The "Gay Marriage" debate? A question of semantics?

aint that something? stray outside of his world view by a fraction of a millimeter, and instantly you're 'idiotic'.

Originally posted by psmith81992
It's actually supposed to be both but the atheist crowd makes this kind of nonsense up like religious folk "pulling one over" them. It's pure nonsense. Also, where is the hypocrisy regarding "kids out of wedlock"? I don't know what you mean by this.

It appears her only fault is not following the law. Hence the necessity for separation of church and state.

It's of course supposed to be both. Quick question though: do you feel that *in practice* it is both?

I thought the hypocrisy was a bit obvious to anyone who used to be religious: You think with christians they feel kids out of wedlock and numerous divorces are A okay? If you do feel that way I have some news: they do not in fact feel that way.

Responding to Surtur

But that requires marriage to be a religious right, which it's not.

I never claimed the belief system made any sense. All I know is that the church heavily frowns upon divorce and all that. Now..are they as frowny upon it as they were decades ago? No, but it is still a thing.

Makes you wonder though, if a judge said to this lady: yup, we're putting out a gag order, no media outlets can cover this story, at all. You can stay in jail if you want, but your story won't be covered by anyone.

I wonder if she'd still sit her ass in jail?

aint that something? stray outside of his world view by a fraction of a millimeter, and instantly you're 'idiotic'.

I thought the hypocrisy was a bit obvious to anyone who used to be religious: You think with christians they feel kids out of wedlock and numerous divorces are A okay? If you do feel that way I have some news: they do not in fact feel that way.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Still too dumb to come up with an intelligible response to ANYTHING on here?
Not sure what my world view has to do with anything but you've been pretty consistent on here. 😂

Where did you get that she was ok with kids out of wedlock? I'm trying to see where the hypocrisy is.

He is saying she is a hypocrite because she has done both of those things but for some reason her faith's beliefs matter in this particular scenario even though when she breaks them it is okay.

Personally I don't care whether or not she is a hypocrite. I just care about the fact she is trying to use her religion to discriminate against other people.

He is saying she is a hypocrite because she has done both of those things but for some reason her faith's beliefs matter in this particular scenario even though when she breaks them it is okay.

Personally I don't care whether or not she is a hypocrite. I just care about the fact she is trying to use her religion to discriminate against other people.

IF she had children before she was married (at least her first marriage), then that same Bible she uses to be against gay people, is also against a woman not being a virgin at the time of her marriage.

Maybe Surtur meant that?

Originally posted by psmith81992
I am asking about the kids out of wedlock thing, specifically if she has done this and where it is stated. As far as discrimination goes, I wouldn't go that far. It's against her religion (assuming she isn't a hypocrite), so she shouldn't be employed in a position where her religious beliefs conflict with the law. It's that simple.

Simply because it is a part of her religious views does not mean she is not discriminating against people. Her job is to issue marriage licenses to people. She is not doing that because she does not agree with certain law-abiding citizens lifestyle choices. Therefore she is discriminating against them.

I do agree if she doesn't want to do this she should quite her job. She has had plenty of time to do so but has ignored court ordered mandates to do so.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You can't just make 'marriage' a religious term- you can't legislate meaning like that. The word is already understood as something going far beyond a simple religiously-restricted term, instead now indicating the idea of legal union in general. You can't un-boil that egg.

That being so, equality demands gays as much as anyone else get access to the term, else it looks as if you are denying them the concept by defining them as different.

As for religions/belief systems not wanting to allow gay marriage inside their own structure- that's fair enough. I am a big advocate of removing marriage entirely from religious institutions and making it purely a state thing, onto which religious members can add their desired ceremony and in-organisation recognition if thy so wish, according to that organisation's rules. If those rules don't allow the ceremonial recognition of gays, that would indeed be a reason for gays to consider another belief system.

But that would not in any way impede gay access to marriage.

I think that would be the ideal way to handle it.

It is that way in a manner though, you can get married in a church, mosque, temple and synagogue back-to-back and it's still not legal until you file with the state.

Originally posted by Robtard
It is that way in a manner though, you can get married in a church, mosque, temple and synagogue back-to-back and it's still not legal until you file with the state.

That's true. However, a religious organization should not be punished if it refuses to conduct those ceremonies inside its walls. It seems things may be heading that way.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That's true. However, a religious organization should not be punished if it refuses to conduct those ceremonies inside its walls. It seems things may be heading that way.

...even though there is absolutely no evidence of any attempt at this?

Bit off topic, how do you guys feel about the tax exempt status churches and shit enjoy?

Is this good, bad, or inconsequential?

Originally posted by Surtur
Bit off topic, how do you guys feel about the tax exempt status churches and shit enjoy?

Is this good, bad, or inconsequential?

I think if they they should go through all the same criteria as a not for profit organization if they want the tax breaks.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
...even though there is absolutely no evidence of any attempt at this?