Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[kentonio]

If I may... I don't see anything wrong with religion entering into the public debate and religion motivations for certain things to be the primary cause for their advancement. If that makes one a proponent of religious theocracy, then sign me up for it.

Or to be slightly more serious, religion in the public debate = fine, religion being the primary cause for anything to do with how a state is run = absolutely terrible.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you're saying gay marriage should be illegal because gays don't have sex after marriage?

I'm saying that marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is impossible.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not unless 'sacramental' has no value whatsoever.

It has no value in American jurisprudence.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm saying that marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is impossible.

It's been done, so don't hold your breath. Or rather, do.

[Ben Kenobi]

Reynolds did not and does not regulate marriage.

Reynolds took their big **** out and smacked polygamy around.

Have you even read the Reynolds opinion?

Yes, yes, I have.

Do you even know how judicial decisions work? The gist of it is are you a liar or a tool?

I'll take "tool" for 200, Alex.

This part especially caught my attention.

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances

[Ben Kenobi]

It has no value in American jurisprudence.

Mr. Fun isn't Christian then as jurisprudence takes precedence for him?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's been done, so don't hold your breath. Or rather, do.

Just because one wears the uniform doesn't make one a Marine. If marriage is defined by the union - then by definition - gay marriage is patently impossible. If marriage is defined apart from the union, then it has consequences for every marriage.

[MichaeltheGreat]

civil marriage != ecclesiastical marriage. Go to Saudi.

Case in point. Two Catholics marry, then divorce. Neither seek annulment and both remarry outside the church. So who is married to who?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Mr. Fun isn't Christian then as jurisprudence takes precedence for him?

ARE YOU REALLY THAT ****ING OBTUSE, OR JUST DISHONEST, OR JUST PLAYING GAMES?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Where does the constitution guarantee freedom FROM religion?

The Establishment Clause.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Or to be slightly more serious, religion in the public debate = fine, religion being the primary cause for anything to do with how a state is run = absolutely terrible.

::shrug:: My faith is the primary reason for my advocating for a more comprehensive health care system, a greater welfare system for the poor, and strong protections for people against overreaching businesses. I would have thought you'd have liked those policies .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Dog eats its own ****. No sale MTG

Not unless it's starving or off the rails mentally. You can find humans who do that too. And you still can't lie to Dog without Dog knowing.

[Ben Kenobi]

ARE YOU REALLY THAT ****ING OBTUSE, OR JUST DISHONEST, OR JUST PLAYING GAMES?

Fun claims to be a Christian, while you do not. Fun claims to believe in sacramental marriage, while you do not. Ergo - his conceding that there is no extra value in sacramental marriages means something for him, while for you it does not.

[snoopy369]

If I may... I don't see anything wrong with religion entering into the public debate and religion motivations for certain things to be the primary cause for their advancement. If that makes one a proponent of religious theocracy, then sign me up for it.

I think the line is that if the argument is "GOD said {a}, so our law must be {a}", it is invalid for US political debate. The argument can be based on religious principles, but not based exclusively on tenets of religion themselves. If you say "I base my political stances on 'Do Unto Others'", I'm okay with that; that's religious philosophy, and clearly has non-religious relevance. So, if you think homosexuality is a sin, the argument "GOD said it is a sin" is not relevant for political debate (in the US); the argument "Homosexuality encourages bad behavior such as child abuse" could be relevant [if you could support it], even though it derives from religious tenets.

Certainly there's no objection in my court from basing what you argue _for_ on religious tenets; so, if your religion says that GOD says homosexuality is a sin, then basing your opposition to homosexuality on that is absolutely fine. It's just the arguments for the political debate must not be based explicitly on religious tenets - you have to go find some rational argument rather than solely religious.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would have thought you'd have liked those policies

Kentonio's a commie hater.