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

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You spin on and on.

You are right that the topic here is a current proposed law but i raised the point in a post that when the country was founded the overwhelming view of the founders came from a morality that was givin to them from the bible. That is just a fact. You are conflating two seperate points to obsecure what i am saying.

It will always stand that laws can be made that are in line with the scriptures and popular opinion if they are constitutional. Marriage is not. However the joining of two parties in a civil union is. It is not the job of ceaser to perform ceremonies that reflect belief systems. That is for the belief systems and not government.

The sooner we accept that marriage is more that a contract sgning then the sooner the fighting stops.

In the definition of marriage we find the words civil union. That is proof that government is taking on the role of other belief systems by performing marriages.

Civin unions are for government and marriage is for belief systems. Simply by definition a marriage by a belief system could include the civil union (contract signing). however in order for seperation of church and state to occor a government should not perform a function of a belief system beyond the simplicity of a civil union. To really keep God and government seperate we need marriages by belief systems and civil union by the government and to change the definition of marriage to not include a civil union.

Until that is done we are not adhering to the founding documents that WERE created under the mindset shaped by the bible at the time of its creation. (the majority of the country and founding fathers adhered to a type of morality givin by religion at the foundation) Some were in secret organizations like the masons but even they had a charter that told them to adhere to the religion of the region they were in. you should know that.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
You are right that the topic here is a current proposed law but i raised the point in a post that when the country was founded the overwhelming view of the founders came from a morality that was givin to them from the bible.

We are not discussing morality and the Founders used English Common Law as the basis for our own. Hence the reason you cannot find one law that has the word God or a specific religion in it mandating a certain type of behavior.

The sooner we accept that marriage is more that a contract sgning then the sooner the fighting stops.

The side that wants marriage equality already knows this, it is the pissy little county clerk in your example who cannot get over his Bronze Age thinking to sign their license that has the problem.

Until that is done we are not adhering to the founding documents that WERE created under the mindset shaped by the bible at the time of its creation.

Link sources that show the Bible was used to help write the Constitution and the codification of civil and criminal law.

You love making s*** up just as much as you love not providing sources.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



"The side that wants marriage equality already knows this, it is the pissy little county clerk in your example who cannot get over his Bronze Age thinking to sign their license that has the problem."

This is the same cc that in other post you claim could not exist without a website article saying they exist. There is life beyond the net.

Since the same sex marriage advocates know that marriage by definition is more than a government contract and it is also a religous belief and yet the majority of advocates for same sex marriage also advocate for seperation of church and state how do they justify their contridictory stance while ignoring the solution that removes the religous aspect from government?

It makes no since and shows that they care more about battling with religion than actually getting it right.

Do me a favor and adress the whole of my post instead of drawing attention away from the message by using msm tactics of editing.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
This is the same cc that in other post you claim could not exist without a website article saying they exist.

Huh? What does that even mean?

Since the same sex marriage advocates know that marriage by definition is more than a government contract and it is also a religous belief and yet the majority of advocates for same sex marriage also advocate for seperation of church and state how do they justify their contridictory stance while ignoring the solution that removes the religous aspect from government?

How is it contradictory to ask for equality? Maybe some just want a civil service, maybe others want a religious service with the benefits of marriage. Who are you, or any other religious fundamentalist, to say otherwise?

Do me a favor and adress the whole of my post instead of drawing attention away from the message by using msm tactics of editing.

The rests of your posts are reworded non sequiturs trying to explain the parts I respond to and are irrelevant.

You just cannot get past the fact that equality means equal for all but instead you propose half-assed compromises where they can have civil unions but not marriage since you want marriage to remain the purview of organized religion.

Marriage has existed as and been a secular social and civil contract in countless nations, often existing for reasons to do with property, politics, ect. That marriage also exists in religion does not mean it only exists in religion, Deadeye, stop trying to lay claim to something that belongs to more than yourself and your beliefs. Marriage exists as more than a religious institution, it always has. Give it up already. Marriage has existed quite often throughout history to serve precisely as a legal state recognized union and contract. The only one here trying to change marriage and alter it's definition and purpose to suit them and only them is you and yours.

Marriage has been the authority of the state just as much as it has had anything to do with religion. The sooner religious people get over themselves and recognize that while marriage is a part of their religion, it has existed outside it, and not just been a part of it throughout history and stop trying to monopolize it the better.

