Oklahoma ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[donner]

You can't make any progress in your argument until you realize that many of us here, myself included, don't have those same definitions.

Don't worry, I'm sure there are people drafting laws to fix this, as well.

 

[inactive]

If she does get preggo, my line is pretty much assured of dominating yours, and that's alright with me - pops.

Genuine question - if she got pregnant, how would that further change your opinion of her partner's race. I mean, I'd be disappointed if my daughter (I do have a daughter, for the record) has a child out of wedlock or at least outside of being "settled" (whatever that means), but the dude's race is near the last (if not THE last) think I would be worrying about. Particularly in the context of of my daughter's hypothetical poor choice of getting knocked up.

 

[Lurker66]

I think we have reached an impasse, as you're working off the assumptions that

1) marriage has sanctity to only Judeo-Christians and no other religions, or that it has sanctity as all, or that it at least had no sanctity prior to Christianity, and

2) that the definition of marriage was empty or meaningless before Christianity then defined it.

You can't make any progress in your argument until you realize that many of us here, myself included, don't have those same definitions.

We havent reached an impasse. Thats like a tie. When its all over gays will have the right to marry. The wheels of justice hasnt stopped, gays are winning this fight for equal rights. Slowly and surely the world is realizing this.

They cant make any progress in their argument because the argument isnt sound.

 

[ignerntbend]

One of my cousins married a black man. That black guy goes to work every morning and comes home every evening.
He earns a good living and is devoted to his family.

My own experience is anecdotal.

 

[Danny Tanner]

I'm hesitant to respond to this, because it is clear that the concept of the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of some men has been lost, totally corrupted by the "everyone has rights" wail of liberalism.

As I've stated multiple times in this thread, I have no problem with equal protection under the law, I do oppose the re-definition of marriage. I am not intolerant of people making choices despite what I think of those choices. No one is suggesting anything other than an admitted, historical, definition of marriage be retained. If this, accepting both biblical and historical precedent, is forcing ones beliefs on another, than I guess you can hold all of history guilty of the same.

I think some of you defending the "gay marriage" movement, are missing, perhaps intentionally, the rate and direction of this movement. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's not about equality, it never has been.

Some ask, has an particular event taken place? When the question should be, is it likely the event will take place in the future? If you can honestly say you don't think a social institution will ever be sued, forced to perform or recognize homosexual services you have not been watching the news. It can and will happen. Boys using girls bathrooms, yep. Gender by decree, yep. Courts "getting it wrong" at the cost of private livelihood, yep.

If people continue to allow, or embrace, this court ordered "acceptance", is society a more or less stable place for our children? Is it likely the courts are going to treat gun rights, clearly embraced in our defining documents in the same fashion? I think we can all agree on the answer to that question.

Are the people being supported by this decision likely to stand up for your rights in the future? I doubt it, though blindly being the "better man" has significant merits.

I don't think through-out mans existence the concepts of morality, fairness, love for your neighbor etc embraced by most religions have led to the decay of society. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd suggest it's something else while much less powerful, apparently much more appealing.

Perhaps the efforts of a tyrannical minority forcing their views on the majority, christian or not could have a bit of responsibility? Maybe?

If every gay couple in the world were to get married this afternoon, I would love my wife no less and the value of our marriage would remain unchanged. Marriage isn't a tangible commodity that follows a supply and demand structure. Like I've said before, if two complete strangers getting married to each other somehow tarnishes the sanctity of your traditional marriage, then perhaps your marriage wasn't worth a damn in the first place. If what any two people do with their private lives somehow affects your marriage, then the issue lies within your marriage, not with these individuals.

Marriage is a legal term, not a religious term. Marriage is the lawful recognition of two consenting individuals. Socially and casually, it refers to man and wife, but socially and casually many people refer to magazines as "clips". Just because it's used casually doesn't make it proper. In other words, the definition of marriage is not being reconstructed.

If it's not about equality, then what is it? Even before the Roman Empire, when religion took hold in marriage, there were pushes for same-sex marriage. This concept is nothing new and will not die out until it's obtained. Millions of blacks marched to end segregation. When it was finally abolished, the pro-integration marches began to fizzle out. Homosexuals want, and deserve, equal rights. Once obtained, what's left for them to fight for? To deny another human the same rights afforded to you is unAmerican.

I think denying baking cakes for a gay wedding is immature and ignorant. However, I believe a business has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Anything from "I won't bake your cake because I think your shirt is stupid" to "I won't bake your cake because I don't like blacks." I may not agree with the personal opinions of the baker, but he has a right to refuse service, in my opinion, though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would say otherwise.

What does a transgender's bathroom activities have to do with allowing same-sex marriage?

I think society is much better off for our children when we teach them that people born certain ways do not deserve denial to certain services and treatments that the majority of others utilize without second thought. I would much rather teach my daughter that it's okay if someone is black or gay than to teach her to hate that person because he's black or gay.

