[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Legally speaking. It's not a 'belief,' it's a fact.

No, it really isn't. Marriage, in the USA, is a religious practice that's regulated by the state. In this country it always has been.

...which is irrelevant to law, isn't it?

Of course. I like to keep church and state separate, but that's me.

What's the legal problem with civil marriage? Are we gonna change what we call people in a civil union, too?

For the sake of equality, all present marriages would be invisibly changed over to civil unions for legal purposes, and then in the eyes of the gov't that's all there would be from now on, civil unions.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If marriage existed before the church and religious marriage is different from previous marriage, then the church did indeed change it's nature, ergo, what a load of shit.

Jesus raised marriage to a sacrement, not the Church. He also laid down the law on divorce and remarriage.

Teaching about Divorce
10 He left that place and went to the region of Judea and[a] beyond the Jordan. And crowds again gathered around him; and, as was his custom, he again taught them.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...version=NRSVCE
2 Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,[b] 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10 Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No, it really isn't. Marriage, in the USA, is a religious practice that's regulated by the state. In this country it always has been.

Is this a feeling or a legal fact?Because, frankly, this is the first time I've ever heard referred to a 'regulated religious practice.' Strikes me as kind of the opposite of the concept this country was founded one. Can you cite some type of official source for this 'regulated religious practice' claim?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

For the sake of equality, all present marriages would be invisibly changed over to civil unions for legal purposes, and then in the eyes of the gov't that's all there would be from now on, civil unions.

There were two questions posed:
1. What's the problem with civil marriages.
2. What will we be calling people who get these new civil unions?

The above answered neither.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Jesus raised marriage to a sacrement, not the Church. He also laid down the law on divorce and remarriage.

So the church didn't change marriage because... Jesus? Is this real life?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So the church didn't change marriage because... Jesus? Is this real life?

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of Matrimony

ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

[The Final Dakar]

Chongo, Jesus may or may not have existed, and if he did, he may or may not have been the son of god. It's an absurd argument to put to anyone who is not a christian.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Chongo, Jesus may or may not have existed, and if he did, he may or may not have been the son of god. It's an absurd argument to put to anyone who is not a christian.

You asked and I gave the relevant portion from The Catechism. If some one believes Jesus exists and is who he says he is, then they need to follow what he teaches and what the Apostles and their successors teach.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You asked and I gave the relevant portion from The Catechism. If some one believes Jesus exists and is who he says he is, then they need to follow what he teaches and what the Apostles and their successors teach.

I didn't ask. I rebutted a defense of opposition to gay marriage pointing out one of its claims was bullshit. You pulled the Jesus card in defense. I pointed out that was ludicrous.

Did you miss the part where this is about the government and enacting laws for people of various creeds (or lack thereof)?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't ask. I rebutted a defense of opposition to gay marriage pointing out one of its claims was bullshit. You pulled the Jesus card in defense. I pointed out that was ludicrous.

Did you miss the part where this is about the government and enacting laws for people of various creeds (or lack thereof)?

You quoted my quote from the article in this reply:

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Marriage existed before Church and state. Therefore, “Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.”

If marriage existed before the church and religious marriage is different from previous marriage, then the church did indeed change it's nature, ergo, what a load of shit.

You brought the Church into it.
I then quote the potion of the Cathecism with all it footnotes to Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers

Did natural marriage exist long before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees, yes or no?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You brought the Church into it.

Actually, if you're talking about the root of the whole argument, Christians brought the Church into it.

But regarding Leroy, he tried to extricate the church from the argument, but his claim rung false. Having to use a religious figure to justify his argument is somewhat counterproductive.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Did natural marriage exist long before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees, yes or no?

It doesn't matter. It has no bearing on US law.

[Chongo]

Actually, it was Luther that brought the state into marriage.

From Huffpo.
How Protestantism Redefined Marriage | Bethany Blankley

It's important to trace the history of marriage within the Western Christian tradition to understand the ironic conundrum with which Americans find themselves today.

Early Christians in the first through third century understood marriage to be a union between one man and one woman created by God as a consummated partnership described in Genesis 2. Early Christian leaders, such as the Apostle Paul, explained that marriage was more than just a union between two people. It was an act of worship that pointed to Christ's sacrificial relationship with the church (Ephesians 5). Therefore, marriage was not about a contract or a financial engagement as had been the custom for centuries prior, but a sacred union that should reflect God's love. Christ turned the accepted cultural norms about marriage on its head.

Later, in the fourth century, Constantine, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity, instituted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. This act formalized Christian customs and grew the responsibility of the Roman church, which over time became formally responsible for performing weddings.

