It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 15
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
This covers far more than a gay couple.


Frankly, I do not give a crap how many, or which, adults want to get married. It is none of my damn business.



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.


Their own moral objections are irrelevant on any and all grounds that they may concoct which is clearly demonstrated by your inability to grasp the concept that the clerk and the building inspector are on equal footing in regards their limitations on to whom they can subjectively apply the law.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

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


What is a 'death contract' and where can I see one? You can invent completely fictitious counterpoints but I am providing you with real world scenarios and people.


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.


There are laws about what may or may not be delivered via mail or private carrier.

Try again.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Frankly, I do not give a crap how many, or which, adults want to get married. It is none of my damn business.


why should two people have to be married or have sex to get the same benefits that married couples do when sharing a journey in life together.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
why should two people have to be married or have sex to get the same benefits that married couples do when sharing a journey in life together.


Who mentioned they need to have sex?

They do need to have a marriage certificate to enjoy many of the rights and benefits legal precedent has granted married persons.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There are also laws covering gay marriage that need to be adressed in a manner that is best for the country as a whole and not just what serves the war on religion best.

The example of the mail carriers is actually the best one yet.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

There are also laws covering gay marriage that need to be adressed in a manner that is best for the country as a whole and not just what serves the war on religion best
.


Yeah, the ones being passed post facto to prevent gay marriage. Those are the ones that need to be addressed.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: deadeyedick

why should two people have to be married or have sex to get the same benefits that married couples do when sharing a journey in life together.




Who mentioned they need to have sex?



They do need to have a marriage certificate to enjoy many of the rights and benefits legal precedent has granted married persons.

You just refuse to join reality and change your view and talking point to fit a single post. You may want to look around i think your backbone may still be locatable. Try looking in the corner where you stored your heart.
edit on 26-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Frankly, I do not give a crap how many, or which, adults want to get married. It is none of my damn business.


why should two people have to be married or have sex to get the same benefits that married couples do when sharing a journey in life together.


They don't or at least shouldn't. If you want to have a civil contract where you and your platonic best friend share everything, you should (and are) able to. The only sort of contract the Constitution forbids is one of indentured servitude--you cannot sell yourself into slavery.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There are also laws covering gay marriage that need to be adressed in a manner that is best for the country as a whole and not just what serves the war on religion best.

The example of the mail carriers is actually the best one yet.
The example of the mail carriers is hyperbole at best. If the mail carrier KNEW there was a bomb in the package and delivered it anyway, he would be knowingly complicit in the committing of an act of terror.

The most a county clerk would be complicit in, when signing a marriage certificate, is in knowing that two dudes might be touching butts.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
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.


It is already. You don't need religion at all to get married. I got married in a courthouse by the clerk of the court. No religion involved at all in any form.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

You just refuse to join reality and change your view and talking point to fit a single post. You may want to look around i think your backbone may still be locatable. Try looking in the corner where you stored your heart.


Does this mean you still cannot answer my questions?

I tired to write them as simply as possible. Let me know if I need to use smaller words.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus








Frankly, I do not give a crap how many, or which, adults want to get married. It is none of my damn business.





why should two people have to be married or have sex to get the same benefits that married couples do when sharing a journey in life together.




They don't or at least shouldn't. If you want to have a civil contract where you and your platonic best friend share everything, you should (and are) able to. The only sort of contract the Constitution forbids is one of indentured servitude--you cannot sell yourself into slavery.


the benefits are not the same as the union is not recognized the same as marriage. If we simply change that then we no longer have a need for state sanctioned marriages and churches can then decide who they want to marry. Many will marry lgbt cause that has already been demonstrated. The point we are at now is close to begin forcing them all to do it and that imo is not freedom.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
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.


It is already. You don't need religion at all to get married. I got married in a courthouse by the clerk of the court. No religion involved at all in any form.
The issue here is that Oklahoma is trying to allow courthouse clerks to refuse to sign marriage certificates, so my argument is relevant, I think.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: deadeyedick



You just refuse to join reality and change your view and talking point to fit a single post. You may want to look around i think your backbone may still be locatable. Try looking in the corner where you stored your heart.




Does this mean you still cannot answer my questions?



I tired to write them as simply as possible. Let me know if I need to use smaller words.

Go back to the post i replied to your question in last. I gave my answer.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

The point we are at now is close to begin forcing them all to do it and that imo is not freedom.


No one is talking about forcing Churches to marry gay couples, your cruddy example was the poor county clerk with a conflicted 'Christian' conscience who would have to go against his Biblical beliefs and sign their marriage certificate.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Go back to the post i replied to your question in last. I gave my answer.


Which I addressed before your off topic hyperbole.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc


originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

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.




It is already. You don't need religion at all to get married. I got married in a courthouse by the clerk of the court. No religion involved at all in any form.
The issue here is that Oklahoma is trying to allow courthouse clerks to refuse to sign marriage certificates, so my argument is relevant, I think.


The op simply points to a ver small section of a huge problem. The forcing of people to go against their will can be resolved with better laws and no on would have to come up with stupid solutions like the senator in the op did.

Yes he failed to find a decent solution but the bigger problem is this is the same story in every state and relates to other things like cake baking and forcing churches to perform lgbt ceremonies.

So much time and money could be saved if we could put the war on religion aside and help the most people not just our talking points.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
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.


It is already. You don't need religion at all to get married. I got married in a courthouse by the clerk of the court. No religion involved at all in any form.
The issue here is that Oklahoma is trying to allow courthouse clerks to refuse to sign marriage certificates, so my argument is relevant, I think.


Well one law is trying to put the clerks job in jeopardy if they do sign one for a gay couple. That is a threat to their jobs. The law this thread is about will take away the states right to marry anyone without religious leaders consent.

The only groups that could give religious consent would be the Jewish faith and Christian faith. They would be discriminating against anyone that wasn't Christian or Jewish.

Oklahoma version of sharia law begins.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
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.


It is already. You don't need religion at all to get married. I got married in a courthouse by the clerk of the court. No religion involved at all in any form.
The issue here is that Oklahoma is trying to allow courthouse clerks to refuse to sign marriage certificates, so my argument is relevant, I think.


In that case, the issue is the government in marriage, not the other way around, otherwise the same issue (a clerk signing a certificate) is still involved.

The answer is simple in Oklahoma--if a clerk cannot, in good conscience, execute the law of the state, then he shouldn't be a clerk. Period. End of story.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




So much time and money could be saved if we could put the war on religion aside and help the most people not just our talking points.



Here is how I see it.

So much time and money could be saved if we could put the war on equality aside and get on with your own lives without forcing your religions on others.




top topics



 
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join