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: 24
35
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

why did they have to expand the definition to include gay marriage if it has always been a thing as some try to state in this thread?

It has never been a right cause i think they would include that in the definition.


Yes, why can't it just say marriage. Why does it have to be defined.

Well, because of people like you.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

It shows that at the time all our definitions were made they all viewed marriage to be between man and woman but one had the foresight to not include the distinction of gender in hopes it would someday be accepted.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

For one thing "all our definitions" weren't made at one time. It's an ongoing thing that has grown and progressed throughout the ages with new words being added and definitions being refined. There are also different versions as well, some more verbose than others.

It still doesn't change the fact that we create the definitions to mean what they mean and we can refine them however we see fit. Even if Marriage was never "Defined" to include Gay Marriage it is now so what's the problem??? We progress and change as does our culture, Laws and society as a whole. It will always change, such is life. You can fight it all you want but you cannot stop change from happening any more than you can stop time from ticking.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Annee

What time and place is that from. They look black. I did not know people believed egyptians were black. They could be male or female. Hard to tell without junk showing or a pic of a female from same period.

Wow. Just wow. They look black, thus the visible gender distinction is therefore muddled & it can't possibly be a known depiction of a gay couple.

Keep digging that hole there. You're doing quite well so far.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Abandon once meant to subjugate or subdue.

Addict once meant a debtor awarded as a slave to his creditor. (slave)

Assassin once meant hashish eater.

Awful once meant inspiring wonder.

Bimbo once meant fellow, chap or one of the boys.

Broadcast once meant sowing seeds with a sweeping movement of the hand.

Bully once meant darling or sweetheart.

Cute once meant keenly perceptive and shrewd.

Decimate once meant to kill one in 10.

Fantastic once meant existing only in imagination.

Garble once meant to sort something out – not to mess it up.

Gay once meant light-hearted or joyous and a century later it meant bright and showy.

Husband from “hus” and “bunda”(old German) mean house and owner.

Matrix once meant pregnant animal.

Nervous once meant sinewy and vigorous.

Nice once meant ignorant, foolish or silly.

All those above are words where the definition has completely changed at some point.

So why was the definition of marriage modified? I am sure you can figure it and come to terms.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Annee

What time and place is that from.




Gay Marriage: An Ancient Institution

The fear and suppression of same-sex couples, according to Plato, “is due to the evil on the part of the rulers and to cowardice on the part of the governed.”


You're honestly saying they could be female? Really?



This is not to say there were no romantic same-sex coupling in KMT as well, though, as the even older (2600 BCE) mastaba(burial tomb) of Niankhkhunum and Khnumhotep declares the two men(royal manicurists of the pharaoh Niuserre) to be “Niankh-Khnum-Hotep”, joined in life and death, and depicts them nude and in loving embrace in carved and painted relief.


www.gayrva.com...

edit on 26-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

That's the thing about 100% control if an inch is given it's not 100%. But if they let us do what we want are we still not at 100% cause they let us only?



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yes honestly without context it could be any combonation of gender. However my perception does not negate the context you just gave. The perception that they are black could be true. It is an accurate observation and it has often been said by many that the egyptians were black. You all are like rabid dogs trying to grasp at everything. Many african females have short hair and an athletic figure. All i can do is be honest. I will not change my perception because of attempts to bait me. We live in reality. If anything i could say that you all sterotype everyone and i do not.

News flash being gay is not a bad thing nor is being black or a woman and the only thing that inferred it was bad is your reactions. It is shallow.

The question remains. Were they black?

eta your quoted text does not reflect the picture. Something if false there. It says they are nude in the photo. They are not. You may have stuff mixed up.

If that is nude then they were female or they had no sexual organs and were from a machine or something. a different unknown race
edit on 27-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Apparently this guy doesn't realize that anyone can get ordained. Anyone can be a member of the clergy.



I am.




-NF



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
Apparently this guy doesn't realize that anyone can get ordained. Anyone can be a member of the clergy.



I am.




-NF


Same here, Universal Life Church....

www.ulchq.com...

I would love the opportunity to marry a gay couple.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
Apparently this guy doesn't realize that anyone can get ordained. Anyone can be a member of the clergy.



I am.




-NF


The verbiage of the bill is a little more specific than ‘religious official':

The ability to sign off on a marriage license would belong to “…an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi.”

So, not religious officials, Christian and Jewish religious officials.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12



Huh, they've changed their domain!


Yepp, I drank their kool-aid as well. My sister in law had her miniature doberman pincher ordained with ULC as well



You down with ULC? Yeah you know me!!!!



