Posted on 04/17/2015 10:23:05 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Because you F***ing idiot, our entire legal and judicial system is based on the belief that God can make an old man and an old women bear children if it's his will. Look up Abraham and Sarah.
These laws and customs were set down during a time when belief in the bible was quite strong, and everyone in Western History knew of the story of Abraham and Sarah.
It's you modern day Godless idiots who don't understand the underpinnings of our existing social structures.
Here’s a brief and easy reason for Kennedy to understand why it is rational to discriminate against homosexuality. It is deadly behavior. It causes defect, spreads disease, and is highly associated with mental collapse.
It is counter-productive behavior, and sticking one’s body parts in cesspools is irrational. Thorough sterilization after handling sewage is standard practice in any occupation that has workers coming in contact with bodily excretions.
The only shared-bodily-fluids exception I know of is semen deposited in a female. That alone is life-giving.
This is not rocket science, Justice Kennedy.
Government is an increasingly lousy steward of marriage and you want to keep paying that steward to do that?
Nothing doing.
No way. A real governor who cared about his oath would have never done what Romney did.
All, I’m saying is that given the political climate in MA, gay “marriage” was inevitable - it was going to happen.
Heck, here is an entry from the current MA gov’s Wiki page: “...Baker ran as a social liberal (in favor of gay marriage and abortion rights)...”
I hate it, but it was inevitable. If Mitt hadn’t signed the bill this guy apparently would have. That doesn’t mean I give Mitt a pass. I wish he’d shown some back-bone...
Let's say the US goes with your idea. Explain to me what we have when the dust settles. What does marriage look like after your idea is fully implemented?
If you think the government solemnizes marriage, then you equate government with God.
Linking marriage only with its religious source is the solution to this dilemma. If your religion doesn't perform gay marriage, then it should be irrelevant to you if some other religion does. And if government gets out of the marriage business and only administrates civil unions, then it has no way to have any effect on anyone's marriage.
Problem solved.
Are you ready to allow homosexuals to get equal access to adoption of children? Are you willing to allow polygamous relationships to share in Social Security, pension and welfare benefits?
Are you ready to have family issues resolved in the street rather than in court?
Just what would marriage look like if you and Hi Tech were in charge of overhauling the current system?
As I said, through civil unions.
Are you ready to allow homosexuals to get equal access to adoption of children? Are you willing to allow polygamous relationships to share in Social Security, pension and welfare benefits?
These are administrative issues and should be treated as such. In fact, they already are, if you hadn't noticed. But the legitimacy of marriage should not be a part in these considerations - the legitimacy of marriage is separate from government approval by definition. Fitness to provide for dependents is a separate issue. The only dependents that cannot be required for government permission would be natural children, for train of their very naturalness.
Are you ready to have family issues resolved in the street rather than in court?
What's that supposed to mean? What family issues are you talking about? I'm not suggesting there be no laws - I'm talking about what marriage already IS - a pledge between two people and God. Government is not party to that bond, period, by definition. The extent of the government involvement with a civil union under the jurisdiction of administrative law is a completely separate thing.
Just what would marriage look like if you and Hi Tech were in charge of overhauling the current system?
I can't speak for Hi Tech, but my way, marriage would be recognized for what it has ALWAYS REALLY BEEN: something HIGHER than the government can reach. Marriage is not a tax status - and its use as one is sordid and depraved.
I agree that we should be fair with Taliker and HiTech and let them explain what the US culture will look like after their ideas are implemented. I need to see it spelled out on paper to be able to give them a fair shot at evaluation.
Adoption, child credits, school education on families, etc. I want to see what this world will look like after the dust settles and their ideas are implemented.
Civil unions already exist and are treated by the government as legally equal with marriage.
The question, therefore, isn't what will happen. The question is what has already happened to marriage - and what does marriage mean to you? To get more precise, do you believe God is an indispensable part of the creation of a marriage bond? Because if you do, then there is no place for government in the legitimization of that bond. You MUST start there, because everything else is derived from that.
So if you then want to take that union, and its fruits of children, into the government arena, you cannot, in doing so, change the definition of that union. Which means some other contractual mechanism is needed that has no effect whatsoever on the definition of marriage. Ergo, civil unions. Otherwise, you get what we see now - the government claiming the authority to determine the definition of marriage, and then, inevitably, the legitimacy of your marriage according to government specifications.
It's crucial Christians especially get this, because the definition of Christian marriage IS being targeted. And this is the way to fight back, by denying any government involvement in that definition AT ALL.
You might not be understanding what I’m asking.
In this fictional future community, for example, what relationships could you see existing?
Four kinds.
One, private relationships that are not solemnized by any associated spiritual, religious or church marriage, and not filed with the state as a civil union;
Two, relationships that are solemnized by an associated spiritual, religious or church marriage, but not filed with the state as a civil union;
Three, relationships that are solemnized by an associated spiritual, religious or church marriage and also filed with the state add a civil union;
Four, relationshipd that are not solemnized by any associated spiritual, religious or church marriage, but are filed with the state as a civil union.
Excellent. I hope Justice Stevens reads this and takes it to heart.
I’m interpreting what you’ve said. I think I have it right in OUR current language:
1. Cohabiting relationships
2. church only marriages
3. church + state marriages
4. state only unions.
Which number does it fall under if the ‘church’ is the ELCA which now marries gay couples?
Libertarians tend to live in this community.
“...the legitimacy of your marriage according to government specifications.”
That’s a huge reason so many have accepted ‘gay marriage,’ in my opinion. That’s why the faith groups that have accepted ‘gay marriage’ only marry their gay members if the state they are in happens to agree with them about it. To them, the civil authorities determine what a marriage is. That might be more insane than actually accepting ‘gay marriage’ in the first place.
Freegards
3. Should be: church marriages + state unions
If ELCA is a church, then they would marry who they want - but only under their authority, not the governments. And anyone who disagreed with that would dump ELCA and find another church they agreed with, and thereby personally reject ELCA’s definition of marriage. That’s why you would not only say that you’re married, but also under what church/faith.
And conservative Christians tend live in the community of the present, where their blasphemy of placing the authority for the legitimization of marriage at the feet of government, and out of the hands of God, has created a situation whereby the government is now forcing them to accept gay marriage.
Do you have a problem with “conservative Christians”?
If so, why are you posting on this site?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.