Separation of religious and civil marriage

[frobert]

And such reasoning leads unswervingly here:
marriage-equality.blogspot.com.au/p/case-studies.html

If that where it leads you have convinced me that it leads to nowhere. What is so difficult to understand that that the blog you are referred to is someone’s opinion who does not seem to have any credibility.

From About Full Marriage Equality:

I argue for marriage equality. By that I mean that society and all local, state, federal, and international laws, institutions, and programs should recognize any marriage registered by any persons without restrictions on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

The global definition of marriage should be as follows: “The uniting of consenting individuals in a witnessed ceremony.”

We believe everyone has the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adult(s) of their choice, regardless of birth or sexual orientation.

An unnamed person is arguing for his opinion. What is wrong with that? Nothing. Does that make him right? Should I take him seriously? Did you take him seriously? Did he convince you that you should be involved? I have no objection that you want to waste your time with tripe like that blog. Perhaps you should be like a former contributor to this topic who removed herself by erroneously claimed victory by saying “there is nothing more to be said” When you are in a hole stop digging.

 

[frobert]

But saying it’s “just about civil rights” is rather hollow. The same quip could be used for any number of relationships – which is the point many here are making.

Yes the clip could be used by any number of relationships. And I have said numerous times on here that those “any number of relationship” advocates need to make a convincing case.

You may not be aware but in Windsor The Supreme Court have made sexual orientation a full-fledged protected class under the 5th Amendment. That is indeed truly historic and what “any number of relationships” that you speak of are not.

 

[DrTaffy]

The bone of contention is with calling it “marriage” …

Hence the point that you do not ‘own’ the word ‘marriage’ and so do not get to dictate how the State (who coined it) gets to use it. Your ‘bone of contention’ is you trying to force your subjective beliefs on others who do not share them.

 

[stewstew03]

Indeed it is not. And I’m glad you used the qualifier ‘so-called’. Because neither is the ‘so-called traditional’ position of a woman in a marriage the same as it was…

I used that qualifier because it’s unnecessary. Marriage is marriage - there is no “traditional” form.

 

[stewstew03]

Hence the point that you do not ‘own’ the word ‘marriage’ and so do not get to dictate how the State (who coined it) gets to use it. Your ‘bone of contention’ is you trying to force your subjective beliefs on others who do not share them.

In Texas (and here on CAF) the definition of marriage is consistent with the conjugal view. So, Taffy, please don’t try to force your subjective beliefs on those who do not share them.

 

[kozlosap]

In Texas (and here on CAF) the definition of marriage is consistent with the conjugal view. So, Taffy, please don’t try to force your subjective beliefs on those who do not share them.

It is quite likely that within the next few years all fifty states will recognize civil marriage for LGBTQ couples, EVEN TEXAS! Stewstew03, when that happens, you will have the opportunity to go to court and proclaim that it is your belief that there is no such thing as marriage between humans of the same sex and even a first year law student will tell you that you have no standing before the court and that civil marriage is the law of the State of Texas. If states refuse to comply with the Civil marriage laws then I’m sure that the SCOTUS will be involved.

Civil marriage laws are not subjective and have nothing to do with belief. Opinions are subjective.******

 

[DrTaffy]

In Texas (and here on CAF) the definition of marriage is consistent with the conjugal view. So, Taffy, please don’t try to force your subjective beliefs on those who do not share them.

Others using the word differently to you is not forcing anything on you.

You should be careful how belligerent you are this stage in the debate, as all the signs are that you are losing, and losing badly, and future generations may well look at how you treated gays when deciding how charitably to treat you when you are the despised minority.

 

[kozlosap]

Others using the word differently to you is not forcing anything on you.

You should be careful how belligerent you are this stage in the debate, as all the signs are that you are losing, and losing badly, and future generations may well look at how you treated gays when deciding how charitably to treat you when you are the despised minority.

:thumbsup:well said and charitable!

 

[stewstew03]

Others using the word differently to you is not forcing anything on you.

You should be careful how belligerent you are this stage in the debate, as all the signs are that you are losing, and losing badly, and future generations may well look at how you treated gays when deciding how charitably to treat you when you are the despised minority.

Huh? Please point out my belligerence…

 

[stewstew03]

:thumbsup:well said and charitable!

I see that you’ve indicated you are Catholic and agree with Taffy’s comment. I’m curious, are you prepared to be “despised for your [Catholic] beliefs” (as Taffy indicated)?

 

[Rau]

If that where it leads you have convinced me that it leads to nowhere.

Or perhaps to anything? When “you” (the proponents of gay marriage) disputed the natural boundaries of marriage, when you made the case that fairness had a role to play, rather than simply reality, when you made it about equal access to legal rights, when you introduced the “equality” slogan, then you made the case that marriage can be anything. The author of that blog does no more than take up your baton.