Bert and Ernie agenda

[jackfaire]

polygamy no matter what a religion says

Actually the government doesn't do anything about polygamy. Multiple marriages yes but they don't have any laws against people dating or living with more than one person as long as they don't try to legally marry more than one person.

[HYHYBT]

My mother belongs to a church that says people of the same sex should be able to marry, and by not supporting that, you are approving of the government to tell her church what to believe.

I thought your mom was a Mormon. Has she converted, or am I remembering that wrongly?

So, if you make marriage a legal right that cannot be infringed upon by anyone else... then technically any church that says "we will not conduct this marriage" will be in violation of the law and would face legal issues.

however, at the same time... this IS a religious belief as well. So you would in fact have the government punishing religious groups for following their own beliefs. So in effect, the first amendment would be broken by the fact that the government would be interfering with what a church believes in.

This is simply and completely false. The right to equal protection/due process applies to the government; in this case, it means the government has no business granting marriage licenses to straight couples while denying them to gay couples unless there is a highly compelling reason (and there isn't.) Churches can and do decide on their own who they will marry (so long as the marriage is legal) or bless (anyone and anything they like.) They do it all the time. The government cannot grant marriage licenses to Christians but not to Buddhists or atheists, but churches are free to limit who they marry to those who are members, and many do. The same with divorcees. So the original "how" becomes more specific: how would the government's not discriminating based on sex push anything on churches when its not discriminating based on religion, former marital status, or whatever else they wish do not?

and of course i forgot... not supporting something means you're trying your damnnest to stop it and there must be something wrong with you... or so that's what i seem to be getting from this... that i must be a bad person because i don't see things the way others do.

am i right? not supporting the agenda means i'm a hater right?

No, but it would be nice if, rather than jumping to the claim that you're being called a hater (even though by some of the posts since that one it appears you're right about at least a few people), you'd address what appears to be a flaw in your reasoning. So far, you have not done so except to throw out race as being cultural rather than religious. (Which doesn't matter, as churches remain free to discriminate in who they marry based on whatever they wish.)

[jackfaire]

Churches can and do decide on their own who they will marry (so long as the marriage is legal)

Actually the marriage wouldn't even have to be legal. If a church wanted to it could perform a wedding ceremony for a man and his dog. They couldn't conduct a legal ceremony in that it couldn't involve the government. No marriage license would be issued for such a marriage but a church could conduct it.

[Andara Bledin]

Actually the government doesn't do anything about polygamy. Multiple marriages yes but they don't have any laws against people dating or living with more than one person as long as they don't try to legally marry more than one person.

Polygamy is specifically a marriage situation with more than 2 individuals, aka multiple marriages. I think you're confusing it with polyamory.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

Polygamy is specifically a marriage situation with more than 2 individuals, aka multiple marriages. I think you're confusing it with polyamory.

^-.-^

Nope I am not. When my ex-wife and I were married we did so in August of 2000.

We went before a justice of the peace in January 2001.

You can get married without bringing the law into it just as you can get married without bringing the church into it.

Our first wedding was a religious ceremony because we did not feel the need to involve the government in our decision. We did not change our position on that until the Army refused to extend insurance to my then wife without a legal marriage. So while on leave we went to a justice of the peace.

Marriage the religious ceremony is about a couple's beliefs and what they wish to declare in the eyes of the God they believe in. Secular marriage is about acquiring a set of rights that have been laid out under the heading of marriage.

Had I not joined the Army my secular divorce, still working on that, would not be an issue as our marriage would have remained only a spiritual one as we wished.

To me the whole debate is ridiculous on those grounds. She was my wife from the day I said I do. Regardless of what the law says because what I call my significant other is entirely up to me.

When it comes to legal forms that is a different matter.

My point being you can be married to a lot of different people if you don't bring the government into it.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh. So you're just throwing out irrelevant data that has no bearing on the conversation at hand. Got it.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

Oh. So you're just throwing out irrelevant data that has no bearing on the conversation at hand. Got it.

^-.-^

How is it irrelevant? The discussion has steered into the arena of a statement that legalizing same sex marriages would force churches to conduct same sex marriages

I was pointing out that churches may conduct any marriage they wish and that the Government can in no way deny them that right. The only thing that the Government can do is deny rights to marriages considered invalid by law and grant rights to those marriages it considers valid.

The fact that churches can and do conduct marriages that currently would not qualify for marriage laws invalidates the statement that they could or would force churches to conduct marriages the law feels are valid.

To me any data supporting that seems pretty relevant.

Unless I am wrong and we are discussing the rings of Saturn.

[Andara Bledin]

Ah. I see what's happened. That part of my statement that you quoted was speaking of legal marriages, not spiritual marriages.

Spiritually speaking, my boyfriend and I have been "married" for several years, now. A lot of people we know think we actually are. However, I don't tell people that we are married because I know that unless I tell them that I'm using a non-standard definition, then I'm lying. Knowing that another person will be using a definition other than the one you mean when you say something for the purpose of misleading them is lying, regardless of the technical veracity of your statements. And, whatever else I may be, I make a point of not being a liar.

