Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

I think this was the plan, but if I recall there was a ruling against same-sex marriage in one of the circuit courts. And don't circuit splits usually force the SCOTUS to make a decision?

Just as a point of edification, thats often why SCOTUS will hear a case, but they are not required to. They leave conflicting cases let stand all the time.

Except for issues that are of high importance.

It's the right call for SCOTUS to weigh into this. It really does follow the same historical trend as some of the civil rights era cases.

It would be extremely unlikely that an entire religion would be shut down. Individual churches/temples/etc maybe. Although I can think of a number of secular organisations which may well fall foul of such a policy.

Wo. Really? That’s dictatorship, and lots of people die when you do that.

What about them? If they are breaking a law (proposed or actual), they are breaking a law (proposed or actual). The punishment for breaking said law is laid out and should be supplied where a court of law deems that a breech occurred, tempered by the severity of the breech.

You know, same as any other crime

So you would criminalize that which you disagree with. How are you any different than they are?

Thats just scary.

Baxx wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

I can respect that viewpoint, religion is like a club, if you don't want to follow the club's rules, don't join the club.
When the club starts getting its rules involved in your life when you don't want them...then that's where the problems start, to me.

And if you won't join the club, you'll get smacked in the head by it.

And I'd rather die in a pool of my own fear-vomit then join that club! lol

Though I will never agree to forcing a church to marry same sex couples, I mean it's about the marriage licence, not some ceremony.
Regardless if I married a man or a woman, I'm not religious so it only matters about the legality.

 Frazzled wrote:

It would be extremely unlikely that an entire religion would be shut down. Individual churches/temples/etc maybe. Although I can think of a number of secular organisations which may well fall foul of such a policy.

Wo. Really? That’s dictatorship, and lots of people die when you do that.

What about them? If they are breaking a law (proposed or actual), they are breaking a law (proposed or actual). The punishment for breaking said law is laid out and should be supplied where a court of law deems that a breech occurred, tempered by the severity of the breech.

You know, same as any other crime

So you would criminalize that which you disagree with. How are you any different than they are?

Thats just scary.

Let me help out silver. No churches would get shut down, with the current laws if no one can shut down the WBC or the KKK, I think all churches will be fine with marriage equality. No one will be criminalized if marriage equality becomes the law of the land.

IMO Charities, shouldn't discriminate. If they're helping the homeless, then they should help all the homeless not just the straight ones. To do so would be discrimination, but there are legal discriminatory charities, like womens shelters, where do men who are battered go? But charities should not threaten to stop doing charity to influence policies like the salvation army tried in NYC. But they're both still operating, no one is shutting them down, not even public opinion.

No church will be forced to perform marriages they don't agree with, but if they did, then the phelps will spend the rest of their lives marrying same sex couples They'd hate it, but think of all the money it would make them.

Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

No, it's just fear mongering with no basis in reality.

sirlynchmob wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

No, it's just fear mongering with no basis in reality.

Well there is that and there are groups that will pull stunts like this for the attention.

 Desubot wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

No, it's just fear mongering with no basis in reality.

Well there is that and there are groups that will pull stunts like this for the attention.

Yeah and anyone with any rationality looks at them like they're nuts

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

Not really certain anyone with more than four teeth has argued that.

Go look at the oncoming storm ad from prop 8 in california

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Go look at the oncoming storm ad from prop 8 in california

The wha???

Nvm, gathering storm

I'd say I need a link but I can't open youtube here, so a few lines more info?

Found a wiki on it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gathering_Storm_(advertisement)
Can't post the video right now

 Frazzled wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

Not really certain anyone with more than four teeth has argued that.

They're the kind of people who think there's a "gay agenda" (that always makes me laugh)

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

The US Const does protect freedom of religion and all the entails in the first amendment. Due to the first amendment, It is perfectly acceptable that a church refuse to marry a couple of the same sex, No one is actually disputing this. Right wing haters use this argument because it's clear they are out of options.

I think congress should make a new amendment to the constitution. Where ever religion appears in the constitution - replace it with "personal beliefs." This way religious idiots will get the idea. The constitution protects everyone - not just believers.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

Not really certain anyone with more than four teeth has argued that.

They're the kind of people who think there's a "gay agenda" (that always makes me laugh)

There is a gay agenda. I thought that was clear. Equal rights.

Am I missing something?

Well, i my experience people mean the agenda is like turning all kids gay and stasting a giant gay orgy

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anybody would want to get married. Worst mistake I ever made! I ended up losing my X-files box sets

My advice to anybody thinking about marriage, be they gay, be they straight, be they whatever, is too walk away while you still have the chance...and your DVDs

This man knows what is up! Marriage seems pretty worthless anyways... You have a corporation and you enjoy being CEO but wait!! You got married!! *gasp* You now own half your corporation! Oh wait marriage didn't work out like you thought (CAUSE IT NEVER DOES)... you just lost half your corporation...