It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century that the recording of marriages and establishing of rules for marriage became a function of the state. Martin Luther, the Catholic priest who initiated the Reformation in Germany said that marriage was a "worldly thing ... that belongs to the realm of government." A similar opinion was expressed by John Calvin, his Swiss counterpart. Calvin and his colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage" as valid.

By the 17th century, many of the Protestant European countries' governments were responsible for instituting marriage.

English Puritans who rejected the Church of England's view of marriage and immigrated to America in the early 1600s, believed that marriage was a civil contract, not a religious ceremony. The law they instituted required that marriage be "agreed" or "executed" (not "performed" or "solemnized") before a magistrate, not a minister. They also legalized divorce if the terms of the marriage covenant were broken. These customs became the model for marriage throughout New England. Other parts of colonial America followed different traditions -- Virginians followed the Anglican view of marriage, Quakers brought their own version to Delaware, and Catholics instituted their belief in Maryland and other states.

Unlike its European counterparts, which instituted civil marriage in the 18th and 19th centuries, the United States left the issue of marriage to the states. Marriage was not codified until 1996 through the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, marriage today resembles a mélange of western Christian marriage traditions within a federalist system.

Since 2004, six states have granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire New York, Vermont and Washington, D.C.). Washington and Maryland recently passed laws to grant same-sex marriage licenses, which voters may overturn in November. In California, same-sex marriage could be legally performed between June 16 and Nov. 4, 2008, until voters passed Proposition 8, which prohibited it. As of May 8, North Carolina voters passed a gay marriage ban. To date, 12 states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute and 30 by state constitution. On May 9, President Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to express his support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.

How did we get in this quagmire?

Were it not for the Protestant Reformation, marriage would not be considered a civil institution today. Had Christians followed the early church's example, marriage would never have been thrust into the realm of the government at all.

In light of this, Christians find themselves in an ironic and divided situation. As citizens of a secular country they must be licensed by the state to validate a practice that is rooted in a religious belief. Should this be the case? Should a practice rooted in a Judeo-Christian faith even be under the auspices of government? If marriage had been left to the church, the church could marry those who practice and follow its beliefs. Civil unions among same-sex couples could be left to the government, providing the full range of civil liberties citizens in a democracy expect. The fact that marriage is governed by the state, defies its purpose intended by God for heterosexuals and prevents civil liberties from being granted to same-sex couples.

Granted, 17th century Puritans viewed the government as agents of God's authority, but they never could have foreseen how non-Christians would want to use a Christian practice as a political right.

The sanctity of marriage, as defined in Genesis 2, would be best preserved if marriage were left to the authority of the church. Instead, most Bible-believing Christians find themselves defending a religious practice that was never designed to be governed by a secular institution.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Actually, it was Luther that brought the state into marriage.

"I'm going to ignore what you just said, and now post something else."

BTW, you already posted that, and I already gave my thoughts.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is this a feeling or a legal fact?Because, frankly, this is the first time I've ever heard referred to a 'regulated religious practice.' Strikes me as kind of the opposite of the concept this country was founded one. Can you cite some type of official source for this 'regulated religious practice' claim?

If you don't think marriage is regulated by the state in the USA, and there are big, hairy issues due to this, then what's the point of this thread? I'm not a gov't official, I hold no public office, yet because of my religious affiliations (I'm recognized as a minister by 3 different religious institutions), I can perform weddings and also sign marriage licenses (state documents) as an officiant, the same as a JoP or judge.

TN state code § 36-3-301. Persons who may solemnize marriages.

(a) (1) All regular ministers, preachers, pastors, priests, rabbis and other spiritual leaders of every religious belief, more than eighteen (18) years of age, having the care of souls, and all members of the county legislative bodies, county mayors, judges, chancellors, former chancellors and former judges of this state, former county executives or county mayors of this state, former members of quarterly county courts or county commissions, the governor, the speaker of the senate and former speakers of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives and former speakers of the house of representatives, the county clerk of each county, former county clerks of this state who occupied the office of county clerk on or after July 1, 2014, and the mayor of any municipality in the state may solemnize the rite of matrimony. For the purposes of this section, the several judges of the United States courts, including United States magistrates and United States bankruptcy judges, who are citizens of Tennessee are deemed to be judges of this state. The amendments to this section by Acts 1987, ch. 336, which applied provisions of this section to certain former judges, do not apply to any judge who has been convicted of a felony or who has been removed from office.

(2) In order to solemnize the rite of matrimony, any such minister, preacher, pastor, priest, rabbi or other spiritual leader must be ordained or otherwise designated in conformity with the customs of a church, temple or other religious group or organization; and such customs must provide for such ordination or designation by a considered, deliberate, and responsible act.

Of course it's contrary to what this country was founded on, which is why the gov't should only be involved with civil unions.

