Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[Freodin]

Yikes! Does that mean that 2 people who have their names on a house title as joint owners are considered married?

I'd like to point out that halfsaved's behaviour here is a prime example of the point made in the thread title: this is not the behaviour of serious people.

 

[Aldebaran]

Religious marriage is and should always remain up to the religious beliefs of the church

Then a pastor can decide whether or not to do the wedding of a gay couple, correct? In some peoples' eyes, that's discrimination.

 

[bhsmte]

I'd like to point out that halfsaved's behaviour here is a prime example of the point made in the thread title: this is not the behaviour of serious people.

It is common behavior of fundamentalists though. Very, very predictable.

 

[Belk]

Yikes! Does that mean that 2 people who have their names on a house title as joint owners are considered married?

No. Care to actually address my reasoning?

 

[AirPo]

Do you have a cogent reason to support that assertion?

AS cogent as yours .

 

[Aldebaran]

I'd like to point out that halfsaved's behaviour here is a prime example of the point made in the thread title: this is not the behaviour of serious people.

I was just using the guy's definition and showing how it's similar to the contract called a house title.

 

[Cute Tink]

Then a pastor can decide whether or not to do the wedding of a gay couple, correct? In some peoples' eyes, that's discrimination.

Legal vs illegal discrimination.

A pastor or other religious figure already has the right to decline to conduct my wedding ceremony as an atheist. Why would that change?

 

[bhsmte]

Well, going by that definition, I guess I could join any group or organization I want. So maybe I should join a black group, even though I'm white. Or maybe a lesbian group, even though I'm a straight male. Or a high-end sportscar enthusiasts group, even though all I have is a Chevy Cavalier. Maybe any kid in school who ever gets picked on should file a lawsuit against other kids who don't like him.

So, based on the definition you're using, a person can't even choose to associate with the people of their choice.

Can you be a little more evasive, I don't quite think you are there yet?

You are taking intellectual dishonesty to new heights, congratulations.

 

[Aldebaran]

Legal vs illegal discrimination.

A pastor or other religious figure already has the right to decline to conduct my wedding ceremony as an atheist. Why would that change?

But do you agree with it, or is that something else you want changed?

 

[Aldebaran]

You are taking intellectual dishonesty to new heights, congratulations.

Thanks! You've been a good teacher.

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks! You've been a good teacher.

No, I have a sense you taught yourself, with a little help from others of your ilk. Want to show me where I have been intellectually dishonest?

 

[Queller]

But just like Christmas, it doesn't have the same meaning. To Christians, it celebrates the birth of Christ. To secularists, it celebrates commercialism. In other words, the name is the same but the meaning is different.

To Hindus, marriage means the exact same thing as it does to Christians, only the deities involved are different.

 

[Queller]

Wanting same recognition for something different is special recognition.

Except that it isn't especially different. It is still two people pledging to spend their lives together. The only difference is the gender.

 

[Cute Tink]

But do you agree with it, or is that something else you want changed?

I thought I was clear about that, but I'll restate it to be more clear.

Churches are a separate matter than government. Government is bound by the Constitution to treat people as equal on rights and most (if not all) privileges. Churches are not required to conduct religious matters equally among all people. They can even disallow people from joining the church on whatever basis they desire. That should never change (and government truly cannot force it to as it would violate the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment).

I would argue against any person attempting to require any church to perform any ceremony or other act they felt was against their beliefs.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, I have a sense you taught yourself, with a little help from others of your ilk. Want to show me where I have been intellectually dishonest?

Sure! When I try to get the definition of words straight that you are using to try to back me into a corner, you call me evasive. There's nothing evasive about getting a clear understanding of what a person is talking about. Specifically, I think the word "discriminate" has been altered to mean something it never meant until recently. It used to mean something admirable, such as having discriminating tastes, to something negative. I just choose not to buy into it.

 

[Blessedj01]

After a short google search: the answer is "yes". There is no requirement to be Christian to be married in New Zealand.

How do you think this is possible?

For the same reason that homosexuals want to get married, because nobody recognizes the authority of God in marriage.

If people were truely honest, they'd recognize that sex IS marriage and stop doing it with everyone.

I mean, it's not like Adam and Eve had a white wedding. That's pretty much a social construct, which is based upon the construct which Moses gave the Jews.

Just for the record again, in New Zealand civil unions gave EXACTLY the same rights as marriage. If it had simply been a case of wanting marriage alone, that'd be more understandable - but now they demand that these marriages take place in churches.

Well, we are all welcome to interpret the Bible as we want. However some of us will be wrong about it. Me included. It's just the reality.

 

[Aldebaran]

To Hindus, marriage means the exact same thing as it does to Christians, only the deities involved are different.

And to Christians, marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. So why is that a problem?

Except that it isn't especially different. It is still two people pledging to spend their lives together. The only difference is the gender.

Well, that's a difference. So why should something different have the same meaning. If something is different, then the definition is different. Calling 2 different things by the same name don't make them the same.

 

[Freodin]

And to Christians, marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. So why is that a problem?



Well, that's a difference. So why should something different have the same meaning. If something is different, then the definition is different. Calling 2 different things by the same name don't make them the same.

Everything is different, if you place your focus on the differences.

But we focus on the similarities.

 

[Aldebaran]

Everything is different, if you place your focus on the differences.

But we focus on the similarities.

But you're ignoring the differences! That's the problem right there! Is a house and a mobile home the same thing? The only difference is that one is on wheels and the other is not. But they are different too. So do you call one the same as the other based on what you focus on, or what it actually is?

 

[bhsmte]

Sure! When I try to get the definition of words straight that you are using to try to back me into a corner, you call me evasive. There's nothing evasive about getting a clear understanding of what a person is talking about. Specifically, I think the word "discriminate" has been altered to mean something it never meant until recently. It used to mean something admirable, such as having discriminating tastes, to something negative. I just choose not to buy into it.

Cool. I don't buy into the fact that you chose to skip the very first definition of the term provided by Webster and skipped over it by mistake. When you add in, it is specifically what the discussion has been about on the thread and you still skipped it, it is quite revealing.