how can this be

[whitsend]

When were they passed?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

I've also replied to each element of your posts. Picking and choosing just one bit of mine is kind of annoying

They were passed between 2000 and 2012, a consistent view for over a decade.
Polls can change from day to day depending on how the question is asked.

There really wasn't anything else to address from that post except that the Supreme Court has over the years in politically controversial issue been know to go with the popular opinion instead of the Constitution. When the popular opinion changed, they ruled differently. Less than 30 years ago they ruled the homosexual sex was illegal.

Now I'll keep the rest of my post on the original topic.

 

[Rainsdrops]

By definition, the judge is the biggest bigot. " person intolerant to another's opinion"
I started this post, because the actions of the judge were unconstitutional. After her arrest, the judge stated, she could be released, if she changed her stance. Basically, if she goes against her faith, she'll be free. He is wrong in so many ways. And to hear Americans, think the arrest is fair, because she broke the law, is hair raising. It's an unjust law
This country is founded on centuries of people who stood against unjust laws, and wanted religious freedoms.
It was law, for England to heavily tax the colonies. It was law, that Irish people could be forced into slavery. It was law that women not have voting rights. Etc, etc.
If we conform, to every single unconstitutional act, imposed on us by government officials, because it's law, we will no longer be democracy.
I now fear, that many who scream, 2nd amendment is a constitutional right, will bow their heads, and fall to their knees, if disarming the public becomes a law.
This lady, could have been fired, this lady, could have been removed from office, she could have been relocated. But to arrest a citizen, because, she non violently stood up, for her constitutional rights is wrong.

If a law was past, that required members of law enforcement, to speak Spanish, would it right to arrest the Americans who chose not to learn it? Even though it's the law?
It's against Louisiana la, for males to practice sodomy, on males. why arent married gay couples arrested? It's the law!!!

They need to stop using the law, to do wrong. Legal criminals

 

[Cochise]

Raindrops, I agree with you that what the judge did was dirty, but you said it yourself, this country was founded for freedom from religious persecution. Don't gay people deserve to be free from religious persecution, too?

 

[MTregre]

Raindrops, I agree with you that what the judge did was dirty, but you said it yourself, this country was founded for freedom from religious persecution. Don't gay people deserve to be free from religious persecution, too?

Homosexuality isn't a religion. Homosexuality also isn't being persecuted, not in this country anyway.

Also, all they have to do is ratify the certificate to remove her name... they have made this what it is by not being willing to accommodate a religious belief (whether its a life long belief or a couple months old). This isn't the first action against religion in this nation, its only the most recent.

As far as the SCOTUS is concerned... regardless of the issue at their feet, when one judge states "..how dare we rule on such an issue..." "... there is clearly no clause in the Constitution in regards to marriage..." and another states "... the Constitution absolutely addresses marriage..." there is a far larger issue. Even under the realm of interpretation, which has always been a falsity of reading the Constitution, two sides should never declare their findings to be so far apart.

 

[Harrisracing]

It's so much easier being an atheist, and having morals based on what I know to be right and wrong and not going by what some book written by man says. And by the way; F*** sharia.

I'm going to apply your logic.

Laws are books written by man - do you believe them? Do they match your internally decided "right and wrong"

If what YOU KNOW is the only thing that decides what is morally right and wrong, then by your logic everyone has their own "right and wrong" based on what THEY KNOW, therefore there is never an absolute right or wrong and therefore "right and wrong" completely go out the window. This is a big problem for me.

As applies to this case, this woman has HER opinion of what is right or wrong and the government has decided to change their definition of "right or wrong" then therefore by your own logic (even if she was an athiest BUT DIDN'T THINK SAME SEX MARRIAGE WAS "RIGHT") she is still justified. You are now applying the logic that the government controls what is "right or wrong" or that you go with a democratic vote (which again isn't actually reflected by the majority population's decision of "right and wrong" in this case).

So...even if she was an athiest like you, then she would still be justified in her stance.

I mean athiest don't believe in a Godverment do they?

Turn the tables and take christianity out of the context and replace yourself and you will still find a very strong argument for her taking a stance...that or you have no morals and the government decides them for you.

