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

[Aldebaran]

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.

I chose to use the word as it was originally intended rather than the way the liberals have twisted it.

 

[Queller]

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

Are you a troll?

People are only married if they have a marriage license that states they are married.

 

[Freodin]

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

I could even agree on that... though I don't think your conclusions are very reasonable. After all, no one recognizes the authority of God in traffic laws either, or tax codes or industrial standards.

I'm sure we will disagree on the cause for that, but I'd say we might agree that at least on reason for that is because God doesn't bother to come down and regulate traffic laws, tax codes, industrial standards nor marriage laws and customs. (Personally, I say that is because he doesn't exist. Feel free to disagree with that.)

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

People are honest... and this is the reason they don't care about what you seem to present as "marriage" here. They have, in multiple cultures and multiple eras, recognized the problems that can arise, and came up with solutions.

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.

We have already adressed that, and it is still incorrect.

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.

So why the difference? I don't know that much about NZ law, and that isn't something I can quickly google. I can tell you that civil unions and marriages are not given completely equal rights in Germany though... and that is the sole reason why there are two different concepts here.

If there is absolutely no difference between these two concepts in NZ... then why bother with having two different concepts?

 

[Aldebaran]

People are only married if they have a marriage license that states they are married.

Yes, that's the legal definition. When 2 people have intercourse, they are spiritually married.

 

[Queller]

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

It might be discrimination but due to the First Amendment it is also perfectly legal.

 

[bhsmte]

I chose to use the word as it was originally intended rather than the way the liberals have twisted it.

You chose the one that fit what you wanted and not the one that fit the discussion on the thread.

And by the way, the term discrimination as it applies to treating people unfairly, has been around for a long long time.

Do you think discrimination occurs in the United States or do you think it does not occur?

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[1] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making

 

[Freodin]

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?

When to look at differences and when to look at similarities depends on the context.

 

[Aldebaran]

You chose the one that fit what you wanted and not the one that fit the discussion on the thread.

And by the way, the term discrimination as it applies to treating people unfairly, has been around for a long long time.

Do you think discrimination occurs in the United States or do you think it does not occur?

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[1] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making

I just love how you can't let something go!

 

[bhsmte]

It might be discrimination but due to the First Amendment it is also perfectly legal.

Private country clubs can discriminate as well, because they are private and don't openly serve the public. There are Jewish country clubs that won't accept Christians and that is perfectly legal, because they are a private club and can accept and reject, whoever they choose, for any reason.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, that's the legal definition. When 2 people have intercourse, they are spiritually married.

All that matters here is the legal definition. Getting the state involved in "spiritual" matters is a prime method to cause trouble... for a lot of people.

 

[Glass*Soul]

The judge was probably right, because an argument based on procreation is probably the wrong one.

It's more accurate to say that it's illogical for homosexuals to want to include themselves in an ancient Jewish custom that is described as being for a man and a woman when there are civil unions that exist providing the exact same legal benefits without any of the religious connections.

May I point out that gays and lesbians are not uncommonly people of faith themselves. From the Huffington Post: Religious Views Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender People Revealed In New Survey As such, it is not impossible to imagine that they would cherish the same ceremonies and traditions that their heterosexual counterparts do, and for many of the same reasons.

 

[bhsmte]

I just love how you can't let something go!

I just love how you can talk so boldly, but can't answer simple questions.

I know, it gets challenging when you are exposed.

 

[Aldebaran]

When to look at differences and when to look at similarities depends on the context.

It also depends on a person's values. If marriage to a Christian is something sacred, of God, and is to be for life, then that person will place more importance of defining it correctly. I guess for homosexuals, it's more of a wishy-washy thing to change the meaning of so it's fits their own definition, even if it means the overthrowing of the will of voters when the question is brought to them to decide.

 

[Aldebaran]

I just love how you can talk so boldly, but can't answer simple questions.

I know, it gets challenging when you are exposed.

So consider yourself challenged!

 

[bhsmte]

It also depends on a person's values. If marriage to a Christian is something sacred, of God, and is to be for life, then that person will place more importance of defining it correctly. I guess for homosexuals, it's more of a wishy-washy thing to change the meaning of so it's fits their own definition, even if it means the overthrowing of the will of voters when the question is brought to them.

You're values, don't define law. Laws are in place, to help assure everyone is treated equally, whether you're values agree with it or not.

 

[Aldebaran]

You're values, don't define law.

Apparently, neither do the values of the majority of voters.

 

[AirPo]

Yes, that's the legal definition. When 2 people have intercourse, they are spiritually married.

Intercourse and spiritually have nothing to do with it.

 

[Freodin]

Apparently, neither do the values of the majority of voters.

Nope, you are right, they don't.

The majority cannot get rid of the rights of the minorities.

And you should be happy about that.

 

[bhsmte]

Apparently, neither do the values of the majority of voters.

As I said, you talk so boldly.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

 

[Aldebaran]

As I said, you talk so boldly.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

Ever wonder why it was only 27% back in 1996? Is 18 years ago considered the "dark ages" or something?