's supposed to be a Union between Man, Woman & God. While a Legal Marriage is between Person 1, Person 2 & The State/Gov.

The binding authority over the marriage is that third party. This is why typically you can get a divorce when Legally married but not allowed by the church.

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Connector

originally posted by: TechUnique


You just assumed something of me that you have no idea of. I'm out of my league? No, no no. You clearly misunderstood my post when I said 'Or is it'. Yes I do understand my native tongue thank you very much.

I'm not even going to bother participating anymore.

So you agree with Grim then and were being facetious? Because that is what your above post is inferring. If you don't agree with Grim, means you used the term hyperbole incorrectly in your previous post. Simple, eh?

More like 'This must be hyperbole right?' because it was stupid like this current argument we are having. I'm used to it now though, although I fail to see why I even bother sometimes. I would love to just leave this site and although a lot of members (myself especially) would love me to do that, I don't feel like its the right thing to do.

So I will just put up with the crappy arguments.

See....now your getting it...hyperbole A+

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

Your anti religion views hurt others.

It is crystal clear is is only about destroying the church and you have alighned your views with lgbt people in order to further your agenda and you really could not give a care for what is best for everyone.

Seems to me every time a Christian gets hit with a dose of rational and reality you guys turn to the go to claim that I am out to destroy your church/religion/beliefs. It is just another form of persecution complex maybe a mental self-defense mechanism because you know your arguments are invalid/ have been thoroughly destroyed by rational.

Here is the thing I believe in equality that is why I argue for them you are arguing against equality. That is a simple fact.

It is true I don't care much for religion but why should I as you have demonstrated you think you all are special and above everyone. If you treated people equally then I wouldn't have much of a reason to be against you.

Also this thread and issue can affect me. Why the eff should I have to go to a religious leader to get married as an atheist? You guys can shove that idea. Marriage does not belong to the religious.

How much of this are you making up and blabbering on about? Our discussion is done I think. If you could be bothered to, you could look for cases of Christians being attacked by Gays because of protesting or simply sharing the Gospel. You can find it, just look. Don't be ignorant.

Your arguments are lacking, but you got spunk, I'll give you that.

Sharing the Gospel? Does that include shouting, "God hates ****!"? Let me shock you by telling you that no one has a right to accost anyone in a public place, threaten them, prevent them from going about their business or proselytize to them against their will. Tell me, what would your response be to a gay person stopping you in public and telling you about the joys of gay sex and telling you that you'll be tortured for eternity if you don't follow him to the local motel? Thought so.

I recommend that everyone carry a compressed air bicycle horn and use it in self-defense when proselytizers accost them against their will. You wouldn't believe how high a proselytizing fundy can jump!

So now I'm an advocate of people who shout obscenities?

You're being idiotic. Please stop.

It was a question not a statement. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

Either way you painted a picture of me that is not true. You know full well the effect of what you wrote, because you wrote it.

I think you've done an excellent job of painting an accurate picture of yourself.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Tangerine

I actually presented something similar once but I don't think anyone liked it. But here it is again...

This is actually how it's supposed to work too.

Two type of marriage. Religious Marriage and Legal Marriage. Religious Marriage through the Church and Legal Marriage through the State. They each have their own rules and neither of them interfere with the other.

However, Religion doesn't recognize Legal Marriage and the State doesn't recognize Religious Marriage.
Therefore, Religious Marriage get's no benefits from the State but Legal Marriages do.

This is actually how it's supposed to be originally until the State and Church mixed. In fact according to the Church Doctrine the State shouldn't be involved in Religious Marriage because it's supposed to be a Union between Man, Woman & God. While a Legal Marriage is between Person 1, Person 2 & The State/Gov.

The binding authority over the marriage is that third party. This is why typically you can get a divorce when Legally married but not allowed by the church.

I think this solution is perfectly reasonable.

So let me get this straight:

The political party which is OUTRAGED by Muslims creating theocracies in other countries is ... attempting to create a ... theocracy?

Furthermore, the devil-worshipping, antichrist Judeo "Christian" religion has no room to speak on morality. They have been blatantly murdering people in the name of their "God" for the past 4000 years. But somehow, somehow, murder is not nearly as evil as homosexuality.

Imagine if you will, a wonderful society where people are executed for violating sharia--I mean "biblical" law, while politicians and corporations are given a free pass on sinning.

Sound familiar? It was called the dark ages.

I am not an atheist. I am not a Christian. That being said, I see neither the necessity nor the practicality of any type of theocracy, as it violates the rights of the people.

If I were president, I would make an executive order banning religion from any and all political proceedings, to protect the religious freedoms of people of all faiths -- so we can deal with more important matters, such as the sixteen trillion dollar defecit that we face -- instead of arguing about genetalia.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

Your anti religion views hurt others.

It is crystal clear is is only about destroying the church and you have alighned your views with lgbt people in order to further your agenda and you really could not give a care for what is best for everyone.

Seems to me every time a Christian gets hit with a dose of rational and reality you guys turn to the go to claim that I am out to destroy your church/religion/beliefs. It is just another form of persecution complex maybe a mental self-defense mechanism because you know your arguments are invalid/ have been thoroughly destroyed by rational.

Here is the thing I believe in equality that is why I argue for them you are arguing against equality. That is a simple fact.

It is true I don't care much for religion but why should I as you have demonstrated you think you all are special and above everyone. If you treated people equally then I wouldn't have much of a reason to be against you.

Also this thread and issue can affect me. Why the eff should I have to go to a religious leader to get married as an atheist? You guys can shove that idea. Marriage does not belong to the religious.