 

[US Infidel]

How is anyone being gay and getting married hurting anyone. If you choose to live your life in a way that does not hurt others or interfere with the way others live their lives, then so be it. Just try and be a generally good person and contributing member of society. Taking away a choice that people make, that hurts NO ONE, is a bad thing to suggest from a group of people who share an interest in one of the most controversial subjects ever; your gun ownership. And Harrisracing, in no way does being an atheist mean that I don't believe in a government. A government is needed in any society (not that the the way ours is being run right now is really working well, but that's a whole other topic).

 

[Rainsdrops]

The Christian bible states, a man shouldn't lie with a man, marriage is a union before god. A religious person should not be persecuted, if they believe, and adhere to that writing. You can be gay. That's your option, but you should force your union on Christians, whose doctrines state differently.

I disagree with black people, that try to force people to accept them. You cant make people accept you. One can live free of persecution, but you will never make everyone except everybody. And it's just wrong to utilize the law to do so, that's the purpose of our constitution.

I don't care if your gay, but don't use handcuffs, to force your lifestyle on me
If law says Chinese can eat dog, should all restaurants be force to serve dog. It just doesn't make sense

 

[Cochise]

There is only one definition of right or wrong in a free society. "As long as you're not hurting anyone else, you're not wrong." All the problems in society come from religious extremists like yourselves that try to make it more complicated than that.

 

[dk.easterly]

Hate to tell some of you guys this, but marriage is just another pagan tradition that the Christians adopted...

 

[Cochise]

Raindrops, you keep throwing the word "forced acceptance" around. Why? No one is forcing you to do anything. No one forced that woman to do anything. She chose her own path of hate and hostility. You will never be ordered to respect or sympathize with gay people. You will, however, have to be nice to them, and treat them with common courtesy, and you will not be able to repress them because of your opinions. Oh no, the horror.

Edit to add: I'm sure that bakery v/gay wedding case will be brought up. Ok, you got me, that was a horrible injustice and the judge from that case needs to be publicly flogged. This country needs a giant dose of live-and-let-live on all sides.

 

[rtr_rtr]

Where did he say something about extending the right to marry to those without the ability to consent to marriage? Why does saying "the right to marriage" imply that pedophiles can marry kids but saying "the right to keep and bear arms" doesn't imply that minors have the same privileges with regard to firearm ownership that adults do?

Their objective lack of ability to consent, as is precedent for most medical decision making and I'm sure many other things

They were passed between 2000 and 2012, a consistent view for over a decade.
Polls can change from day to day depending on how the question is asked.

There really wasn't anything else to address from that post except that the Supreme Court has over the years in politically controversial issue been know to go with the popular opinion instead of the Constitution. When the popular opinion changed, they ruled differently. Less than 30 years ago they ruled the homosexual sex was illegal.

Now I'll keep the rest of my post on the original topic.

There was also the content in the above quoted posts. As far as the poll, the questions are there for you to read, and the trend from year to year there to view as well, with the swing around 2009. The Supreme Court also ruled for separate but equal. Things change

 

[whitsend]

Hate to tell some of you guys this, but marriage is just another pagan tradition that the Christians adopted...

Wrong. It goes back to the begining.
It is a tradition from God that pagans adopted.

Genesis 2:24King James Version (KJV)

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[AustinBR]

Wrong. It goes back to the begining.
It is a tradition from God that pagans adopted.

Genesis 2:24King James Version (KJV)

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

That's not actually the case though. Many things in the Bible were only adopted by the Bible. Hell, much of the Bible was altered throughout history for political agendas. Does that detract from the message of the Bible? Probably not - as long as you still believe that those changes are what God intended (if you subscribe to those ideas). But in short, historical facts do prove that the marriage came along way before the Bible was even considered to be written. Furthermore, marriage has not always been between one man and one woman. I am stealing this quote from another website: "Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages."

Anyway, back to gay marriage: I don't get why people care if same-sex people get married. It certainly doesn't affect me in any way, at all. Everyone on this forum is all about everyone having equal rights in regards to gun ownership. Why care what other people do in their spare time? I mean honestly, if I had a gay neighbor who was married to another man (or woman), I would treat them like a person and be very neighborly to them. Ya know, invite them over for BBQs occasionally, help them with their yardwork, give them their dog when it runs away, etc. What they do just doesn't affect me. No one is trying to say that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry under a church or any religious body. The government is just allowing them to reap the same benefits of normal married couples. How is that not fair?

