Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:08 pm to Duke
quote:
Did the 1st amendment evaporate while I was asleep last night?
No, it's just scare tactics from the religious right.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:09 pm to RoyalAir
But the term marriage is not exclusively used in human terms. It has been used for instance to describe certain types of musical genre. "Blues is the marriage between jazz and soul"
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:10 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Religious people aren't very intelligent.
Some of the smartest men in history were religious.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:10 pm to RoyalAir
quote:
It's the reason why Utah had to put an anti-polygamy clause into their state's constitution before they could be admitted to the US.
You bring up a good point though ... the real underlying issue with all of this and why it is being fought-over so fervently.
If this passes then the real pervs will come out of the woodwork and will be allowed to marry sheep, children, dogs, mannequins, sisters, etc.
We've been dealing with this sort of thing up around Clemson for years .... they are out there and they are waiting for this to pass.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:10 pm to Duke
quote:
Did the 1st amendment evaporate while I was asleep last night?
Think about it for a moment. As it is now, ministers are allowed to perform marriage ceremonies on behalf of the state. Legally, that's what they're doing - aside from anything spiritual/religious that takes place in the church.
If Mr and Mr Johnson ask Pastor Smith to perform the ceremony in the First Baptist, and he refuses, Mr and Mr Johnson have been denied a right (by an agent working on behalf of the state) as guaranteed by the SC's interpretation of marriage. Do they not have the right to sue?
How is this scenario that much different from the infamous anti-homosexual bakery not baking a cake?
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:11 pm to scrooster
quote:
If this passes then the real pervs will come out of the woodwork and will be allowed to marry sheep, children, dogs, mannequins, sisters, etc
Not unless they are consenting American adults they won't.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:12 pm to Gradual_Stroke
Yes, Stroke. Hence the need for the court to clarify.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:13 pm to scrooster
quote:
If this passes then the real pervs will come out of the woodwork and will be allowed to marry sheep, children, dogs, mannequins, sisters, etc.
Can animals, children, and non living objects consent to marriage? If not, then your arguments are not only invalid... they're absolutely fricking absurd.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:14 pm to 5thTiger
As soon as the government started recognizing marriage on a government/non-secular level, the term stopped being exclusive to religious institutions. And as long as the government is recognizing marriage, the religious preference of others shouldn't dictate what marriage is by definition.
I think most would prefer the government not be involved in marriage at all. Unfortunately in the meantime it is, so the counter that it shouldn't doesn't really negate gay marriage.
I think most would prefer the government not be involved in marriage at all. Unfortunately in the meantime it is, so the counter that it shouldn't doesn't really negate gay marriage.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:15 pm to CatFan81
quote:
If this passes then the real pervs will come out of the woodwork and will be allowed to marry sheep, children, dogs, mannequins, sisters, etc.
FINALLY-I mean, yes yes, that would be terrible.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:15 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Some of the smartest men in history were religious.
But most of them weren't
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:16 pm to RoyalAir
quote:
Do they not have the right to sue?
Can they exercise their right to marry outside of that church? If so, they have no standing. They would be suing to violate the church's right to free exercise when the church isn't restricting their ability to get married in the state.
Would never make it to appeal.
Hell would never make it to trial.
This post was edited on 4/30/15 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:17 pm to scrooster
quote:
If this passes then the real pervs will come out of the woodwork and will be allowed to marry sheep, children, dogs, mannequins, sisters, etc.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:18 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Roger Klarvin
quote:
quote:
If its a problem for God, then let God judge.
Yep, and there is precedent. God supposedly destroyed Soddom for immoral behavior, including sexual deviance. If God detests it so, then let him punish us as a nation for allowing it. Strike us down.
Of course, we all know that wont happen. It will be legalized, no divine punishment will come and the religious will be left to rationalize as they always have. Nothing new under the sun.
But wouldn't it be funny if an hour after the ruling comes out a magnitude 10 earthquake hits California and everything just slides off into the ocean.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:19 pm to CatFan81
quote:
Can animals, children, and non living objects consent to marriage? If not, then your arguments are not only invalid... they're absolutely fricking absurd.
We're moving into a situation where we are seriously arguing that certain animals should have human rights.
Why shouldn't that chimp be allowed to marry a human? It's not as patently absurd as you're originally suggesting.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:19 pm to Gradual_Stroke
quote:
But most of them weren't
Prior to the 20th century they were. If you listed off the ten most important intellectuals prior to 1900, 7-8 of them would probably be religious.
Prior to relatively modern scientific advancements, a universe without a creator was simply inconceivable.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:19 pm to alphaandomega
A lot of people would die, so...not really funny?
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:19 pm to Gradual_Stroke
quote:
But most of them weren't
I like how you think.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:19 pm to RoyalAir
quote:
Why shouldn't that chimp be allowed to marry a human?
Agreed. Chimps are people too.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News