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

a reply to: Puppylove

Marriage should not be a function of the government but only a civil union should exist. All marriages ceremonies should not be recognized in any form by the government.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Still waiting for that example chief.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The basis for the illegality of homicide is not founded in religious beliefs.

Again you twist to represent not my wording. Your wording is a different meaning.

At the time when made illegal religion of the gospel was the sole source for morality and continues to be that source even if many do not want to admit it.

a reply to: deadeyedick

We are not talking about law 'at the time of the Gospel', that is wholly irrelevant.

The United States operates under the Constitution and codified criminal and civil codes. Show me the one for homicide that mentions it being illegal because God or a particular religion says so.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

murder is illegal and is a sin and the majority of the people agree with this.

not all belief systems feel that murder is wrong so we will not be making it legal to appieze a minor few that believe against the majority.

Therefore abortion and euthenasia should be illegally but states should have the right to discern also in non specific cases that do not directly reflect federal law.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.

Try again.

a reply to: Grimpachi

There is no need the point stands well to most that do not have an agenda to disagree with everything one says.

Anyone can make counter points all day long. It does not make them correct.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: deadeyedick



We are not talking about law 'at the time of the Gospel', that is wholly irrelevant.



The United States operates under the Constitution and codified criminal and civil codes. Show me the one for homicide that mentions it being illegal because God or a particular religion says so.

Yes we were talking of the law at the time the laws came into existance.

You just keep twistin to fit the current post.

The point stands but requires a willingness to understand it in order to find revelance.

You have exactly the opposite.

It is the people on the fringe of the issue that will cause bloodshed. That includes many posting here and the politician in the op.

Common ground is the answer not bling ignorrance to war against the other fringe group.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Yes we were talking of the law at the time the laws came into existance.

No we are not, this conversation is about United States law.

You foolishly claimed that a law could be passed revolving around religion as long as it was not 'unlawful'.

I said prove it. So far you have failed to prove crap. I will wait at the top of the new hole you have dug for an answer.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

At the time when made illegal religion of the gospel was the sole source for morality and continues to be that source even if many do not want to admit it.

Wait a second. Religion of the gospel was and is the sole source for morality??? Seriously???

This is a common fundamentalist argument that keeps being thrown around and it's just not so. Nobody owns morality any more than they own marriage.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi


Anyone can make counter points all day long. It does not make them correct.

You claimed that murder is illegal and unconstitutional. That is inherently false as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution show that denial of life(murder) are condoned when given due process.


I agree that just because a point is made doesn't make it correct no one ever claimed that to be the case and I have just demonstrated using your attempted counter point.

All your answers are in my post but you have to want them to see them.

Getting caught up in one word is childish.

I think you all can do a better job at seeing other points of view but you willfully choose to ignore such to further the divide.

If any solution is reached in the thoughts it will take a willingness to understand and compromise.

There is no good future if you blindly stand as far away from the truth as the politician in the op.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I am not looking to argue either.

Which is why this seems rather odd. Americans United. Preventing violation of the First Amendment.

Whereas we're both looking for the same end, you seem to be looking to discount my knowledge of the legal system and the legality of the proposed law as written.

C'est la vie.

a reply to: nullafides

I am not trying to be rude and I understand your position and reason I just disagree based off of the statement released by American's United. I don't think it is odd that they are trying to prevent violations of the constitution at all. The whole reason they exist is to uphold aspects of the constitution.

Rep. Todd Russ isn't an idiot and the bill wording was chosen purposely. If it was as you say there would have been no need to include certain wording including the mention of Rabbi's. Todd Russ has made many statements on what he thinks of A,erica and religion and has been one of the people who have tried to include the bible into classrooms.


In all honesty, the bill doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of standing if it passes it is just political grandstanding maybe to pave his way to a federal job. It is just interesting to talk about and point out the crazy mentality it represents.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
I think you all can do a better job at seeing other points of view but you willfully choose to ignore such to further the divide.

We all see the other point of view.


And that it operates by jamming its religious views down other people's throats.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Thank you for not having wanted to come across as rude

I do wish though, that your disagreement over the "how" of the situation would have come across as less of an attack, less of something questioning my accreditation and ability to accurately form and state an opinion based off of my own knowledge of the law.

It just seems to me as wasted energy considering the fact that we both agreed with the "what" in the idea that the law wouldn't pass inherently due to it's violation of the First Amendment.

For full disclosure, until now I had not read the external content article. I found the quote in the first post to be more than enough to make a decision that the proposed law would go against the First Amendment, as well as come to the opinion that the very first thing which would strike it down was the verbiage.

It seems that I assumed you understood I was against the law to begin with, not simply because of the bad (my opinion) verbiage, but because of it's infringement upon the First Amendment.

It also seems you assumed that I had read the entire attached article.

I believe this is what lead us to this rather lengthy discourse.





I LOVE YOU MAN!!! [[[ BIG HUG ]]]

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: deadeyedick

I think you all can do a better job at seeing other points of view but you willfully choose to ignore such to further the divide.

We all see the other point of view.





And that it operates by jamming its religious views down other people's throats.

I was refering to the fact there are more than two sides to this.

I am still not here saying anything on behalf of religion.

I have laid it out over and over.

There is the pro same sex marriage you are spewing on one side and there is the side that is referenced in the op that is anti same sex marriage. I have been here offering a solution called civil union for both sides and you keep infering i am stating the side of religion.

The US already has Legal Government Marriage. The 14th ammendment says it applies to everyone (in so many words).

It is progression not to limit marriage to just man and woman.

We're not going to degress --- by side stepping to Civil Unions.

That's just stupid. You don't go backwards.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

There is the pro same sex marriage you are spewing on one side and there is the side that is referenced in the op that is anti same sex marriage. I have been here offering a solution called civil union for both sides and you keep infering i am stating the side of religion.

So in the end what it all really comes down to is simply the word "Marriage". Not even the actual act or legality of the actual marriage itself, but just your desire to somehow own those exact letters in that exact sequence.

That's just weird man!! I don't even know if there is a logical way to debate such an illogical idea other than to say, "No, you're crazy and nobody get's to own any part of language to themselves."

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: deadeyedick

There is the pro same sex marriage you are spewing on one side and there is the side that is referenced in the op that is anti same sex marriage. I have been here offering a solution called civil union for both sides and you keep infering i am stating the side of religion.

So in the end what it all really comes down to is simply the word "Marriage". Not even the actual act or legality of the actual marriage itself, but just your desire to somehow own those exact letters in that exact sequence.

Yep, that's pretty much what he is saying.

Because basically a U.S. marriage license is a Civil Union. It's all about the "word".

The 3rd option, so as not to offend anyone ---- is for all legal government "marriages" to be called Civil Unions.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

I was refering to the fact there are more than two sides to this.

There are only two sides when it comes to the Constitution, what is legal and what is not.

There is the pro same sex marriage you are spewing...

I am pro-equality.

And the only one of us interjecting religion into law is you when you said it could happen if it were not 'illegal'. Still waiting on the example.