The Boy Scout and Chik-Fil-A thread

[Ms Tree]

So pedophiles, rapists, bestiality lovers are also equal under your interpretation.
BTW, did you update your NAMBLA membership?
The BSA might want to know...

Geez, are you serious? Do you not understand the concept of legal consent? Congratulations, this one also makes it to the top 10 stupid things said on here.


Minors do not have the legal right to consent. Rape victims do not give consent. Animals do not have the ability to give legal consent. All the above acts are criminal acts and have nothing to do with a consensual relationship between two people.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Again, implement civil unions, and offer marriage the same protections as civil unions, and all the "denial of rights" BS goes away.

But that's not what the activists want. They'd rather re-write the meaning of marriage as it has existed for thousands (yes, thousands) of years.

Well said!

So called "Gay Rights" activists refuse to accept that their are two components of a Marriage.

1. One is a basic tort law contract that can be broken in civil court. Any state government can structure their tort laws based upon the will of the people in that state in order to permit any contractural arrangement desired. This would be referred to as a "Civil Union". This addresses the Individual Liberty aspects quite nicely as in theory a threesome could be codified under a civil union.

The second and more troublesome aspect is the religous aspect of Marriage. Since recorded history began I've not found a faith that defines marriage other then heterosexual. Marriage is under Christianity or Islam a spiritual covenent between a man, women and God.
If you don't believe in God then in theory the best you could get was a civil union as marriage has a unique & specific articles of faith that are based upon worship of a God Head.

So the way it should work is everyone has the ability to enter a civil union. Those who are of faith can go to their Pastor, Iman, Rabbi or whatever they call your faiths spiritual leader and be granted a Marriage license,

 

[muff daddy]

Where did I say differently?

I already said how it affects them. They can't get married.


Yes it does. They are not married. They do not enjoy the same rights and benefits as married couples.


Here, read away. All the benefits of marriage verses shacking up

So Chik's 1st amendment choice to support traditional marriage isn't to be tolerated or respected as a Constitutional right because it infringes upon another viewpoint and they must be punished and driven out of business for this view.....Cool, the Amerikan way.

 

[muff daddy]

Well said!

So called "Gay Rights" activists refuse to accept that their are two components of a Marriage.

1. One is a basic tort law contract that can be broken in civil court. Any state government can structure their tort laws based upon the will of the people in that state in order to permit any contractural arrangement desired. This would be referred to as a "Civil Union". This addresses the Individual Liberty aspects quite nicely as in theory a threesome could be codified under a civil union.

The second and more troublesome aspect is the religous aspect of Marriage. Since recorded history began I've not found a faith that defines marriage other then heterosexual. Marriage is under Christianity or Islam a spiritual covenent between a man, women and God.
If you don't believe in God then in theory the best you could get was a civil union as marriage has a unique & specific articles of faith that are based upon worship of a God Head.

So the way it should work is everyone has the ability to enter a civil union. Those who are of faith can go to their Pastor, Iman, Rabbi or whatever they call your faiths spiritual leader and be granted a Marriage license,

I seriously doubt you'll find an Imam who would do a same sex marriage.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I seriously doubt you'll find an Imam who would do a same sex marriage.

Which was in essense the point I was trying to make. If you can get a "Man of the Cloth" to bless your marriage to a person of the same sex I'm cool with it. But the fact is that at least officially no religious organazation has ever in recorded history approved of same sex marriage.

 

[Ms Tree]

So Chik's 1st amendment choice to support traditional marriage isn't to be tolerated or respected as a Constitutional right because it infringes upon another viewpoint and they must be punished and driven out of business for this view.....Cool, the Amerikan way.

LOL. I dare you to show me where I said that.

 

[Ms Tree]

I seriously doubt you'll find an Imam who would do a same sex marriage.

Wow, did you figure that out on your own? I bet you will find an Imam to marry what the US would define as an underage teen to what the US would define as a dirty old man because of an arraigned marriage or to settle a debt.


I guess we could go back to the early days of the bible when women were property and married off to build alliances. Ahh, the good old days........

 

[Ms Tree]

Which was in essense the point I was trying to make. If you can get a "Man of the Cloth" to bless your marriage to a person of the same sex I'm cool with it. But the fact is that at least officially no religious organazation has ever in recorded history approved of same sex marriage.

I'll settle for a SCOTUS ruling that says no one can be discriminated in the US. The various religions can continue to do as they choose since they do not enact US law.

 

[muff daddy]

LOL. I dare you to show me where I said that.

The tone of all your responces supports that.

 

[Ms Tree]

Well said!

So called "Gay Rights" activists refuse to accept that their are two components of a Marriage.

