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

originally posted by: deadeyedick

I see you trying to make a point but the example is not relevant to the issue of legally binding two people together in marriage.

Why? What if Adam and Steve were already married and wanted to enjoy living in gay sin together in a new home? Does the building inspector get to use his 'Christian views' to prevent them from sharing a dwelling?

I could give an extreme example of county clerks being forced to kill people or quit. it is just not equatable in either example

I wish you would because I have never heard of a legitimate legal reason why someone would request a county clerk to purposefully kill them.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I wish you would because I have never heard of a legitimate legal reason why someone would request a county clerk to purposefully kill them.

You mean you've never heard of County Assisted Self-Euthanasia Clerks? Get with the times grandpa.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes you are correct the issue is divided just as our vies here are.

Some county clerks are ok with it and others are not.

That is just common sense.

However if i said that because a couple are ok with it so everyone must be then i would be a fool.

Nor did i ever claim that all county clerks are not ok with it.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

You mean you've never heard of County Assisted Self-Euthanasia Clerks? Get with the times grandpa.

I could only picture it, 'Would you like to be taxed to death or legislated to death, sir?'

'Yes.'

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A bit narrow minded with your thoughts.

I said both exampls are not relevent but since you press i will create a need for a county clerk to issue a certificate of permission for sucide or euthanasia. Perhaps some estate laws begin to require gov. permission to end your life without all your estate going to the state. Who can really say how these needs are created but there are way more crazy laws on the books than what i just said.

a reply to: deadeyedick

You still did not address my specific scenario.

Why is it okay for a 'Christian' to prevent Adam and Steve from getting married because of their 'Christian views' but irrelevant for permitting them to live together in gay sin? I thought the 'Christians' who did not want gay marriage had a bug up their asses because gayness in toto was decried in the Bible?

I mean, if you are going to be a bigot, at least be a good one and try to remain consistent.

As little as 48 years ago, anti-miscegenation laws were on the books. As little as 48 years ago, laws said you could only marry within your race. And these laws had been passed, because they were said to be Biblically based.
Is Segregation Scriptural? by Bob Jones Sr., 1960

All orthodox, Bible-believing Christians agree on one thing; and that is, that whatever the Bible says is so.

There is an effort today to disturb [God's] established order [segregation].

...and that effort was driven by Satan and Communists....

Up until 2000, there were school codes against inter-racial DATING. Bob Jones University Drops Interracial Dating Ban The "mixing of the races" should not occur, because it is in the Bible supporters said.

Actually, it wasn't until 2000, that Alabama got rid of its "mixing of the races" laws.

I think some people need to quit examining their Bible and start examining their heart.

originally posted by: desert
As little as 48 years ago, anti-miscegenation laws were on the books. As little as 48 years ago, laws said you could only marry within your race. And these laws had been passed, because they were said to be Biblically based.
Is Segregation Scriptural? by Bob Jones Sr., 1960

All orthodox, Bible-believing Christians agree on one thing; and that is, that whatever the Bible says is so.

There is an effort today to disturb [God's] established order [segregation].

...and that effort was driven by Satan and Communists....

Up until 2000, there were school codes against inter-racial DATING. Bob Jones University Drops Interracial Dating Ban The "mixing of the races" should not occur, because it is in the Bible supporters said.

Actually, it wasn't until 2000, that Alabama got rid of its "mixing of the races" laws.

I think some people need to quit examining their Bible and start examining their heart.

edit on 26-1-2015 by desert because: [God's]

Quoting for emphasis. Very well said.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The answer is simple.

It is because long ago the government intertwined religion and government by marriage laws.

The answer is too offset this with an equal civil union law.

As others already stated this is not just speculation as to if it will work. It has been sucessful in other countries.

The reason this is being fought is to divide our country in a war against religion.

The majority of advocates choose this path not to help other people but to fight that war.

It is ok to reject service to anyone because we try to remain in this country with as much freedom in tact as possible.

That goes for businesses and churches.