Honestly, when pathetic bible-thumping "elected officials" attempt to cut our liberties...

At least they're stupid enough to not understand that what and how they're doing something isn't going to be effective





posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

The verbiage of the bill is a little more specific than ‘religious official':

The ability to sign off on a marriage license would belong to “…an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi.”

So, not religious officials, Christian and Jewish religious officials.



I've highlighted the important part. At no point or time does it say "Christian" or "Jewish". It says of "any denomination".




Prevailing world Denominations



There is no state in the union that challenges my right and authority as a member of the clergy to perform a marriage ceremony let alone anything else (with, of course, the caveat of those things being legal, no sacrifices, no fatwas, etc) with regards to my religion.

My denomination is that of MOI




-NF
edit on 27-1-2015 by nullafides because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

You may think that is the important part, but the consensus of Americans United is that the bill is specific to those two faiths. I am going to go with their legal analysis on the matter since they have actual legal teams that review these things.

I can become an ordained minister of FSM however because I don't have a church that I preach the Gospel to that wouldn't be accepted. Bill verbiage is very important it has to be taken as a whole you can't just pick parts as a qualifier.

The bill doesn't just disenfranchise Atheists and LGBT it disenfranchises any religious group that isn't Christian or Jewish.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

It does say gospel though.

That does point to certain religions.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Actually, any attorney worth their salt would take the point I just made in a heartbeat.

As you say, the verbiage is what matters. If they truly wanted it to be exclusive to anyone not of a Christian or Jewish religion, they would not have said "of any denomination". The term denomination is not restricted with it's intent to any specific root-religion. It is across the spectrum of religions.

A law, or contract for that matter, has to be of limited scope. It cannot be a blanket. For instance, there is no law that says "drugs" are illegal. There are laws that say Marijuana, Cocaine, '___', etc are illegal. For sake of brevity, I believe it is simply stated that drugs of a certain classification are illegal in certain situations. Individual drugs are given their own classification within a group. So if I say "Class 1 Drugs", a certain list can be referred to and thus the law is explicit in it's intent.

To say the same about this law regarding religions and who can perform marriages is not the same.

The wording to the proposed law is such that if it were talking about marijuana, it would read as "Marijuana, and any other drugs, are illegal". This would include drugs, pharmaceutical in nature, and natural, such as caffeine and sugar.


The law of the land is about verbiage. Good laws are without verbiage that create loopholes, as they are succinct and to the point in their wording and meaning. The proposed law being discussed here, is not a good law in that it is not succinct and to the point in wording and meaning.

If it passes, we have the asshat who proposed it to thank for further clogging of the justice system. Not to mention undue antagonism towards those deemed "undesirable" by the groups behind the law.


-NF



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

The verbiage does say 'to preach the Gospel'. I do not know of any non-Christian demonization that preaches the Gospel, which, by definition, is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
Thank you for proving my point that the definition was defined as between a man and a women at that time because that is one of the prevailing principles our country was founded on.

All the examples you provide are not in any way equal to the word marriage because none of them were written into law that i know of.

Marriage is far more than a contract and the government has no business in taking the beauty of the event away from it by claiming it is just a contract signing.

A civil union is the only coarse of action that adresses all the problem with the ceremony including the bloodshed that is likely to happen bacause of the fringe views on each side clashing and not willing to compromise either way.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: nullafides

It does say gospel though.

That does point to certain religions.


gos·pel
noun \ˈgäs-pəl\

: the teachings of the Christian religion

Gospel : any one of the first four books of the Christian Bible that tell of the life of Jesus Christ

: an idea or set of ideas that someone believes and often tries to make other people believe


Merriam Webster

Now, I am not trying to be a know it all in quoting the description of the word above. My intent in posting it is to highlight the fact that it is universally accepted as being more than simply the teachings of a gospel religion.

Over time, the meanings of words do morph. This means that when writing a law, one must be as articulate as possible so as to be fair to those that the law was intended for or otherwise.

Unfortunately, I feel that the asshats behind this law are simply dragging their own moral views into the landscape of the court of law. Yepp, that's how the game works. I get it.

But that's also why loopholes allow for the destruction of such attempted legislative bias.


-NF



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides




Actually, any attorney worth their salt would take the point I just made in a heartbeat.


If you insist that it is so in your "legal expertise" it must be so. I assume you have the credentials to assert such things.

I will agree that if the bill passes that the only real issue is how much it will cost the state in the inevitable legal fees. The bill violates both the 1st and 14th amendment according to legal experts who have gone on record.




top topics



 
35
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join