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.
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Originally posted by DrChuck
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by DrChuck
Mere facts are one think, as in academic teams.
Debate is a higher order of mentality.
Your unsettlement is evidence that debate is much more valuable than mere memorization: it is what you know, it is all about how you use it.
LOL, ok...whatever.
What I meant to say was...if gay marriage is legalized wouldn't the churches be forced by law to conduct gay marriages? Because if they don't, it would be considered discriminatory, and discrimination is illegal. Do you understand now?
Now YOU tell me what part of this hypothetical statement is not hypothetical to your fellow soldiers.edit on 15-6-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)
Under what agency or law would religious organizations be forced to anything?
Originally posted by MajorKarma
reply to post by Annee
To the contrary, what we think, feel and who we allow to associate with us and our family is and will remain an individual's right, even if you shove the rest of this in our faces. All are welcome to take their stand, what will come when this civilization breaks down and the means of suppression snap, is another matter.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DrChuck
The answer to your question would be no, churchs could not be legally required to perform services that were outside of their beliefs. To do such would violate the first admendment of the Constitution which prohibits the federal government from getting involved in church affiars, and break down the wall of seperation between state and church.
Originally posted by DrChuck
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DrChuck
The answer to your question would be no, churchs could not be legally required to perform services that were outside of their beliefs. To do such would violate the first admendment of the Constitution which prohibits the federal government from getting involved in church affiars, and break down the wall of seperation between state and church.
Well it was a thought on track with discrimination laws. Discrimination laws are enforced on businesses, but the irony of it is - to deter discrimination, the personal rights of business owners are violated. The right not to associate with a certain group of people.
Originally posted by DrChuck
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DrChuck
The answer to your question would be no, churchs could not be legally required to perform services that were outside of their beliefs. To do such would violate the first admendment of the Constitution which prohibits the federal government from getting involved in church affiars, and break down the wall of seperation between state and church.
Well it was a thought on track with discrimination laws. Discrimination laws are enforced on businesses, but the irony of it is - to deter discrimination, the personal rights of business owners are violated. The right not to associate with a certain group of people.
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Originally posted by DrChuck
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DrChuck
The answer to your question would be no, churchs could not be legally required to perform services that were outside of their beliefs. To do such would violate the first admendment of the Constitution which prohibits the federal government from getting involved in church affiars, and break down the wall of seperation between state and church.
Well it was a thought on track with discrimination laws. Discrimination laws are enforced on businesses, but the irony of it is - to deter discrimination, the personal rights of business owners are violated. The right not to associate with a certain group of people.
Um.. what most ppl forget, is that it was not businesses that fought the revolution, and it is NOT business to whom the bill of Rights extends. That is a by-product of FDR's packed court..
This is about, GOVERNMENT recognition of a marriage; not forcing a bloody church to do a damned thing. Argue intelligently please.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DrChuck
The Department of Defense, namely the US Navy has the right idea, where they will allow for same sex couples to wed on the military bases, but it is up to the Chaplins to decide on if they will perform the ceremony, as dictated by the tenants of their faith and the rules of their church rules. That is how it would have to be handled, that way it still maintains the equality under the law and does not violate anyones faith.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
The reality, however, is that marriage is also a legal contract between consenting adults just as much as it is a social contract. Your post spelled it out perfectly. You even acknowledge and explained how legal contracts are carefully spelled out, which marriages and prenumptual agreements are as well. Marriage, just like other contractual obligations, are typically settled in court. That means if a person says that only certain people can enter legal contracts such as marriage, then that is an instance of circumventing rights, which would be unconstitutional.
Do you agree with that?
No, as marriage is not a legal contract, it is a SOCIAL CONTRACT, that acts like a legal contract, with spoken, unspoken and written aspects to it. There is a big difference in the definitions and aspects of the terms used.
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Dr. Chuck:
One reason, and one reason only Vassili - why should same sex marriages be not recognized?
How does it hurt you or anyone?
If you believe in your version of God seen through the eyes of men; how can this challenge your faith?
