Perform Same-Sex Marriage Or Go To Jail !!!!!!

[phank]

They're as much a "victim" as I am because I can't get a car in the US with a left-handed gear shift (from the dealer of my choice, no less). I just haven't had a special interest group agitate to get a law on the books (by judicial fiat if I can't sway enough representatives to buy into my victim mentality).

So being unable to purchase a nonstandard car is the same as being denied basic human rights and being discriminated against and treated like dirt your whole life. Who could possibly tell the difference, eh?

Bigotry here is such an accepted norm that even thinking seems to be impossible. Let's all play pretend. No wonder they say the far right is an echo chamber.

[Jedidiah]

No wonder many of us see the far left as out of touch with reality.

[lilpixieofterror]

So now you are reduced to arguing that attempts to correct injustices are a waste of time because they don't always work perfectly. This is what happens when you've painted yourself into a corner and cannot admit being even a little bit wrong.

No, this is what happens when your opponent is too stupid to understand what you said and just makes up things as he goes along because he's a total moron. Here is what I actually said, since you have massive problems with reading what people actually say and make up things as you go along:

Forced integration never works, so you need to find a way not to use forced integration.

There was that so hard for your tiny brain to figure out? Unless of course, you plan on using force forever and well... when you are faced with the evidence that is impossible. Guess reality will come crashing down on your head sooner or later.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to see that the efforts to correct systematic injustice are being made. I understand that bigotry is incorrigible, your continued demonstration of that is superfluous. But we can act to reduce applied bigotry, even if we can't change the minds of those who cannot admit that maybe their bigotry is a problem.

Yep, justice. While using force on people to make them do your will because there HOW DARE THEY DISAGREE WITH THE GREAT PHANK! Anyway who dares to disagree with you is clearly a bigot? Yep, you show why you're a true moron with the intelligence of a fruit fly. Do tell the world why you think anybody and everybody getting married is a right you have and if somebody chooses not to perform your marriage, you have the right to sue them and have the government force them to marry you. So much for the right to work for whoever you want and you seem too stupid to connect the dots and figure out why this is a very bad idea. Tell me phank, do you enjoy being able to pick and choose who you work for and don't work for? Do you think the government has the right to pick and choose who you work for, against your will? If not, why are you arguing for it right now? I guess you wouldn't mind it if the government started using the force of law to make you work for whoever they think you should work for, even if it is against your will. Funny, I thought we got away from this whole forced labor thing back in the 19th century. Guess you want to bring back slavery, eh?

Now do you have an actual argument here somewhere or is screaming bigot, at the top of your lungs, the only thing your tiny little fundy brain is capable of producing? A law against forced labor was made into a constitutional amendment almost 150 years ago. Guess you want to appeal that amendment and force people to work for others, against their will? Yep, returning to those slavery roots, eh?

[lilpixieofterror]

No wonder many of us see the far left as out of touch with reality.

Phank is so out of touch with reality, he almost needs a space suit to breath. He seems to not understand how bad of an idea it is to tell everybody that they only have rights that the government gives them. Guess he wouldn't mind being forced, against his will, to move up to Alaska if the government decides they need his labor up in the far Northern parts of Alaska. He seems to have no problem with forced labor, so I wonder how he would feel if he was the target of the forced labor.

[lilpixieofterror]

So being unable to purchase a nonstandard car is the same as being denied basic human rights and being discriminated against and treated like dirt your whole life. Who could possibly tell the difference, eh?

I wasn't aware that forcing a minister to marry you, against their will, was the same thing as being discriminated against and treated like dirt. Why can't they go to a judge or to another person who will marry them? Oh, that's right because than they couldn't shove acceptance down people's throats and make them do things against their will. Gosh, who would of ever of thought that forced acceptance makes people hate you and turns you and your entire group into outcast that nobody wants to associate with? BTW before you decided to call me a bunch of names again, since you're too stupid to address anything I said, I am friends with several gay men and women. I'm sure many of them would be quite embarrassed to have you defend them. I sure would be.

Bigotry here is such an accepted norm that even thinking seems to be impossible. Let's all play pretend. No wonder they say the far right is an echo chamber.

Yep, because having the right to choose who you want to marry and not marry is clearly a bigoted thing. Ministers only have rights as so far as the great phank determines they have rights and will gladly strip them of their rights and call them a bunch of names when they object to the whole forced labor thing. Yep, there sure is one bigot around these parts and he stares at you every time you look in a mirror. Since you clearly have no problem with slavery, can I make you sign something, against your will, so you'll do whatever I tell you to do or is that only allowed if a person dares to disagree with the great Phank?

[Tassman]

No wonder many of us see the far left as out of touch with reality.

Oh, come now!

The “reality”, like it or not, is that the Supreme Court has been consistently recognizing the constitutionality of homosexual marriage and an increasing majority of US citizens support it. The doomsday scenario of the religious right, that it will bring about the end of civilization as we know it, has not eventuated in places that have had it for many years - like Holland or Canada and no, you can’t blame Justin Bieber on SSM.

[Paprika]

Again, I suspect you may be imagining my position to be very different from reality. I have a very traditional view of Christian marriage.

Weren't you arguing that your government should recognise same-sex marriags?