I say let gays get married so they can be miserable like the rest of us.

 zombiekila707 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anybody would want to get married. Worst mistake I ever made! I ended up losing my X-files box sets

My advice to anybody thinking about marriage, be they gay, be they straight, be they whatever, is too walk away while you still have the chance...and your DVDs

This man knows what is up! Marriage seems pretty worthless anyways... You have a corporation and you enjoy being CEO but wait!! You got married!! *gasp* You now own half your corporation! Oh wait marriage didn't work out like you thought (CAUSE IT NEVER DOES)... you just lost half your corporation...

I say let gays get married so they can be miserable like the rest of us.

Remember boys & girls, Nothing says "I love you" like a prenuptial agreement.

If you don't want to lose 1/2 your hobby stuff, or be forced to sell it by some angry soon to be X. Set some ground rules for the marriage and property.

There is always this old joke:

"Why does it cost so much to get a divorce? Because it's worth it!"

 d-usa wrote:
There is always this old joke:

"Why does it cost so much to get a divorce? Because it's worth it!"

As a divorcee... you have no idea how true that is.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 zombiekila707 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anybody would want to get married. Worst mistake I ever made! I ended up losing my X-files box sets

My advice to anybody thinking about marriage, be they gay, be they straight, be they whatever, is too walk away while you still have the chance...and your DVDs

This man knows what is up! Marriage seems pretty worthless anyways... You have a corporation and you enjoy being CEO but wait!! You got married!! *gasp* You now own half your corporation! Oh wait marriage didn't work out like you thought (CAUSE IT NEVER DOES)... you just lost half your corporation...

I say let gays get married so they can be miserable like the rest of us.

Remember boys & girls, Nothing says "I love you" like a prenuptial agreement.

If you don't want to lose 1/2 your hobby stuff, or be forced to sell it by some angry soon to be X. Set some ground rules for the marriage and property.

 Frazzled wrote:

Wo. Really? That’s dictatorship, and lots of people die when you do that.

I think the phrase you actually wanted to trot out there to miss the point I was making and attempt to shut down discussion is "totalitarian state".

Come on Fraz, if you are going to try to misinterpret someones argument and argue against some imagined construct at least use the right terminology

So you would criminalize that which you disagree with.

No, I would not.

How are you any different than they are?

Better dress sense?

Thats just scary.

Yes, it is pretty scary how wide of the mark your reply indicates your understanding of what I actually said was.

Oh, wait, is that not what you meant?

Better dress sense?

I'd had assumed that as a given.

How if making somehting illegal different than them?

 Medium of Death wrote:
Homosexual man, who struggled to rationalise his faith with his sexuality, cherry picks examples from history to promote agenda?

I think the overwhelming amount of times that Gay Marriage hasn't been practiced would show that even if his claims are valid that it'd be the exception rather than the rule.

All this is irrelevant. Society will determine the rules of society. Current western society in the majority accepts the proposition that homosexuals should be allowed to "marry" each other.

The debate about the provenance of the word marriage in the middle ages is a load of bs.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Are you reading your own sources? Because it sure doesn't look like you do to me.

Cuts out one of the quotes to "prove" a point.

As opposed to ignoring the parts that doesn't suit you?

 d-usa wrote:


So basically I think we would end up with three different options for being the officiant at a wedding:

A) Purely secular Agent of the State: Officiate over legal secular marriages for anyone.
B) Religious Clergy and Agent of the State: Able to officiate over select secular and spiritual marriages at a church, but required to officiate over secular marriages outside of church for anyone.
C) Purely religious Clergy: Able to officiate over spiritual marriages at a church only.

Like I said. I'm not saying that this is the right approach or that it makes sense. That's just where I am at in my head as my stance continues to evole.

What's this? A religious person coming up with a reasonable compromise? Only to be completely ignored for the rest of the thread?

I'm nominally anti-religious, but this is a concept I can get behind. Big thumbs up for this one!

Also, FYI, AFAIK, in the Netherlands, and Germany as well to my knowledge, option B doesn't exist; state and church marriages are completely separate here.

My biggest problem with the LGBT movement is that when people throw the Q in there, it gets all befuddled in my mind and I see BBQ in the middle of it, and I just get hungry instead.

 daedalus wrote:
My biggest problem with the LGBT movement is that when people throw the Q in there, it gets all befuddled in my mind and I see BBQ in the middle of it, and I just get hungry instead.

Wait what is the Q?

Also i keep seeing LRBT