Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

marriage

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 10:16:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Dont bring in the liberal BS about gays etc. I think marriage isnt to be decided by the state, but by the church. There would obviously be a state recognition of the marriage, but the laws should be chosen by each church, example:

Catholic: no gay marriage
Mormon: no gay marriage
Baptist: no gay marriage
methodist: pro-gay marriage
etc.

So I think this way the politicians and the talking heads can stop arguing, and the faith leaders, experts in holy matrimony, will decide. It will end the arguments.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 10:29:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wouldnt that be an outright breach of the separation of church and state though?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 10:33:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 10:29:57 PM, imabench wrote:
Wouldnt that be an outright breach of the separation of church and state though?

This.

As long as there are state and federal recognitions, and non-church affiliated people can ordain a marriage, and non-religious people can be married, it is not a church issue at all, except for maybe disallowing members (mormons can exclude gay couples, and catholics can exclude divorced people, but both groups retain the same rights by the state and the fed government)

I agree that the government has no place when it comes to what religious places allow and disallow but the flip side is the church should have no say in political issues.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 10:36:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 10:29:57 PM, imabench wrote:
Wouldnt that be an outright breach of the separation of church and state though?

Not at all, the curch just says ok your married and the state says ok we recognise you, it isnt a law but a formal society recognition, and you need to study the 1st ammendment. That law means that you can not make a law forcing you to be of any religeon, ex. you have to be catholic. So that is what is means, and that is why gay marriage remains illegal for that reason, so it is technically a valid response to liberals.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 10:40:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 10:33:25 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/21/2011 10:29:57 PM, imabench wrote:
Wouldnt that be an outright breach of the separation of church and state though?

This.

As long as there are state and federal recognitions, and non-church affiliated people can ordain a marriage, and non-religious people can be married, it is not a church issue at all, except for maybe disallowing members (mormons can exclude gay couples, and catholics can exclude divorced people, but both groups retain the same rights by the state and the fed government)

I agree that the government has no place when it comes to what religious places allow and disallow but the flip side is the church should have no say in political issues.

No there would be basic restrictions to the church stateing that you must marry people no matter the religeon/faith, because the bible doesnt say anything about athiests, but it does say stuff about gays. So they can interpret that as they please, and if gay marriage was legilased then I garantee many churches would petition and basically make a lot of rukus
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 10:46:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 10:36:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/21/2011 10:29:57 PM, imabench wrote:
Wouldnt that be an outright breach of the separation of church and state though?

Not at all, the curch just says ok your married and the state says ok we recognise you, it isnt a law but a formal society recognition, and you need to study the 1st ammendment. That law means that you can not make a law forcing you to be of any religeon, ex. you have to be catholic. So that is what is means, and that is why gay marriage remains illegal for that reason, so it is technically a valid response to liberals.
Odd how your major concern is having a response to liberals instead of doing things to improve the country and people's lives… well given your political positions it's not odd at all.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 10:46:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 10:40:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/21/2011 10:33:25 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/21/2011 10:29:57 PM, imabench wrote:
Wouldnt that be an outright breach of the separation of church and state though?

This.

As long as there are state and federal recognitions, and non-church affiliated people can ordain a marriage, and non-religious people can be married, it is not a church issue at all, except for maybe disallowing members (mormons can exclude gay couples, and catholics can exclude divorced people, but both groups retain the same rights by the state and the fed government)

I agree that the government has no place when it comes to what religious places allow and disallow but the flip side is the church should have no say in political issues.

No there would be basic restrictions to the church stateing that you must marry people no matter the religeon/faith, because the bible doesnt say anything about athiests, but it does say stuff about gays. So they can interpret that as they please, and if gay marriage was legilased then I garantee many churches would petition and basically make a lot of rukus

They can petition, but they wouldn't (well shouldn't) get anywhere, because their religion has no place in the laws.
People may think or believe that if you marry into a different race, or to the same sex the marriage isn't actually valid to their god, or that if you marry someone of a different faith, or if atheists are married etc.

I say do away with the entire marriage system and go for private temporary renewable contracts with no government involvement other than to enforce the rules all parties agreed to before their 'marriage' or 'civil union' or whatever that would be considered. No federal or state recognition, no special rights, etc.
And then 'marriage' can be decided by private (religious) groups to validate a relationship according to what their religion allows and accepts.
Make the two completely separate, and avoid huge long civil rights complaints.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 11:48:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 10:46:09 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/21/2011 10:36:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/21/2011 10:29:57 PM, imabench wrote:
Wouldnt that be an outright breach of the separation of church and state though?

Not at all, the curch just says ok your married and the state says ok we recognise you, it isnt a law but a formal society recognition, and you need to study the 1st ammendment. That law means that you can not make a law forcing you to be of any religeon, ex. you have to be catholic. So that is what is means, and that is why gay marriage remains illegal for that reason, so it is technically a valid response to liberals.
Odd how your major concern is having a response to liberals instead of doing things to improve the country and people's lives… well given your political positions it's not odd at all.

s the churches would petition, so would their members, so the politicians want votes so they would appeal to the religeous leaders, sorry to say thats how politics work. And my proposal limits goverment control on the marriage buissness killing of the political debate, so my plan would basically fix the problem, gays may be able to marry in certian churches, I would just frown apon them and walk on. And that is a bill that would appeal to moderates.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 11:51:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Current marriage practices have already long-since lost their religious foundation.

According to the Christian Bible, men who have sex with their second wives are committing adultery on their first wife. However, the divorce rate in this country is in excess of 70% at times.

To base our moral foundation on a religious pretext may be acceptable my majority rule. To place amoral societal restrictions based on a text that existed thousands of years before said society is just stupid.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 12:07:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The point of having the government involved is to grant privileges in law relative to marriage, such as granting permanent residence status to a spouse who isn't a citizen, rights to social security benefits, and so forth. So if the Church of the Chevrolet grants marriage to your car, or whatever, the state has to determine the validity of rights. Perhaps there is a way to handle that, but it isn't obvious. Of course, any church can now pronounce "marriage," but the only the state marriage conveys rights.

Marriage has the aspect of being a type of standard contract. There are a number of types of civil union that provide "standard contract" benefits under law. In California one type is between a young person and a dependent older person. I suppose that would convey medical decision making rights.