This is my own theological view of marriage. Moving from theology to legal theory, I'm pretty sure that the church had this passage in mind as they developed their legal view of marriage being a life-long contract that could not be dissolved. Others had already viewed marriage as a contract that could be dissolved. Both views are, from a legal perspective, contracts. The church can also believe that it is a covenant and a sacrament and that God himself is involved, or should be, when people enter into this contract (I believe this) but none of this changes the legal theory of marriage as a contract between two people. For Jews and Christians it is even a contract ordained by God, with several variations on whether or how the contract may be resolved.

Precisely. There are variations that do not see marriage as a legal contract; indeed I'm sure you'd agree that the description by Jesus goes beyond a mere legal contract - the two are joined by God, and not by signing a contract if any.

[robrecht]

Weren't you arguing that your government should recognise same-sex marriags?

No. Our government already does recognize same-sex marriages federally and in some 32 states. I thnk that is now a dead issue. From my perspective, I have merely been discussing how Christians live within this country where this is the case and where freedom of religion requires that we respect the freedom of others' religious or nonreligious beliefs

Precisely. There are variations that do not see marriage as a legal contract; indeed I'm sure you'd agree that the description by Jesus goes beyond a mere legal contract - the two are joined by God, and not by signing a contract if any.

What are the variaions that do not see marriage as a legal contract. Of course theological views go beyond seeing it merely as a legal contract, but do any deny that it is indeed a legal contract?

[Paprika]

No. Our government already does recognize same-sex marriages federally and in some 32 states. I thnk that is now a dead issue. From my perspective, I have merely been discussing how Christians live within this country where this is the case and where freedom of religion requires that we respect the freedom of others' religious or nonreligious beliefs

Very well, I understand. However, in my country, it is still not something that is settled, so I still take an active interest in the issue.

What are the variaions that do not see marriage as a legal contract. Of course theological views go beyond seeing it merely as a legal contract, but do any deny that it is indeed a legal contract?

I believe it is clear that marriage predates a code of law.

What are the variaions that do not see marriage as a legal contract. Of course theological views go beyond seeing it merely as a legal contract, but do any deny that it is indeed a legal contract?

Do you think the first marriages were legal contracts? Was there any code of law, or legal authorities?

[robrecht]

Very well, I understand. However, in my country, it is still not something that is settled, so I still take an active interest in the issue.

I believe it is clear that marriage predates a code of law.

Do you think the first marriages were legal contracts? Was there any code of law, or legal authorities?

I am not sure of the dating of the various early codes of law, and how each of these codes speaks of marriage, perhaps you could enlighten us. My statement concerned Jews and Christians and the several variations on whether or how the contract might be resolved. With respect to the Law of Moses, at least as it came to be understood prior to the time of Jesus, it was analogous to what we call today a legal contract. Do you dispute this?

[One Bad Pig]

Oh, come now!

The “reality”, like it or not, is that the Supreme Court has been consistently recognizing the constitutionality of homosexual marriage and an increasing majority of US citizens support it. The doomsday scenario of the religious right, that it will bring about the end of civilization as we know it, has not eventuated in places that have had it for many years - like Holland or Canada and no, you can’t blame Justin Bieber on SSM.

There's no need to confirm Jed's statement like that.

[Paprika]

I am not sure of the dating of the various early codes of law, and how each of these codes speaks of marriage, perhaps you could enlighten us.

Take the first couple. Was there a code of law in existence governing marriage?

My statement concerned Jews and Christians and the several variations on whether or how the contract might be resolved. With respect to the Law of Moses, at least as it came to be understood prior to the time of Jesus, it was analogous to what we call today a legal contract. Do you dispute this?

Yes, I do. A legal contract can be ended by the agreement of both parties. But what God has joined together...

[robrecht]

Take the first couple. Was there a code of law in existence governing marriage?

Yes, I do. A legal contract can be ended by the agreement of both parties. But what God has joined together...

But, recall, Moses did allow divorce, as did Jesus and Paul under certain circumstances, 'though this is a matter of dispute and interpretation. From what I understand of ancient or other so-called primitive marriage contracts, the parties involved often included the families or tribes and not necessarily the wife at all, but these are still contracts as legal scholars, at least some, understand the terms of the contract. I cannot discuss in any detail the first couple of codes of law, nor would it be germane to my position, but I would be fascinated to learn from you on this topic.

[Paprika]

But, recall, Moses did allow divorce, as did Jesus and Paul under certain circumstances, 'though this is a matter of dispute and interpretation.

Quite, Jesus allowed a divorce under specific conditions, and not in all conditions, yes? Whereas legal contracts can be terminated at any time for any reason if all parties involved are agreed.

From what I understand of ancient or other so-called primitive marriage contracts, the parties involved often included the families or tribes and not necessarily the wife at all, but these are still contracts as legal scholars, at least some, understand the terms of the contract.

Indeed. I do not dispute that the union marriage was in many cases accompanied with a legal contract.

I cannot discuss in any detail the first couple of codes of law, nor would it be germane to my position, but I would be fascinated to learn from you on this topic.

It isn't germane to my position at all either.

[robrecht]

Quite, Jesus allowed a divorce under specific conditions, and not in all conditions, yes? Whereas legal contracts can be terminated at any time for any reason if all parties involved are agreed.

I suspect that is true of modern contracts as they have come to be written by modern lawyers. I do not think that was always the case. In fact I know it has not always been the case, particularly in the manner in which the Christian church has defined marriage as a contract.

Indeed. I do not dispute that the union marriage was in many cases accompanied with a legal contract.

It isn't germane to my position at all either.

Then why bring it up?