How much of this are you making up and blabbering on about? Our discussion is done I think. If you could be bothered to, you could look for cases of Christians being attacked by Gays because of protesting or simply sharing the Gospel. You can find it, just look. Don't be ignorant.

Your arguments are lacking, but you got spunk, I'll give you that.

Sharing the Gospel? Does that include shouting, "God hates ****!"? Let me shock you by telling you that no one has a right to accost anyone in a public place, threaten them, prevent them from going about their business or proselytize to them against their will. Tell me, what would your response be to a gay person stopping you in public and telling you about the joys of gay sex and telling you that you'll be tortured for eternity if you don't follow him to the local motel? Thought so.

I recommend that everyone carry a compressed air bicycle horn and use it in self-defense when proselytizers accost them against their will. You wouldn't believe how high a proselytizing fundy can jump!

So now I'm an advocate of people who shout obscenities?

You're being idiotic. Please stop.

It was a question not a statement. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

Either way you painted a picture of me that is not true. You know full well the effect of what you wrote, because you wrote it.

I think you've done an excellent job of painting an accurate picture of yourself.

As have you mate, and people evidently love it.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Separate but equal. Sounds like a certain ideology that got struck down 50 years ago.

a reply to: Tangerine

Marriage, in the sense of a formal legal contract, has only existed for 8,000 to 10,000 years. That's hardly since the dawn of time. The universe is billions of years old. Homo sapiens have only existed about 200,000 years. I agree with the rest of your post.

Both Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man had nuclear family structures.

anthro.palomar.edu...
www.livescience.com...

a reply to: olaru12

I live in a small, relatively backwards country...95 % of the populace is Catholic. We have no such nonsense...barring Atheists from marriage...omg. That takes the cake.

I love how America is always sold under the "land of the free" banner.

Ridiculous.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: olaru12

I live in a small, relatively backwards country...95 % of the populace is Catholic. We have no such nonsense...barring Atheists from marriage...omg. That takes the cake.

I love how America is always sold under the "land of the free" banner.

Ridiculous.

Oklahoma is one of the most backwards states in the Union. I don't think it's fair to use Oklahoma as a measuring stick for the whole dang country. That being said, I have atheist friends in Oklahoma. Will their marriages be voided?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

That is not a problem and i was specific about the need to create a civil union law that is equal to marriage. It would not require anything to be done further to the marriage laws and that debate would die. So civil unions in the current form are not equal to marriage. Point taken but that does not negate the idea of creattting or extending the union to a point of equality that covers the benefits of marriage and extends them to more than just hetro or lgbt couples. More people would benefit and the marriage debate goes away and right to refuse service to anyone remains in tact because the free market will indeed reflect the will of the people if also the coorporation problem is adressed at some point. The reason is because many that are against such lifestyles are driven more toward profit than comfort.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I herd they are gonna create a dungeon and put all the athiest in it in okla.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: deadeyedick

A civil union would offer the same benefits that a mariage does but it would extend the benefits beyond two people that are in a relationship as lovers. It could be applied to not only marriages but any two people that choose to come together for reasons other than love or sex.

Naaa. Marriage, of all kinds, has been around since the dawn of time. Men have had multiple wives and concubines all over the world. In some societies wives were procured through kidnapping and war. There was never any intrinsic religious ties in the business transaction of marriage.



If Christians want their marital status to be seen as, some how, different than the marital status of people who have no use for religion and didn't marry in a church, then they need to make that distinction themselves. Instead of excluding people, who already have the right to declare their love through marriage, create your own category.



Maybe something like "Sacramental Union" or "Resurrection Partners" would work for you guys?

Your feelings are the heart of the problem. For you and most others it is not about extending benefits that a marriage offfers to as many as possible but in your tunnel vision it is simply a war against churches. However when convienent you have no problem stating that your goal is to extend the benefits to lgbt. I wish they could see that in your heart you do not care for them but even more you care less about churches or the foundation of the country.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Why make it needlessly complicated all to placate a bunch of intolerant religious types? Marriage is marriage. It is a service offered by the state, therefore everyone gets it. Pretty simple to me. Christians, despite everything they say, didn't invent marriage. So I don't see how they think they can get definitive say on what is an isn't valid marriage.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your argument is that because of churches performing marriages we should throw more people under the bus.

For a moment just try to account for all the factors and try to see that a civil union would benefit way more people and many churches all across the us will give lgbt people weddings and some will not. My idea is simply better for the country as a whole. including the right to refuse service laws that are stemming from all this. The free market will correct itself if we put our feelings to the side and see the debate for what it is.

a reply to: deadeyedick

No one loses if you just let everyone marry who they want to marry.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Why? Marriage/Civil union is just a label we have created for a "permanent" union of a couple. It is no more religious than dating. So why should we make two separate labels for the same exact thing just because a bunch of religious twats get their panties in a bunch over people getting married that they don't like getting married? I don't care what intolerant people want, their opinions are irrelevant and irrational.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't care what intolerant people want, their opinions are irrelevant and irrational.

You know my stance on this, being a gay man and all, but honestly, that's a both sides of the coin type thing.

There are plenty of intolerant LGBT people who refuse to come to the middle with conservatives to put this issue to rest. We are arguing over a technically, that doesn't change a damn thing, other than how much it hurts your feelings on either side.

Case in point, Marriage/Civil Unions

With your quote in mind. Who cares what intolerant people want?

Canada has Marriage/Civil union laws that are equal but labelled differently. Works just fine for us, and nobody has their panties in a bunch over it.

~Tenth