Originally posted by DrChuck
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Originally posted by DrChuck
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DrChuck
The answer to your question would be no, churchs could not be legally required to perform services that were outside of their beliefs. To do such would violate the first admendment of the Constitution which prohibits the federal government from getting involved in church affiars, and break down the wall of seperation between state and church.
Well it was a thought on track with discrimination laws. Discrimination laws are enforced on businesses, but the irony of it is - to deter discrimination, the personal rights of business owners are violated. The right not to associate with a certain group of people.
Um.. what most ppl forget, is that it was not businesses that fought the revolution, and it is NOT business to whom the bill of Rights extends. That is a by-product of FDR's packed court..
This is about, GOVERNMENT recognition of a marriage; not forcing a bloody church to do a damned thing. Argue intelligently please.
You know what, forget it. Your way to intelligent for me. Obviously I have no idea what your trying to imply, and have tried to understand your point of view and your arguments to no avail.
IF ANYONE KNOWS WHAT THIS GENIUS IS TALKING ABOUT PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME.
Originally posted by Garfee
Originally posted by DrChuck
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DrChuck
The answer to your question would be no, churchs could not be legally required to perform services that were outside of their beliefs. To do such would violate the first admendment of the Constitution which prohibits the federal government from getting involved in church affiars, and break down the wall of seperation between state and church.
Well it was a thought on track with discrimination laws. Discrimination laws are enforced on businesses, but the irony of it is - to deter discrimination, the personal rights of business owners are violated. The right not to associate with a certain group of people.
Like blacks.
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
This "genius" served six years in the navy and wound up a lt. - O2
In that time I met a lot of ppl who loved serving and who would not be worthy of the same rights to marry as you or I under your criteria.
I will forgive the insult; I am much older than you and more used to legitimate debate I think.
I would not care a rat's ass about the sex orientation or marital status of anyone covering my ass in combat.
How does their love make less of your faith? Shallow-assed faith if you ask me.
BTW: I AM a friggin genius.
Originally posted by DrChuck
nd that is the way this issue should be handled. I don't see why there should be a debate of any sort with gay marriage if we just follow the same guidelines as the Navy. To preserve the rights of both sides, this is the only solution.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by DrChuck
nd that is the way this issue should be handled. I don't see why there should be a debate of any sort with gay marriage if we just follow the same guidelines as the Navy. To preserve the rights of both sides, this is the only solution.
In the USA - - when has there ever been any indication that churches would be forced to marry gays?
There are plenty of churches that are more then ready to welcome and perform gay marriages. After years of hate - - why would any gay person have any interest in forcing an anti-gay church into marrying them?
I believe Canada and the UK laws are different.
Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
No, when it pertains to marriage, the difference is quite clear. Marriage may have started out as a social contract, but it has effectively evolved into a legally binding contract in how it operates within the United States. You even acknowledge certain aspects of that reality, despite your apparent unwillingness to accept it for the truth that it is.
This is the definition for what a contract is:
con·tract
1.
an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2.
an agreement enforceable by law.
3.
the written form of such an agreement.
Would you agree that these three conditions make up the basic foundation for modern day marriage as it exists within the United States? I'm sorry to say, but something that appears like a social contract, yet functions in every aspect like a legal contract, actually is a LEGAL CONTRACT despite any spin you might put on that fact. Just because a motorcycle doesn't have four tires and doors doesn't somehow mean that it's anything other than an automobile. And automobiles, no matter which type they are, still have to abide by the laws that are set forth for automobiles. These same basic legal tenets apply to marriage as well since it is a contractual instituation that is recognized and overseen by government, court, and law.
While social contracts exist within a largely philosophical and theoretical field of knowledge, marriages actually physically exist within a defined and definite legal capacity, which is the separating factor from something theoretical to something factual. Marriage is a legally-binding contract.
I recommend checking these two sites out if there's any confusion:
contracts.lawyers.com...
www.enotes.com...edit on 15-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)