sort by best latest
Rod Martin Jr says
UR answer is mostly correct ex 4 last paragrph. In this sense God simply means inalienable. & yet we still deny = rights 2 gay people. Denial is a religious choice only
I disagree with anyone being denied anything. As marriage is a religious institution. If it doesn't take place through a religious faith it is a simply a civil union regardless of sexuality, gay or straight. And nobody is denying civil unions.
I got married by a justice of the peace with all mention of God or religion removed. Does this mean that I'm not married, Landmark? If marriage were only a religious institution, then why all the divorce lawyers & prenups?
Because the gov't opted to inject itself into the world of marriage for reason related to our tax code. In reality this is a relatively new occurrence in human history. In the eyes of the clergy and faith, you're not married. In the govts eyes..yes
I'm sorry, but that's simply ridiculous.
Marriage is one of 7 religious sacraments to Christians. You are not married in the eyes of virtually any faith whether you agree with them or not. You have a legal contract of social union recognized only by the Gov't. AKA...Civil Union.
So Muslims, Jews and Hindus can't get married? Your opinion sounds a trifle elitist. I'm sure all of the Christians married by elected officials would like to know they aren't legally married in the eyes of their churches.
That's not what I said.Jews Hindus and Muslim consider marriage a faith based endeavor.If it were preformed by an elected official of the Gov't rather than clergy, none of them would consider it a marriage,otherwise they aren't observing their faith.
Christians claim marriage as their invention. in reality it is nothing more than a binding contract between 2 people that makes responsibility = if kids & property R involved. Just another way for religon to make $$ off people 4 nothing.
Actually Christianity makes no such claim...But the Gov't began to involve itself in the marriage business to finance a punitive tax and legal code that binds liability. Try entering a nursing home when your spouse has a pension...Lawyer fee's galore
ALL religions claim they have the only right to marry people in the name of God. Under this premise common law marriages are just as valid.
No they, the claim that marriage is a union embraced between two people and God. Without the acceptance of God there is no marriage. But legally speaking, there is no difference between a civil union & a civil ceremony, which is my point
& MY point is: the commitment of love between 2 people is no greater,or less,than those of another so 2 lessen that commitment because it is disliked by others is certainly not equality at its basest. NO 1 has the right 2 judge the luv of others
But they are granted the same legal rights under civil unions and not discriminated against. Hence the term marriage is simply semantics. If they have a problem with someone's faith based views...then don't attend their house of worship.
U don't seem 2 comprehend the stigma attached 2 being branded as abnormal. Setting others apart keeps discrimination alive & validates the ignorance of religious beliefs.
You're assuming religious beliefs are ignorant. Yet, you just discriminated against people of faith in that statement. And while I don't personally dislike homosexuals, I see nothing normal about a behavior that defies biology among 3% of population.
i only rail against false beliefs that harm others. Being a small minority that U dislike does not give any 1 the right 2 make undue demands on them, or subject them 2 ur personal belief systems. Rel.beliefs hold no validity 4 any 1 but believers
They hold no validity to non-believers. That doesn't make them ignorant or ignorant people. Geneticist Dr Francis Collins headed the mapping of the human genome and is a devout evangelical Christian.Hardly an ignorant man.And nobody is making demands
ignorance is believing things that R not factual,or logical. Religious leaders R not exempt from ignorance. esp.the radical evangelicals. 10 college degrees cannot take away 1's ignorance. denying =ity IS making demeaning demands in a loud way.
So then those who believe in the theory of evolution are ignorant because it is an unproven theory that is still missing the "missing link". Read Biochemist Dr Michael Behe book on irreducible complexity.There is a lot of scientific theory in faith.
U R incorrigible. U expound on comments irrationally & illogically. no need 2 read 2 understand ignorance is non discriminate. U can't paraphrase someone's comments 2 suit ur own. believing falsities is also non discriminate. denying equality is
Nobody is proposing inequality...you argument is based in semantics not actual rights. And the evolutionary theory is not a fact, but a theory. By your definition that makes a believer ignorant. Ad hominem attacks don't articulate ones point well.
that was no attack. an observation. evolution is as valid & more logical & realistic as the alternative. we must not write laws based on religious beliefs. that is absurd. making marriage different 4 different "classes" is certainly discrimin
Please cite specifically how they are treated differently from a tax or legal perspective which denies a specific right. And I hate to break the news to you, a large % of the scientific field are people of faith. Read the Rice Unv study pub 2010.
if you do not know the answer to your own question you are totally out of touch with anything outside of fox news. Too much detail to cite in this limited space.
There is no difference in a legal sense. Yet the tax code can treat people diff based on income. Affirmative action treats people diff based on race, and the legal system allows for protected class status, all forms of class differentiation.
- See all 26 commentsHide extra comments