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

Read the first page of posts, so this may have been said: Any legislator can propose a law. It doesn't mean the bill will have any support, even limited support in some cases. This particular law is just that - an individual lawmaker who is doing this because he probably has a right-of-FOX-News constituency and maybe one or more big contributors or Country Club buddies who will pat him on the back for doing this and slip him an extra thousand in the next "paycheck", ah, I mean, "fundraising" appeal.

originally posted by: Aleister
Read the first page of posts, so this may have been said: Any legislator can propose a law. It doesn't mean the bill will have any support, even limited support in some cases. This particular law is just that - an individual lawmaker who is doing this because he probably has a right-of-FOX-News constituency and maybe one or more big contributors or Country Club buddies who will pat him on the back for doing this and slip him an extra thousand in the next "paycheck", ah, I mean, "fundraising" appeal.

And yet somehow it turns into a rallying against Religion on an alternative media site. Funny that. You gotta sit back and wonder why the media report certain stories.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: TechUnique

Christian Marriage is Christian Marriage. The state turned it into a commodity and wants to go AGAINST Christian rules in order to enforce public opinion into the Christian domain.

SO blame the state, not the gays. Nobody is going to force pastors to marry gays in churches. Besides there are plenty of actual christian churches, who are willing to do so.



There's not a single piece of legislation ever presented that would make it so that churches HAD to perform marriages between same sex couples. All that's gone on is the whether or not the STATE provides a marriage license, the benefits contained within that license, and whether or not all stats have to recognize it.



The idea is the RIGHTS provided to those who can get married. The list is over 1000 long.

Why can't you have a different name for Gay marriage that doesn't blaspheme God? You do realize that marrying a gay couple in a Christian church is blasphemy right?

Because that's just your opinion. And the minority has a right to access the same service as the majority do.



Look, if it weren't for the fact that marriage provides special status to people, along with special privileges, than I would be right there with you. There's be NO need to have gays get married, other than to make their feelings not hurt.



Which would be a damn stupid idea.



As it stands though, the state is actively discriminating, using sexual orientation to prevent people from actively participating in a government program.



That's unconstitutional, and wrong morally speaking. The latter is less important than the former.



~Tenth

That is correct the state did not want people to be forced to marry gays if they do not want too. Not just pastors but gov. employees also. That i think is the heart of all this. It is illegal for same sex marriages but yet gov. employees are being forced to quit or marry them.

originally posted by: TechUnique

Jesus would not have 'Happily married gay people'.

Don't be ridiculous.

I don't know, he did run with a veritable sausage fest entourage. The full extent of what the NIcean council nixed in favor of what they cherry picked is up for debate, after all.

Here's the short version of legal equality. Everyone gets the same rights, even atheists & gays. Meaning, we're afforded the same ish you get, otherwise it's not equal in any stretch of the imagination.

Now, here's the short version of what churches can do: Whatever the F they want, within their grounds. They're not supposed to legally be able to dictate laws, and we're supposed to keep it in check to ensure no theocracies. Meaning that whole "screw the non-believers and gays, they don't deserve a spouse!" applied in law thing is bullchit and you all know it.

Keeping the church's fingers out of government & vice versa is supposed to be one of the defining principles of what any "patriot" claims makes us better than those backwards Middle Eastern countries that run on theocratic principles. Seems all Abrahamic religions are cut from the same cloth here to me, though -- bunch of religious whackadoodles trying to instill a theocracy anywhere they see fit.

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: Cuervo

Because Christianity doesn't own the institute of marriage. It's been around long before that Jesus fella and Moses.

if it has been around for so long why are we changing it now?

We didn't. Same sex couples have gotten married throughout history. This little blip of Christianity on human history was never the global authority of marriage. Gay marriage was around even in ancient Mesopotamia... before Christianity was even thought of.

i have not found any proof of that. Do you have any?

a reply to: Nyiah

Jesus acomlished his goals and gay marriage was not one of them.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: Cuervo

Because Christianity doesn't own the institute of marriage. It's been around long before that Jesus fella and Moses.

if it has been around for so long why are we changing it now?

We didn't. Same sex couples have gotten married throughout history. This little blip of Christianity on human history was never the global authority of marriage. Gay marriage was around even in ancient Mesopotamia... before Christianity was even thought of.

i have not found any proof of that. Do you have any?

At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.[25] The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. First with one of his freedman, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero married a young boy to replace his young teenage concubine whom he had killed [26] named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law." The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.

The Child Emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband. He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.

en.wikipedia.org...

Jesus acomlished his goals and gay marriage was not one of them.

Aren't Christian priests, and such, the "Bride of Christ" and therefore, married to a male energy?

a reply to: windword

Wow. What a disturbing paragraph. No wonder the Roman Catholic church is so messed up.

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: windword

Wow. What a disturbing paragraph. No wonder the Roman Catholic church is so messed up.

There are some staunchly Catholic mods and members here that could take that as an insult.

Your spiritual arrogance is truly astonishing!!!

a reply to: TechUnique
Ah, but that is a myth that people tend to go to, forcing of a church. The age old cry of ignoring the laws that already exist. Did you know that a minister, in a church can lawfully discriminate without cause, or consequence? Even in this day and age, a minister, decided that he could not in good faith marry a person who was white and a person of African descent, and that minister is protected by law. A minster can say no women can not hold positions of authority within a church and still be protected, never once having to fear going to court to face justice. It is called the minister exclusion, and one that pretty much allows for such.