There were two questions posed:
1. What's the problem with civil marriages.
2. What will we be calling people who get these new civil unions?

The above answered neither.

1. It's a contradiction, because marriage in this country is a religious institution (or at the least some strange, hybridized thing).
2. Partners.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You guys are redefining marriage as a religious institution because you're picking isolated parts of history to date it from.

What is the point you use as the origin of the definition of marriage? The author of the article states that until Luther, marriage was strictly in hands of the Church and a Sacrament. Luther decided it was a "worldly thing" Calvin took it a step farther.

Calvin and his colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage" as valid.

That is the point Civil marriage came into existence in the West. To say otherwise it ignore history.

[Chongo]

In other news, CNN's Sally Kohn says she wants her daughter to grow up to be Gay. At this times he does't appear to be. When she plays house, she uses "Mommy and Daddy" and Sally will chime in.
I’m gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too. - The Washington Post

[subego]

I think she has a great point hidden behind an ultra-troll title.

If that's how she's going to play it, she'll reap what she sows.

[Chongo]

Wow, they're up to 15 "orientations" now? I see "Fifty Shades" is having an effect. BDSM is an orientation at Wesleyan University. It will be interesting what left in DSM 6


Housing

154 Church Street

Open House is a safe space for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Flexual, Asexual, Genderf*ck, Polyamourous, Bondage/Disciple, Dominance/Submission, Sadism/Masochism (LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM) communities and for people of sexually or gender dissident communities. The goals of Open House include generating interest in a celebration of queer life from the social to the political to the academic. Open House works to create a Wesleyan community that appreciates the variety and vivacity of gender, sex and sexuality.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I wouldn't mind at all if my daughter is gay, in fact, I'd possibly be a bit relieved.

[subego]

Adam Carolla has a theory most fathers don't want penis in their children's lives regardless of gender.

This shakes out as "freaked out by gay, fine with lesbian".

[Cap'n Tightpants]

My wife said it's because good men are nearly impossible to find, re. most guys are shitheads.

[subego]

Pretty much.

[Atheist]

The minute the government got involved with marriage it lost its religious meaning. A marriage is a civil union and a civil union is a marriage. All this debate over a single word is pointless. Does it really make more sense to rename marriage to civil unions in every state and federal law just so the religious folk can continue to believe that their marriage is somehow better than my civil union? It's time to find another battle... this one is lost.

[subego]

Certainly not going to the mat for it, but had it gone that way, I think everybody would have been happier.

I would have.

I'm not bothered by SSM, but I'd prefer if the government got out of marriage entirely.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

If it came down to it, I'd much rather have SSM than not allowing it at all, I've simply been saying it isn't the ideal solution (which is getting gov't out of the marriage "business" and making it all essentially a basic contract situation).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

If you don't think marriage is regulated by the state in the USA, and there are big, hairy issues due to this, then what's the point of this thread?

Gay marriage opposition isn't really about marriage – its about gays. I think you knew that, too.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Of course it's contrary to what this country was founded on, which is why the gov't should only be involved with civil unions.

I appreciate the citation, but that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the courts saying that marriage is indeed a religious regulation.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

1. It's a contradiction, because marriage in this country

Stop. We already did this. Marriage in this country is not a religious institution – you can be married by many irreligious authorities. This is strictly a case misguided beliefs being used to interfere with the laws.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

2. Partners.

I meant the term 'married.' I assume you don't mean they'll be called 'partnered.'

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What is the point you use as the origin of the definition of marriage?

I don't think I have specific point in mind, but history is littered with marriage, through common law, or dowries, and religious ceremonies.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The author of the article states that until Luther, marriage was strictly in hands of the Church and a Sacrament.

Which is a worthless distinction because it disregards that marriage existed prior to the church.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That is the point Civil marriage came into existence in the West. To say otherwise it ignore history.

I'm not arguing how marriage got to the west. I'm arguing that its not fundamentally a 'religious institution.' The only way you claim it to be is by taking a very narrow reading. Which is exactly what you guys are doing.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Wow, they're up to 15 "orientations" now? I see "Fifty Shades" is having an effect. BDSM is an orientation at Wesleyan University.

Does finer granulation in orientation delegitimize the possibility of homosexuality somehow?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

My wife said it's because good men are nearly impossible to find, re. most guys are shitheads.

I'd love to hear the definition of 'shitheads.' Of course, this statement is meaningless if she thinks most women are shitheads of some other variation as well.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Adam Carolla has a theory most fathers don't want penis in their children's lives regardless of gender.

This shakes out as "freaked out by gay, fine with lesbian".

I think Adam Carolla would eat his words if an incredibly butch 'bull dyke' lesbian came sniffing round his daughter.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think Adam Carolla would eat his words if an incredibly butch 'bull dyke' lesbian came sniffing round his daughter.

