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.

 

Liberal Bigotry

page: 26
45
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I can't go into a church and force the minister to do a satanic ritual. It is against their religious beliefs, and any judge or court would throw out a lawsuit I tried to file against the church.

The same with religious marriage ceremonies.

No judge is going to force a church that doesn't want to perform a marriage if it is against their beliefs. It's not like a church is required to be "married". A gay couple can't say they aren't being treated fairly or their civil rights have been violated when using a church to get married isn't required for marriage in the first place!

I'm sure when interracial marriage was OK'ed by the SCOTUS people were screaming bloody murder and that people were going to marry their pet turtles and horses. I'm sure people went nuts and threw around all kinds of scary possible situations -- none of which came to pass.
edit on 30-6-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Exactly. Even though discrimination is not allowed for employment, housing, public accommodation, etc. on the basis of race or religion, you won't see a catholic church penalized for refusing membership to a practicing Jew. A church could refuse membership to a black person for being black, and that person would never win a lawsuit. A church could refuse to hire a black person because of their race, and not be penalized. And we've had non-discrimination laws for minorities for a long time now.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

I wish you peace and compassion and all the best, beezzer. I really do.

- AB


A humble and sincere thank you.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

No judge is going to force a church that doesn't want to perform a marriage if it is against their beliefs. It's not like a church is required to be "married". A gay couple can't say they aren't being treated fairly or their civil rights have been violated when using a church to get married isn't required for marriage in the first place!

I'm sure when interracial marriage was OK'ed by the SCOTUS people were screaming bloody murder and that people were going to marry their pet turtles and horses. I'm sure people went nuts and threw around all kinds of scary possible situations -- none of which came to pass.


OK, so what is your problem with the civil unions for all - gay or straight - compromise? It gets the state out of marriage, and leaves it up to everyone to decide how they, personally, want to define it. It stops the lawsuit before it can even start and protects everyone. No need for a judge to throw it out.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
maybe some of us feel that a marriage can take place outside of a christian church without a christian ritual?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
oh and some of us don't want to waste a ton of money to redesign the numerous forms that the gov't has that askes for marriage status!



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko
maybe some of us feel that a marriage can take place outside of a christian church without a christian ritual?



And removing the word marriage from the license lets you do that. Do you have to have the word marriage on the license in order for the contract make you married?

Common law marriages are considered marriages and the only thing that marks them is seven years of cohabitation.
edit on 30-6-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko


No judge is going to force a church that doesn't want to perform a marriage if it is against their beliefs. It's not like a church is required to be "married". A gay couple can't say they aren't being treated fairly or their civil rights have been violated when using a church to get married isn't required for marriage in the first place!

I'm sure when interracial marriage was OK'ed by the SCOTUS people were screaming bloody murder and that people were going to marry their pet turtles and horses. I'm sure people went nuts and threw around all kinds of scary possible situations -- none of which came to pass.


OK, so what is your problem with the civil unions for all - gay or straight - compromise? It gets the state out of marriage, and leaves it up to everyone to decide how they, personally, want to define it. It stops the lawsuit before it can even start and protects everyone. No need for a judge to throw it out.


How will that change anything? Religious couples who get a civil union license will go to a church to get the ceremony. According to your logic, what's to stop a gay couple from trying to do the same thing?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko


No judge is going to force a church that doesn't want to perform a marriage if it is against their beliefs. It's not like a church is required to be "married". A gay couple can't say they aren't being treated fairly or their civil rights have been violated when using a church to get married isn't required for marriage in the first place!

I'm sure when interracial marriage was OK'ed by the SCOTUS people were screaming bloody murder and that people were going to marry their pet turtles and horses. I'm sure people went nuts and threw around all kinds of scary possible situations -- none of which came to pass.


OK, so what is your problem with the civil unions for all - gay or straight - compromise? It gets the state out of marriage, and leaves it up to everyone to decide how they, personally, want to define it. It stops the lawsuit before it can even start and protects everyone. No need for a judge to throw it out.


How will that change anything? Religious couples who get a civil union license will go to a church to get the ceremony. According to your logic, what's to stop a gay couple from trying to do the same thing?