You can not force someone to be ok with things against their own feelings and still have a free country or even the thought of being free.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
The answer is too offset this with an equal civil union law.

Yeah, I got that part already. You want to do this so some poor 'Christian' clerk can have peace of mind by not having to sign a marriage certificate for Adam and Steve.

Now, back to my question, does the building inspector get his own special treatment as well since it offends his 'Christian views' that Adam and Steve want to live together (which is obviously decried in his interpretation of the Bible)?

a reply to: desert

Your examples do not cover the fact we are seperating between government and privite businesses. If a person opens a privite school and makes a rule descriminating then they should have the right to. Again the free market is the best decider when it comes to privite organizations. However public entities should not be allowed such. It is called FREEDOM.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Again i am not gonna try to answer that since it is not on the same level.

There are no major views of christians that say to not service the lgbt community.

That would be a personal choice and not an established religous view reflecting the majority of the religion.

Simply put declering a building sound is not the same as legally binding a couple into marriage.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Again i am not gonna try to answer that since it is not on the same level.

There are no major views of christians that say to not service the lgbt community.

That would be a personal choice and not an established religous view reflecting the majority of the religion.

Simply put declering a building sound is not the same as legally binding a couple into marriage.

How is it not the same? Both are legal documents that make a declaration of something.

One is simply the habitability of a dwelling

The other is recognizing two people as legally partners, with all the benefits that go along with it.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

There are no major views of christians that say to not service the lgbt community.

The why the need to worry about county clerk's being 'forced' to sign marriage certificates for gays?

Simply put declering a building sound is not the same as legally binding a couple into marriage.

Why would this not trouble the building inspector who can prevent the home from being built but it would trouble the poor clerk who signs the certificate? Why is one's 'Christian views' any more or less pertinent? The religious nutters who want to prevent gay marriage have a problem with homosexuals as a whole and with everything they do, hence the reason they do not want them to get married. Not just, 'We're cool if they live together and do gay things but if they want to get married, not-uh, not on my watch.'

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Really?
You equate a house to a marriage?

The two are not the same.

Come on back to earth.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Really?
You equate a house to a marriage?

The two are not the same
.

No, we equate contracts to contracts.

Both are legal documents endowing their possessors with certain legal rights and covenants.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You should join in on the debate going on.

This covers far more than a gay couple.

We have a serious need to get this right without wrecking the country with illogical arguments that cause division to the point anyone else loses a life.

Quit being hard headed for the sake of trying to be right and get behind a solution that does not force anyone to do stuff they do not want. Sure there will still be a few problems but to help so many would be the best option.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Quit being hard headed for the sake of trying to be right and get behind a solution that does not force anyone to do stuff they do not want. Sure there will still be a few problems but to help so many would be the best option

Who will be forced to do things they don't want?

Where has this happened?

Who was involved? What did the courts have to say about it?

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence, that a member of a church was FORCED to do something they did not want, based on same sex legislation.

I've seen plenty of threats and plenty of politicians and town councilmen/woman running their mouths about it, but I have yet to see a single confirmed case.

Considering same sex marriage has been in other countries for at least a decade now, and what you fear, hasn't occurred there, what makes you think it would occur in the USA?

~Tenth

You know I had a thought. There's all this talk of "taking marriage out of the government's hands". Why not try something else? Take marriage out of the hands of the religious.

The government recognizes all marriages, gay or not. Then religious institutions can hold their own ceremonies to "legitimize" any marriages they want. First, you go to the courthouse and get a marriage certificate signed, then you can hold your own religious ceremony. Problem solved.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: deadeyedick



Really?

You equate a house to a marriage?



The two are not the same

.

No, we equate contracts to contracts.



Both are legal documents endowing their possessors with certain legal rights and covenants.

oh i see.
you would be just fine with death contracts.

such blind ignorrance is extremely dangerous.

your statment is equalivent to fed ex delivering bombs for isis because it comes in a package just like the mail does. Well i was hired to deliver packages and technically this bomb is in a package.