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.

 

Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

page: 16
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

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?



Tell me what part of my hypothetical statement is not hypothetical to your fellow soldiers. Or tell me, at the very least, why my statement isn't hypothetical.
edit on 15-6-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

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.



Your issues are your issues.

This thread is about Legal Equal Rights.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

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.



And 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 guidlines as the Navy. To preserve the rights of both sides, this is the only solution.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

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.


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)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

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?



I know I'm gonna regret replying to you, but what the hell...

1. What the hell is a Vassili? I'm not a sniper, if thats what your implying.
2. When in any of my posts did I say gay marriages should not be recognized? Go back and read my posts.
3. When have I stated that gay marriages hurt me or anyone else? Again. Go back and read my posts.
4. What makes you think that gay marriages challenge my faith? Go back and read my posts genius.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

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.



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.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

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.



I know, I know...it sounds distasteful. But really, the most fundamental and significant rights of a man is his free thought. Its disgusting to hate another man just because of his race, color or creed. But that is no reason to strip a man of his most basic and fundamental right of opinion. You take the right of free thought away and everything else does not matter, not happiness, not right to bear arms, not the right to religion of ones choosing.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

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.




Let me just say that I thank you for your service to your country and your people. On a different note...

I don't care if you forgive my insults, as it was you that started the mudslinging. I just care that you read my posts, please..pretty please???



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

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.



I've said it before to someone else, it was a HYPOTHETICAL statement. Gay marriages are fine...but if anti-discriminatory laws are used to prosecute churches or priests that would not preside a gay wedding, that would be wrong.

Hypothetical, hypothetical, hypothetical....



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

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)

There is where you are wrong, as a contract would require that there be something that is written, to which there is not in a marriage. As it is partially based on an idea, it falls right into the lines of a social contract. The bride and groom do not sign anything at the time that the deal is sealed, or before hand. In fact the only thing that both sign is the marriage liscence. So how is that a contract in the typical sense of the word? It is not, though it is a social contract by the definition that I provided.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DrChuck
 


I'm curious, why would that be wrong? If such laws exist, why shouldn't churches have to abide by them? In essence, the churches in question would be discriminating against homosexuals by not allowing them to wed at their church.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


Why would it be right? Just because a law is there doesn't mean its right. Like I said before, what about the rights of religion and beliefs of the priests who do not want to take part in a gay marriage. Why should their rights be violated? There are plenty of churches and priests who are willing to conduct a gay wedding.




top topics



 
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join