Nothing, but there wouldn't be any law backing their attempt to sue the church for telling them no. If the Federal government and state only issued civil unions, then the church can deny as it wishes. And don't cry discrimination. Churches routinely deny people who seek to marry there for various reasons, but then again, no SCOTUS ruling backs our "right" to marriage.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

????but you seem to not want them to be called marriages, since that word should be reserved only for the religious???



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko

????but you seem to not want them to be called marriages, since that word should be reserved only for the religious???



*sigh*

No, I am saying I want the word to NOT be legally defined as either "one man, one woman" OR "any two people." That way, people can get the contract and call themselves married. But without an official legal definition of the term, there is no legal standing on who did or did not deny this or that. The Buddhists can decided for themselves what marriage is, as can the Sikhs, as can the Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc., and so can the atheists and agnostics. And what each group decides has no legal weight on what any of the other groups decides.

It's called liberty. You should try it. Really.

But since those people who are uniting into a joined household want the legal benefits, the State issues the civil union contract to all of them, regardless of what their own definition of marriage might be. If you don't have a personal faith, then the contract is enough, and you call it marriage. If you do, then you get the contract and find the faith of your choice to marry you. And *gasp* if you could care less about the legality, you skip the freakin' and head off to the church (or mosque, or temple, or synagogue.

Pick your nuptial poison, and stop worrying about whether or not everyone else is doing it the exact same way.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Lets say you get injured on vacation in another country, or move to another country. It might be a good thing to have a legally recognized MARRIAGE between you and your partner.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
So civil unions for all? Even Christians?

Because if my gay friend can't be called "married" then why should my Christian friend? They're both in stable, monogamous long-term relationships where finances and household property is shared. In all practical respects they are identical. Why does one get to be called "married" and the other "civil union"?

So, people are so upset about this then civil unions for all...we're just "civilly united" and no longer "married".

Besides people, the word "marriage" is latin, the word doesn't belong to Christians.



... from Latin maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage"

Link
edit on 30-6-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is that a liberal admitting that one crazy individuals beliefs do not make up the entire groups beliefs? That would be a step in the right direction. I can't stand all the pigeonholing when one conservative, or a small group of conservatives say something crazy, the left tries to act like that's some firmly held belief by the entire right leaning population. I know both sides do it, it would just be great if ANYONE would go ahead and admit that the majority of the country actually falls somewhere in the middle on most of these issues instead of trying to tie the entire party to the crazy fringe like an anchor. It literally makes me sad to see all this deliberate division from both sides, what a sad state this country and world is in right now.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
So civil unions for all? Even Christians?

Because if my gay friend can't be called "married" then why should my Christian friend? They're both in stable, monogamous long-term relationships where finances and household property is shared. In all practical respects they are identical.


I just said that. Didn't I?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
and this is different than what we have now?? how?? oh ya, we remove the word marriage from the gov't forms and replace it with other words....
and we can now open the floodgates on what is marriage by enabling people to do whatever they like, man/cat, or my favorite, one women/20 men!!!



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

Lets say you get injured on vacation in another country, or move to another country. It might be a good thing to have a legally recognized MARRIAGE between you and your partner.


Then I guess you'll jump that bridge when you get there or the US negotiates to have its Civil Unions recognized as marriages.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Why does a word bother you so much? What are you loosing or sacrificing by calling it marriage?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I would go even further than civil unions for all, I would eradicate all benefits from marriage/civil unions all together. I as a single person feel like I am not receiving equal protection under the law, and am being unfairly treated because I disagree with the current state of marriage as a whole.Where's my tax break?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
and this is different than what we have now?? how?? oh ya, we remove the word marriage from the gov't forms and replace it with other words....
and we can now open the floodgates on what is marriage by enabling people to do whatever they like, man/cat, or my favorite, one women/20 men!!!


Oh, dear, we just did that already by legalizing gay marriage. If we already allow for "any two people who love," there is no legal justification stopping any arrangement of people who love anymore. If you didn't figure that one out from the start, you haven't been thinking ahead, and it's too late to start trying to close that barn door now. At least the polygamists have the 1st Amendment on their side along with the 14th.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join