IT... DOES... NOT... BELONG... TO... RELIGION...

a reply to: Puppylove

True it does not belong to religion or government but it ties them together and a civil union by definition and lack of religious ceremony does not. By having marriage as a function of government we are further extending government and social opinions into the religions and religion into government.

Simply outlining that it has been done before does not make it an acceptable function of a government that SEPERATES religion and government.

People have jumped off cliffs throughout history it does not make it right or wrong just because it happened before.

The only true american answer according to the founding documents is to have civil unions issued by government that does not include religous views or ceremonies.

Marriage would be better served by the belief systems performing them.

a reply to: deadeyedick

The legal part of the marriage is the providence of government. The ceremony itself is personal and irrelevant to the legal aspects of it.

You want a hand-fasting ceremony, get married by a ship captain, a preacher, or Elvis in Las Vegas, that's on you and completely irrelevant to the legal aspects of marriage. You're the one trying to tie that in when it's a non issue. Marriage has been a legally defined institution for time immemorial. Accept it move on.

Go get married by a preacher in your religious wedding that's your choice. I get married again, think I'll go with a ships captain and a cruise, but on the way, we can both stop to the courts and make our individual state recognized marriage legal.

a reply to: deadeyedick

True it does not belong to religion or government but it ties them together and a civil union by definition and lack of religious ceremony does not.

No, not true.

Marriage would be better served by the belief systems performing them.

No, it wouldn't.

There is no reason to start tying some kind of religious test to marriage. That would be a HUGE step backward.

Like I said before, religious people need to be the ones to rise above the "marriage crisis" and create their own superfluous title for the religious connotation that they think that they NEED to add to their Mr/Mrs and Mrs/Mr monikers.

a reply to: Puppylove

Total bullocks

Marriage and divorce as we know it today is thanks to joe stalin.

The definition of marriage proves you wrong.

joe was an athiest too.

originally posted by: windword
Like I said before, religious people need to be the ones to rise above the "marriage crisis" and their own superfluous title for the religious connotation that they think that they NEED to add to their Mr/Mrs and Mrs/Mr monikers.

Or in a perfect world; Mrs/Mrs/Mrs.

a reply to: windword

The continuation of marriage is a continuation of being unconstitutional.

You have to step back from the issue to see the truth of two sides batteling over something that should not be in the first place.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Marriage and divorce as we know it today is thanks to joe stalin
.

Divorce and marriage go back to antiquity.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: windword

The continuation of marriage is a continuation of being unconstitutional.

You have to step back from the issue to see the truth of two sides batteling over something that should not be in the first place.

I think you need to take one step further back to see that you are pissing in your boot to keep your foot warm. What a silly argument!

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

It is simple

Two sides are agruing over something that should not be in the first place.

One side is pro same sex MARRIAGE and the other against it.

Marriage in the USA is unconstitional because of seperation of church and state.

Therefore a civil union by definition is not unconstitional because it is not involving belief systems.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
One side is pro same sex MARRIAGE and the other against it.

I am pro-whoever wants to get married. Straight, gay, two, three, ten. As long as you are an adult why is it my, or anyone else's business what you do?

Marriage in the USA is unconstitional because of seperation of church and state.

Take a look at a marriage license and tell me where God or religion are written on it.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Marriage does not belong to religion therefore it is not unconstitutional. Marriage exists with or without religion, it's that simple. What ritual you decide to perform with your marriage is once again irrelevant to the legality of it. You don't even need a ritual at all.

a reply to: Puppylove

Marriage has two aspects in the definition. Religion and contract.
The contract or civil union part is the only recognizible part by government.
By government using the term marriage they are accepting both aspects as a function of government even if they are not yet performing ceremonies. Under the definition they have the right to perform marriage ceremonies if givin the power by any religion.

You have to keep them seperated by definitions.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Therefore a civil union by definition is not unconstitional because it is not involving belief systems.

Neither is Legal Marriage a belief system. It actually is a civil union. A non-religious contract.

Marriage is and has always been a contract. It has nothing to do with a religious belief system.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Marriage as a social contract has existed prior to Christianity and the nutter in the Original Post.

In antiquity is was often overtly used to advance one's social standing and to accumulate wealth and had no religious connotations.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

lol
that is redifining the word.