 

[dk.easterly]

Wrong. It goes back to the begining.
It is a tradition from God that pagans adopted.

Genesis 2:24King James Version (KJV)

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

No, it really wasn't.

A basic understanding of world history would teach you this.

 

[Cochise]

No, it really wasn't.

A basic understanding of world history would teach you this.

Thanks for trying to bring some intelligence into this, but you realize that guy honestly thinks homosexuality is equal to pedophilia, and that his young god actually created the universe. He probably believes that dinosaurs are a hoax and the world is "really" only ~6000 years old. What can you even say to someone like that? I have yet to find a way to get through.

 

[AustinBR]

Thanks for trying to bring some intelligence into this, but you realize that guy honestly thinks homosexuality is equal to pedophilia, and that his young god actually created the universe. He probably believes that dinosaurs are a hoax and the world is "really" only ~6000 years old. What can you even say to someone like that? I have yet to find a way to get through.

Play nice guys... There's a nice way of saying things and a not nice way.

--Sent From My Galaxy S6

 

[Harrisracing]

Thanks for trying to bring some intelligence into this, but you realize that guy honestly thinks homosexuality is equal to pedophilia, and that his young god actually created the universe. He probably believes that dinosaurs are a hoax and the world is "really" only ~6000 years old. What can you even say to someone like that? I have yet to find a way to get through.

It sounds like some of you are more for "freedom FROM religion" rather than "freedom OF religion".

Things like these statements above (Assumptions that Christians are somehow all uneducated hypocrites that do not help or love all of mankind) does actually paint a picture that you don't understand Jesus' role at all in the bible nor has shown what he did for all of humanity (yes ALL). But I (and we) digress.

This thread is about a human who took an oath (yes oath infers something sacred as opposed to an affirmation) to do an elected job because her religious oath (to the God of her practiced religion) was also satisfied in this position. Then the government decided to change the law and is now trying to force her to break her religious practice as opposed to finding any other way around this situation. This is totally against the first ammendment of the Constitution. The government should provide some other solution to issue this gay couple a marriage license if that's their new position...what's the issue there guys?

This is not the fault of the woman...it is the fault of the government.

 

[whitsend]

Putting aside the morality of homosexuality and the constitutionality of the courts ruling, we come back to the original issue, Kim Davis was put in jail for standing up for her Christian beliefs. That is by its very definition religious persecution.
She didn't single out homosexuals when not issuing marriage licenses, she didn't issue any marriage license. The couple could have gone to another county and got a license.
I've already said it once, if she is in violation of her oath of office there are procedures in place to deal with that. Follow those legal processes.
Many are in support of her stand and many more agree with her but keep quiet so as to not be called bigots by liberals and those pushing the homosexual agenda.
If anyone thinks this is just about equality in marriage and not an agenda to force everyone to accept a deviant lifestyle, they need to get their head out of the sand.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[whitsend]

It sounds like some of you are more for "freedom FROM religion" rather than "freedom OF religion".

Things like these statements above (Assumptions that Christians are somehow all uneducated hypocrites that do not help or love all of mankind) does actually paint a picture that you don't understand Jesus' role at all in the bible nor has shown what he did for all of humanity (yes ALL). But I (and we) digress.

This thread is about a human who took an oath (yes oath infers something sacred as opposed to an affirmation) to do an elected job because her religious oath (to the God of her practiced religion) was also satisfied in this position. Then the government decided to change the law and is now trying to force her to break her religious practice as opposed to finding any other way around this situation. This is totally against the first ammendment of the Constitution. The government should provide some other solution to issue this gay couple a marriage license if that's their new position...what's the issue there guys?

This is not the fault of the woman...it is the fault of the government.

Very well stated.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Cochise]

Freedom OF religion is freedom FROM the religious influences of other religions. In my book, Christians fighting against gay marriage on religious grounds is exactly equal to Muslims fighting for sharia law on religious grounds. I will tell them both equally to leave the rest of us alone.

As to my last post, I DO NOT mean to say all Christians believe those things, only expressing my belief that Mr. Whit is likely one of those that do genuinely believe such things.