Now if take government out of the ability to do marriages, and leaves it to the ministers to do, and the ministers decide not to wed same sex couples, well then is that not in short by omission, the state promoting discrimination and bigotry on its part? And what of the couples who are not of any faith, or one of those faiths that is not represented in the state, what are they to do? Is it reasonable to demand that they too are discriminated or inconvienced on a level that is unreasonable?

And based on that law, it would also mean that all marriages, for those who live in the state of Ok, may find this to be a burden that they can not handle. The law is clear, only those marriages that were performed and signed off on by a minister is valid, or they have to be relegated to being a common law marriage. And if say a couple, who were married by a judge or a justice of the peace in another state, could find that under the law, and its exploitation of, become invalid under OK state law.

Laws like the ones that are being proposed are often exploited in one form or another. And it also will mean that a couple in the state of Ok, if the state no longer performs marriages, may find divorce to be equally hard, as judges would, under this kind of law, really no longer have the authority to rule on said cases.

a reply to: olaru12

Craziest thing of all, upon further reading from different sources, they are pushing to end the whole marriage license process it is not singling out anyone. It will only allow an ordained minister/priest to issue a marriage certificate that can later be filed. It also allows for common law marriage even though Oklahoma does not recognize them. It would prohibit judges from performing the ceremonies and clerks from issuing the licenses. The loophole in the process is that anyone, even someone ordained online can still issue a certificate which can later be filed as common law. Any state employee who violates the law would get 1 year in jail. So basically, this guy is a simpleton, a bigoted simpleton but a simpleton nonetheless. It will remove the whole state marriage recognition system. Let's see if it passes.

a reply to: windword

Actually thanks for the links.

You twist the bride of christ references. It is a spiritual bond.

lol the romans

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: TechUnique

a reply to: windword



Wow. What a disturbing paragraph. No wonder the Roman Catholic church is so messed up.

There are some staunchly Catholic mods and members here that could take that as an insult.



Your spiritual arrogance is truly astonishing!!!

Perhaps it is not an insult but it is a wake up call.

The example of rome is a great one because it clearly shows americas future if we all accept it as our path and an example to live by.

To put a concubine on the same level as your wife is just wrong.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Perhaps it is not an insult but it is a wake up call.

The example of rome is a great one because it clearly shows americas future if we all accept it as our path and an example to live by.

Funny you should say that considering Christianity is considered one of the factors why the Roman Empire fell. Just another reason religion and politics shouldn't mix.

7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values
The decline of Rome dovetailed with the spread of Christianity, and some have argued that the rise of a new faith helped contribute to the empire’s fall. The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313, and it later became the state religion in 380. These decrees ended centuries of persecution, but they may have also eroded the traditional Roman values system. Christianity displaced the polytheistic Roman religion, which viewed the emperor as having a divine status, and also shifted focus away from the glory of the state and onto a sole deity. Meanwhile, popes and other church eladers took an increased role in political affairs, further complicating governance. History.com

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: TechUnique

a reply to: windword



Wow. What a disturbing paragraph. No wonder the Roman Catholic church is so messed up.

There are some staunchly Catholic mods and members here that could take that as an insult.



Your spiritual arrogance is truly astonishing!!!

Perhaps it is not an insult but it is a wake up call.

No, it's an insult and you damn well know it. Wake up call my ass. And Christians wonder why people are rejecting the dogma of spiritual arrogance. You even attack other Christians that don't fit into your narrow dogmatic mold. Can't you see the disconnect here? Do you think that's what Christ would have wanted?

By putting that stupid twist on the subject...you just lost all credibility and respect you once had.

God please protect me from your followers...apparently their religion of entitlement and arrogance has killed all semblance of common sense, compassion, and honor.

a reply to: Grimpachi

That can be viewed two different ways.

One could say that the dose of morality givin to rome by christianity was the cause for the fall.

That would be on par with the sudden dose of non christian morality on par with the fall of the us.

One has to be effing blind to deny that traditional marriage and christian morality formed the greatest country on earth and the most reveloutionary time in earths history.

I guess we have to kiss all that goodbye to make way for roman marriage again.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: Cuervo

Because Christianity doesn't own the institute of marriage. It's been around long before that Jesus fella and Moses.

if it has been around for so long why are we changing it now?

We didn't. Same sex couples have gotten married throughout history. This little blip of Christianity on human history was never the global authority of marriage. Gay marriage was around even in ancient Mesopotamia... before Christianity was even thought of.

i have not found any proof of that. Do you have any?

Tons. It's not hidden knowledge. Just google same-gender marriage throughout history. From ancient Rome to ancient America, there have always been gay marriages. It's not a new concept at all.

Not to mention those alpha-infused Spartan warriors men like to use as role models for masculinity. Those guys were as gay as it gets.

a reply to: olaru12

I said perhaps as in i am not sure but it is possible.

God please protect me from satan's minions and ground troops for they have touchy feelings now days.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

That can be viewed two different ways.

One could say that the dose of morality givin to rome by christianity was the cause for the fall.

That would be on par with the sudden dose of non christian morality on par with the fall of the us.

One has to be effing blind to deny that traditional marriage and christian morality formed the greatest country on earth and the most reveloutionary time in earths history.

I guess we have to kiss all that goodbye to make way for roman marriage again.

Did you flunk American History or something?? A bunch of beefs went into breaking from England, we didn't arise because "oh, let's create a Puritan country and call it done" o.O

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: olaru12

I said perhaps as in i am not sure but it is possible.

God please protect me from satan's minions and ground troops for they have touchy feelings now days.

Are you accusing me of being one of Satan's minions? Insulting another Christian because I don't have the narrow Biblical
view?

You just confirmed what I stated in my previous post.