1. One is a basic tort law contract that can be broken in civil court. Any state government can structure their tort laws based upon the will of the people in that state in order to permit any contractural arrangement desired. This would be referred to as a "Civil Union". This addresses the Individual Liberty aspects quite nicely as in theory a threesome could be codified under a civil union.

The second and more troublesome aspect is the religous aspect of Marriage. Since recorded history began I've not found a faith that defines marriage other then heterosexual. Marriage is under Christianity or Islam a spiritual covenent between a man, women and God.
If you don't believe in God then in theory the best you could get was a civil union as marriage has a unique & specific articles of faith that are based upon worship of a God Head.

So the way it should work is everyone has the ability to enter a civil union. Those who are of faith can go to their Pastor, Iman, Rabbi or whatever they call your faiths spiritual leader and be granted a Marriage license,

The reason that gays and others do not accept your premise is due to the fact that the only requirement of a marriage in the US is the tort law. In order for a marriage to have any legal validity you must have a license issued by the state. You must be married by someone authorized by the state and you must submit your signed contract to the state. No where in the requirements of marriage is religious organization required. Any couple can get married without ever setting foot in a religious institution or speaking with a religious representative.


Since religion is not a requirement and since there is no civil union equivalent of a marriage there is not reason for the same sex community to recognize the second aspect of your argument since it does not apply to them or anyone else for that matter who does not believe in the authority of organized religion. My wife and I were married by a JP. No religion was involved in our ceremony and I have a marriage license in my safe that is a legally binding document.


I with your last paragraph that this is how it should work but I believe I should have been born rich and handsome. How it should be and how it is rarely coincide so we have to deal with what exists in reality. Marriage in the secular US is a contract between two people. There is no state interest in denying access to contracts. It is a violation of the 14[sup]th[/sup] and when it gets to the SCOTUS I believe it will be decided that way. The religious organizations better get used to the idea.


I'm really not sure why they are so up in arms about it anyway. It's not like the law will affect them anyway.

 

[Ms Tree]

The tone of all your responces supports that.

As I suspected. You are all show and no go. You make accusations without a shred of evidence.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I'll settle for a SCOTUS ruling that says no one can be discriminated in the US. The various religions can continue to do as they choose since they do not enact US law.

Under a basic civil union contract NO ONE is being discriminated against. Technically I don't think avowed athiests such as yourself would only be able to have a marriage contract unless a church of some sort approved. Civil tort laws? No problem, enter into a civil union? No problem. Marriage is a religous covenant that IMO is NOT the business of Government.

 

[muff daddy]

As I suspected. You are all show and no go. You make accusations without a shred of evidence.

I don't know how you turn a statement into an accusation from post 63.

In one response you say you'll do everything you can to hurt them which in itself is an acknowledgement that you do not agree with them exercising their 1st amendment right, how about that Bub?

You continually espouse the fact that they contribute to this or that cause and its not right which is another admission of not agreeing with them exercising their 1st amendment right.

Sorry Bub, your implied words.

 

[Ms Tree]

Under a basic civil union contract NO ONE is being discriminated against. Technically I don't think avowed athiests such as yourself would only be able to have a marriage contract unless a church of some sort approved. Civil tort laws? No problem, enter into a civil union? No problem. Marriage is a religous covenant that IMO is NOT the business of Government.

Since a civil union is not a marriage either in name or more importantly in legal equality there is no interest in civil unions. If civil unions were given all the same legal benefits as marriage there might be an argument but since 'separate but equal' was struck down that still might not suffice.

Not sure what you are saying but I can assure you that no religious institution was involved in my marriage at any point and time. It was a civil ceremony, no god was ever mentioned, nothing was blessed. We wrote our own vows, JP pronounced us married. JP sent the licentiate into the state and we got it in the US mail from the state after it was recorded.

It used to be a religious covenant and to a degree it still is but it is no longer the sole domain of a religious institution and as such, US law applies. People who are denied access to a marriage (or at the very least an equivalent) are being denied equal access under the law.

 

[Ms Tree]

I don't know how you turn a statement into an accusation from post 63.

In one response you say you'll do everything you can to hurt them which in itself is an acknowledgement that you do not agree with them exercising their 1st amendment right, how about that Bub?

You continually espouse the fact that they contribute to this or that cause and its not right which is another admission of not agreeing with them exercising their 1st amendment right.

Sorry Bub, your implied words.

Sure you do, you wrote it so you know dam well what you you were saying and you do not have a single shred of evidence to back up your accusation because I never said anything of the kind.


No it is not any acknowledgment of the kind. If that is how you interpret it then you have a fundamental in your understanding of US law and the American language.


Again, you seem to have no understanding of US law much less the American language because you are not understanding what I am writing.


Ah, so that is the problem. You are overlaying your bias onto my written words and trying to read what you want implied rather than reading what I wrote. I have no idea how you are arriving at what you think I implied but I can assure you that I implied no such thing.