Likewise, in a debate, if you're going to choose to use a non-standard definition of a term, you should explain that fact or use a more appropriate term.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

Ah. I see what's happened. That part of my statement that you quoted was speaking of legal marriages, not spiritual marriages.

Likewise, in a debate, if you're going to choose to use a non-standard definition of a term, you should explain that fact or use a more appropriate term.

^-.-^

I did not intend to mislead in any way.

Nor am I talking about spiritual marriage.

I am talking about Church Marriage.

Also what I originally quoted of yours about polygamy was not about legal marriage it was from a statement that you made saying the Government will not interfere in how or what a church does except in the cases of human sacrifices which true the government will not let churches murder people.

But saying that the Government will not let churches perform polygamy means your stating that a church would be violating the law if they performed a marriage ceremony for someone already married or seeking to marry more than one person.

That was the impression I got. I do apologize if what you really meant was that the government will not grant legal rights to polygamous marriages.

I was under the impression since you tied them to sacrifices that you were saying the Government would prevent the action itself and not merely deny rights to the married couples.

[HYHYBT]

This is exactly what I was trying to avoid by using "bless" for extralegal arrangements...

(and I *really* wish PepprElf would answer)

[smileyeagle1021]

am i right? not supporting the agenda means i'm a hater right?

.

To be blunt, yes, yes you are.
When you say you don't support my right to marry, you say that you think I am inferior to you... that is the definition of hate right there.

I'm sorry, but this is a black and white issue, either you think I (or homosexuals in general) are equal and deserve the same rights, or you don't.

There is no room in the middle.
So which is it, are homosexuals equal and deserving of the same rights or are we inferior and not deserving?

[jackfaire]

To be blunt, yes, yes you are.
When you say you don't support my right to marry, you say that you think I am inferior to you... that is the definition of hate right there.

No no she isn't.

The only way she would be saying that is if she said, "I don't support gay marriage because I believe that you are inferior"

In fact her reasons have nothing to do with you being gay, Jimmy being gay, or anything to do with marriage by law.

She believes that marriage by law will force her church to redefine what marriage is to them and to alter their very beliefs.

I do not agree with those beliefs but I would give my life to defend her right to have them as I would die to defend your rights. I also vote for same sex marriage rights to be granted.

She is entitled to her beliefs none of which say you are an inferior person.

I am not friends with a lot of people that like sports because I am not a sports fan I do not believe sports fans to be inferior but if they asked me to let part of my taxes go towards building a new stadium that does not help me I would say no.

For me I have the belief that raising taxes to pay for something that cannot benefit me will hurt me.

She has the belief that granting same sex marriage rights will hurt her right to believe what she wants and thus hurt her.

Nothing is black and white. I would not want to live in a world where it was because worlds like that, everyone is evil.

[Andara Bledin]

To be blunt, yes, yes you are.
When you say you don't support my right to marry, you say that you think I am inferior to you... that is the definition of hate right there.

No. You're wrong in that.

Some of us believe and think we should fight for basic human rights.

Others of us think we know better about how the rest of humanity should behave.

And, there are those who are so comfortable in their own lack of oppression that they don't actually consider or just don't care that others are being oppressed who do nothing but sit idly by and let it happen.

^-.-^

[smileyeagle1021]

No. You're wrong in that.

am I, am I really?

Let's look at a different scenario. Let's say this was 1911, how would history judge me if I said "I don't support the right for women to vote... I don't think they are inferior, but church might be forced to recognize women in positions of authority if they are allowed to vote and that violates my religious beliefs, so I'm not going to do anything to help them."
How about saying it's 1961, how would history judge me if I were to say "I don't think negros are inferior, but if there is integration my church might be forced to let negros in our congregation, and that violates my church's rights, so I won't do anything to help them."
In both situations it has been proven that churches haven't been forced to change their beliefs because of either (unless the catholic church has been forced to allow women to be priests or westboro baptist been forced to allow blacks in), and I'd be willing to bet money you'd in retrospect say I was either a sexist or a racist for saying those things.

What do you suppose people will be saying in 2061 about people who use that argument against helping to grant rights to homosexuals?

Besides, something that a lot of people on this board, living comfortably in the more civilized coastal areas, have forgotten, people are DYING, hate crimes are alive and well in the country's interior (I've been assaulted twice and I consider myself damned lucky at this point), we no longer have the luxury of not caring either way. Especially with it looking like a candidate who supports forced exgay therapy has a major chance of winning the white house.

[Gravekeeper]

She believes that marriage by law will force her church to redefine what marriage is to them and to alter their very beliefs.

That will never happen though ( Especially in the US ). So thats not really a valid reason, honestly. I wouldn't say she's a Hater(tm), but her belief is unfounded. I've never seen any gay marriage activist push for forcing churchs to marry them. They simply want the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Being married by a church isn't a right.

Speaking from a country that's been there, done this. I find this whole fiasco kind of boggling still. Because, to me at least, I can't understand why not have same sex marriage. What's the problem? No one's going to park on your lawn and lure your kids to the gay side.

Gay marriage doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form and any perception of it affecting you is frankly your own prejudice.