Had To Happen Eventually: Idiots Want NC To Declare Official State Religion

[jhale667]

So you're OK with drive-thru chapels, just not fer teh gays? And the 4,000 years thing? Utter horse-hockey and you know it.



I guess we need to review this again.

[78/84 guy]

Them who ??

Guess Who ???

[FORD]

The federal government should only be interested in administering civil unions whether it's hetero or homo couples. It's nothing but a contract as far as taxes, inheritance, property rights, etc. are concerned. Marriage has been defined as the union between a man and woman for 4,000 years and should be left to the individual churches to decide what constitutes marriage.

Separation of church and state would be the sensible approach here, but under current laws in states that have civil unions for same sex couples, and marriage for hetero couples, there are many legal rights the married couples have that the others do not.

That's why the legal designation of marriage is important. And it's also why Federal recognition is important, as many of those legal rights involve taxes.

Churches/mosques/synagogues/Dick Cheney's satanic covens/etc. should absolutely have to right to decide their own ceremonies. But at the end of those ceremonies, the minister/priest/rabbi/whatever always says "By the power of the state of (insert name here) I pronounce you....."

That legal document constitutes the marriage in the eyes of the state. Anything else that takes place before or after in a house of worship is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

[Warham]

So you're OK with drive-thru chapels, just not fer teh gays? And the 4,000 years thing? Utter horse-hockey and you know it.

I don't think you read my post very well.

I said the government should only be interested in handing out civil unions. If you go through a drive-through chapel and they "marry you" or "hook you up" or whatever, it doesn't matter. The paperwork you applied for is nothing but a Civil Union contract, nothing more.

The 4,000 year thing is not horse-hockey and you know it. Please produce evidence that gay marriage existed three thousand, two thousand or even a thousand years ago. The members of the Supreme Court in this recent case, even the liberal justices, understood that gay marriage is a very new idea in the world.

[jhale667]

I don't think you read my post very well.

Actually, I did.

I said the government should only be interested in handing out civil unions. If you go through a drive-through chapel and they "marry you" or "hook you up" or whatever, it doesn't matter. The paperwork you applied for is nothing but a Civil Union contract, nothing more.

"Hook you up"? Is that what the kids say these days?

The 4,000 year thing is not horse-hockey and you know it. Please produce evidence that gay marriage existed three thousand, two thousand or even a thousand years ago. The members of the Supreme Court in this recent case, even the liberal justices, understood that gay marriage is a very new idea in the world.

Perhaps it is, not disputing that, so don't need to "produce evidence" -but if you're talking about the "one-man-one-woman" thing, which you referenced, YES it is indeed horse-hockey and yes, you do know it. I guess you didn't watch the educational video carefully?


Bottom line is there is no legitimate objection to gays having the same legally-recognized marriage rights as straight people, particularly when it comes to property, visitation rights, etc. To suggest otherwise is to suggest somehow constitutional rights shouldn't be equally applied to all citizens. Which is kinda fucked up when you think about it...

And please don't go all Ben Carson with your retort. Anyone making that false equivalence should punch themselves in the face.

[ELVIS]

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution whatsoever, jfail...

[Warham]

Perhaps it is, not disputing that, so don't need to "produce evidence" -but if you're talking about the "one-man-one-woman" thing, which you referenced, YES it is indeed horse-hockey and yes, you do know it. I guess you didn't watch the educational video carefully?

No, I'm talking about men and women. The thing that's required for the human species to continue.

Bottom line is there is no legitimate objection to gays having the same legally-recognized marriage rights as straight people, particularly when it comes to property, visitation rights, etc. To suggest otherwise is to suggest somehow constitutional rights shouldn't be equally applied to all citizens. Which is kinda fucked up when you think about it...

When did I give an objection to them having the same rights? If they want to go through unions and divorces like straight people, more power to them. But like I said, it should be civil unions for all.

[Angel]

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution whatsoever, jfail...

Really? It is in ours...

[jhale667]

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution whatsoever, jfail...

Didn't say it was, hick-hack zealot boy.

[FORD]

Some people are bad and they don't give a damn
what they do or who they hurt.
They go through their lives and don't apologize
for the shit that they've disturbed.
But they don't bother me at all cuz I know quite well
When their lives are over and they've done what they've done
They're the people that are going to Hell

Some beat their wives or pull out a knife
and stab a person or two or three
with no repercussions and no one here can touch them
and they get away scott free
But that's not the case you see and I'm glad to tell
When their lives are over and they've done what they've done
They're the people that are going to Hell

They will spend eternity cursing all they've done
faced with karma consequences and nowhere left to run
They will be in agony until the end of time
Cuz they were such assholes while alive

So try and be nice and to do what's right cuz there will come a day
When you're faced with your maker and no one here can save you
No matter what they say.
And be glad that you were good cuz some don't do so well and
when their lives are over and they've done what they've done
They're the people that are going to Hell

[ELVIS]

Separation of church and state would be the sensible approach here, but under current laws in states that have civil unions for same sex couples, and marriage for hetero couples, there are many legal rights the married couples have that the others do not.

That's why the legal designation of marriage is important. And it's also why Federal recognition is important, as many of those legal rights involve taxes.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit...

First of all, you have a bastardized view of the separation of Church and State...

Secondly, what's the difference between marriage and a civil union to you ??

Thirdly, here you go again wanting the Federal Government to step in and force more shit down our throats while they fucking rob us blind...

Brilliant!

How liberal of you...

[Hardrock69]

No bastardization:

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

How hard is that for you to understand, Elbow?

[ELVIS]

Explain it in your own words...

[jhale667]

Explain it in your own words...

It means that - much to your chagrin, you don't get to dictate what the rest of the country believes, and that you can't set discriminitory policies based on your religious bigotry.


And when someone correctly points out your beliefs have NO basis in fact, you can't be offended by that FACTUAL assertion and scream "oppression".

[ELVIS]

There's one wrong answer...