I'm not going to stop you from subjecting things comedians say to rigorous factual analysis, but will mention it's likely a losing proposition.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not going to stop you from subjecting things comedians say to rigorous factual analysis, but will mention it's likely a losing proposition.

Adam Carolla takes he shit he says as gospel until challenged. Screw him.

[subego]

Is this because he fired Allison?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is this because he fired Allison?

No he's obnoxious all the time. The Allison thing is a weird subplot that seems to undermine his meritocracy, though, and underscore his hypocrisy.

[subego]

He was more tolerable back in the day.

He made the penis joke 15 years ago on Loveline.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

He was more tolerable back in the day.

Right, before he got full of himself.

[subego]

So, does Adam's personal attitude negate the observation?

Is there not a general trend of fathers being more bothered by gay sons than lesbian daughters?

Isn't what makes a bull dyke a bull dyke that they're masculine?

Are we actually having this conversation?

[The Final Dakar]

I was pointing out an exception. One that proves the rule, I suppose.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't think I have specific point in mind, but history is littered with marriage, through common law, or dowries, and religious ceremonies.

And same sex unions are where?

I don't see any thing about two men or women in the Code of Hammurabi
Starts with #128
Code of Hammurabi

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

And same sex unions are where?

Once again, you have it backwards, or are just moving the goal posts. This isn't me trying to justify gay marriage based on historical precedent.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Once again, you have it backwards, or are just moving the goal posts. This isn't me trying to justify gay marriage based on historical precedent.

Then what is the reason for redefining marriage?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then what is the reason for redefining marriage?

Equal rights. Non-discrimination.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Equal rights. Non-discrimination.

Nope, try again.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Nope, try again.

I thought you were asking me.

You may not like my answer but that's the heart of it. Getting marital benefits falls under those two items.

If you've got some nutter conspiracy theory about gay indoctrination and undermining morals, you may take it elsewhere.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I thought you were asking me.

You may not like my answer but that's the heart of it. Getting marital benefits falls under those two items.

If you've got some nutter conspiracy theory about gay indoctrination and undermining morals, you may take it elsewhere.

A will and power of attorney will take care of it. Taxes? Marriage penalty.

In the end, it still won't fill the void.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

A will and power of attorney will take care of it.

If a couple has to jump through hoops and take extra steps that's an imposition on their rights (unequal access). Not to mention they still aren't 'married'. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you don't want to get married.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Taxes? Marriage penalty.

...and yet they're still ok with it.

In the end, it still won't fill the void.

Of being a soulless homo-demon? It's still their right as americans to try.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If a couple has to jump through hoops and take extra steps that's an imposition on their rights (unequal access). Not to mention they still aren't 'married'. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you don't want to get married.

It also doesn't mean you do want to get married. Being married is no gaurentee that those issues will be elliminated.

Of being a soulless homodemon? It's still their right as americans to try.

Do you belive that people with same sex attraction do not have a soul?

BTW, the end game for some (like Masha Gesson) is the ellimination of marriage law altogether. There is a movemnt for clergy to no longer sign marriage llicenses. This will create a model that exists in other countries. You get married civilly, then have a church marriage.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It also doesn't mean you do want to get married. Being married is no gaurentee that those issues will be elliminated.

Legally, it is. SCOTUS already showed that.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BTW, the end game for some (like Masha Gesson) is the ellimination of marriage law altogether.

Yes, who but cares what a few nutjobs want

So does Shaddim wanting to change everything to civil unions play into her hands?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Legally, it is. SCOTUS already showed that.

Yes, who but cares what a few nutjobs want

So does Shaddim wanting to change everything to civil unions play into her hands?

Yes. It moves things in that direction. That is why many oppose the Marrigae Pledge I mentioned earlier.
The Marriage Pledge

If Gessen (mispelled it before) is a nut job, why was she appointed head of Radio Liberty? She seems to be held in high regard in the media.

[subego]

I agree with her.

Quick refresher:

She's a lesbian. She has a daughter. She considers her family unit to be:

Her
Her daughter
Her girlfriend
Her ex-girlfriend (who's an important part of her daughter's life)
Biological father (who's an important part of her daughter's life)
[I may have details wrong, but you get the idea]

"Marriage", SS or OS, doesn't fit this, doesn't help her, and making that the focus is kind of setting her and her family back. She supports it anyway out of a sense of obligation.

[Chongo]

The elimination of civil marriage would defeat the goal of others. They want to use the force of law againt those who have religous objections. Those are the ones I refer to as The Rainbow Shirts. We've seen the results so far as several people have or will lose their businesses.

[subego]

There's an excluded middle of people who are just tired of society legally declaring them second class citizens.