Morality, fairness, and love for your neighbor all existed long before religion. Then again, so did hate and intolerance. I'm not trying to imply that all religions are entirely harmful to society, but I do find it disgusting that too many people seem to feel entitled to forcing the rest of society to conform to their religious ideals, especially since we are not a theocracy. Many of our founding members may have been Christians, and many other deists of some sorts, and many of our laws may have been influenced by Christianity's teachings, but that doesn't mean that we are a Christian nation. We are supposed to be a free nation. Therefore, Christians do not deserve special treatment. They are not entitled to anything more than the next man. Per the founding document of this very country, ALL men are created equal. How many hundreds of years is it going to take for us to finally follow this statement?

 

[technetium-99m]

totally corrupted by the "everyone has rights" wail of liberalism.

If this is your core way of thinking then there can really be no discussion. You want your church's opinion to prevail with the power of law (which is in essence force up to and including imprisonment/death) over all citizens of the US. Everyone has rights, and you have the right to hate whoever you want for whatever reason you want. You do not have the right to try and control people based on what your particular flavor of religion thinks.

0311, if you really want the dog pile make sure everyone around you knows your feelings about other races. Don't be shy with that information.

 

[RidgeHunter]

It looks pretty cut and dry, based on what I have said. But there is much I have not said. I'm a white guy with a BA in Spanish who married a Mexican American. Being the only juero in the family, I was politely tolerated, and all but my sister in laws came to like me. Anybody who thinks that whites have a monopoly on the racial superiority thing really need to look at the concept of La Raza. My wife is going to try to talk sense to our daughter, because if her side of the family finds out, they will freak. There are a lot of whites who don't know how Hispanics feel. To call someone a "Gringo" is worse than using the N word, and my wife told me long ago to never, never call someone "Gringo." I feel a lot of whites erroneously think they don't like blacks, when in fact they don't like the way many blacks behave. This is a good guy and I told my daughter that he looks OK to me - so far, but I hid from her my deep seated reservations. I also told her to never hurt his feelings. My wife is intractable on this because of her notions of La Raza. Her sisters still have a hard time accepting me because I am juero. Their antipathy does not extend to our son and daughter, just to me.

This is too good to be true. A white guy with a BA in Spanish who casually uses the phrase "Mud Shark" in every day conversation about HIS OWN DAUGHTER yet is sensitive about the word "gringo" married into a La Raza following Mexican family of which he is somehow the only guero that is for some reason tolerated sharing his wifes views that one guero per family and zero mayates is the acceptable limit.

Yeah, I've been around Mexicans most of my life and I have a cursory understanding of their common views on race relations. Most of their racism is just like that of whites or blacks or any race...based from anecdotal experience and ignorance. Most are a bit more pragmatic when it comes closer to home. Just like most whites.

Anyways, have fun! I hope you know your daughter probably wouldn't even be dating the man you find abhorrent if you and your(wife's?) family kept your racism a bit more of an undertone of your personalities instead of a defining trait. Lawl!

 

[inactive]

We havent reached an impasse. Thats like a tie. When its all over gays will have the right to marry. The wheels of justice hasnt stopped, gays are winning this fight for equal rights. Slowly and surely the world is realizing this.

They cant make any progress in their argument because the argument isnt sound.

Well, I was trying to be a bit diplomatic about it...

 

[0311]

Genuine question - if she got pregnant, how would that further change your opinion of her partner's race. I mean, I'd be disappointed if my daughter (I do have a daughter, for the record) has a child out of wedlock or at least outside of being "settled" (whatever that means), but the dude's race is near the last (if not THE last) think I would be worrying about. Particularly in the context of of my daughter's hypothetical poor choice of getting knocked up.

She wanted to take leave and bring him home to introduce to us during my son's high school graduation coming up. I said that's inappropriate. I told her she can bring a female friend. I went on to say that if they came down here married, that's different; I would welcome him as a son. I'm sure I will take fire for this. I am not open minded, I am realistic. The only reason this subject is on a Gay thread is a tenuous one; I mentioned I'd rather her be Lez than do this. In order to at least accept the way this may lead, I think the future is brighter for those of mixed race than those of European descent. If another OSA member complains that this subject is out of context here, that is fine; I'll desist.

 

[donner]

As I've stated multiple times in this thread, I have no problem with equal protection under the law, I do oppose the re-definition of marriage. I am not intolerant of people making choices despite what I think of those choices. No one is suggesting anything other than an admitted, historical, definition of marriage be retained. If this, accepting both biblical and historical precedent, is forcing ones beliefs on another, than I guess you can hold all of history guilty of the same.

One problem here is that the 'historical definition of marriage' doesn't have a single meaning. Plus, 'marriage' is now used to define far more than just what any religion recognizes it to mean. From tax filing status to the ability to visit someone in the hospital, the definition of marriage is in far broader use today than ever before.

What is the biblical or historical use of 'marriage' to determine end of life decisions?

If this was strictly an issue about how the church defines 'marriage' then it wouldn't nearly as big a deal as the legal implications for people who live together, purchase property and raise children together. But DOMA and other legal hurdles to same-sex marriages created these legal problems and now the courts are correcting those issues.