APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

Damocles said:
And religious ceremonies. Because those churches aren't "real Christian" churches. I can see an argument about that (whether the churches "really" follow the teaching), but the reality is people have the right to believe in the religion in any fashion whatsoever, that objection has already been covered upon ratification of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

it baffles me how one can advocate the government shouldn't control private employer's policies yet advocate the government should control people's private policies....marriage
 
Damocles said:
Again.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT especially here in the US it is new.

Your posts have simply reinforced the idea that it is a RELIGIOUS, and not a GOVERNMENT thing "traditionally" as SM was arguing.
Click to expand...

LOL... For the United States government, it is as new as the US Government, but it was being done in colonial America before the US Government, and in Europe as early as 1215.

I am not arguing that government should be in the marriage license business, I think I made that a very clear point in my argument for civil unions contracts, but you gay people don't seem to want to accept a compromise. And I resent you trying to maintain the government does marriage licenses because they wanted to prevent interracial marriages and nothing more. That is completely dishonest and unfounded.
 
Damocles said:
I'll also note one more thing, Dix. Only one of us has lowered themselves to the ad hominem, that would be the one pretending that religious licenses are the same thing as government licenses....
Click to expand...

As I said, 14th century Europe, the Church and Government were one in the same. You can't refute that.
 
Dixie said:
LOL... For the United States government, it is as new as the US Government, but it was being done in colonial America before the US Government, and in Europe as early as 1215.

I am not arguing that government should be in the marriage license business, I think I made that a very clear point in my argument for civil unions contracts, but you gay people don't seem to want to accept a compromise. And I resent you trying to maintain the government does marriage licenses because they wanted to prevent interracial marriages and nothing more. That is completely dishonest and unfounded.
Click to expand...
One more time for the Dixie slow.

The church regulated it, not the government. The first appearance in the US of government licensing was in the mid 1800's just after the Civil War. And yes, it was to limit it to "respectable" marriages, to "protect the religious institution"...

It is a very recent event, considering the intervening centuries, for the government to regulate this religious sacrament, and it is directly opposite to our actual contract with the citizens comprised in the Constitution.

And remember, there are churches that perform homosexual ceremonies, homosexuals could indeed marry if the government got out of the business of regulating religion this way.
 
Damocles said:
One more time for the Dixie slow.

The church regulated it, not the government. The first appearance in the US of government licensing was in the mid 1800's just after the Civil War. And yes, it was to limit it to "respectable" marriages, to "protect the religious institution"...

It is a very recent event, considering the intervening centuries, for the government to regulate this religious sacrament, and it is directly opposite to our actual contract with the citizens comprised in the Constitution.

And remember, there are churches that perform homosexual ceremonies, homosexuals could indeed marry if the government got out of the business of regulating religion this way.
Click to expand...

The first sign of government regulation of marriage was in the 1600's in America, where we have records of marriage licensing. Before that, it was present in Europe back to 1215. You have not really been able to refute that, other than to try and claim the church was somehow a separate entity from the government in 14th century Europe. Surely, there would be no need for a "license" if the government didn't recognize it. What would the term even mean? What significance could licensing have in 14th century Europe, without government sanction? It makes no sense, like you!

Again... We agree that government shouldn't be involved in a religious institution, I have no argument with you on that, I just loathe dishonest debate, and that is what you are trying to present. The truth of the matter is, marriage licenses, endorsed, promoted, and sanctioned by the "state" have been around a LOT longer than the mid-1800s.
 
Dixie said:
The first sign of government regulation of marriage was in the 1600's in America, where we have records of marriage licensing. Before that, it was present in Europe back to 1215. You have not really been able to refute that, other than to try and claim the church was somehow a separate entity from the government in 14th century Europe. Surely, there would be no need for a "license" if the government didn't recognize it. What would the term even mean? What significance could licensing have in 14th century Europe, without government sanction? It makes no sense, like you!

Again... We agree that government shouldn't be involved in a religious institution, I have no argument with you on that, I just loathe dishonest debate, and that is what you are trying to present. The truth of the matter is, marriage licenses, endorsed, promoted, and sanctioned by the "state" have been around a LOT longer than the mid-1800s.
Click to expand...
Again, those records are church licenses.

And again, the church recognized and regulated marriage. Period. It was a religious, not a governmental purview.

I loathe the dishonest debate myself and it was why I was clear that in the US the first GOVERNMENTAL licensing appeared in the mid 1800s just after the Civil War and for the reasons that I propounded. It is dishonest to read a site that says the first licenses you see in the US were in the 1600s, but then later ON THE SAME SITE it says that the first time GOVERNMENT licensed it was in the 1800s...

At least we agree the government should stay out of it, so let's work towards that rather than ignore the fact that states used licensing to keep interracial marriages from happening, even writing it directly into law. Thankfully they don't do that any more, however they still restrict this religious ceremony solely to "protect" the religious "sanctity" of marriage of the belief of the majority....
 
Damocles said:
What part of "was" do you have difficulty with?

This may be why you think stuff like, "The government has always protected my religious views of marriage!" and other nonsense.

The total lack of understanding of past v. present could definitely tell us why you are incapable of understanding the relative newness of this particular "tradition" of government. Centuries and centuries passed with nary a government license, then in the mid 1800s, just after the war, suddenly licensing appeared.

Now it is held on to as a source of cash and to reinforce religious dogma of the majority. It isn't hard to understand what I mean so I figure you either pretend or you really do have some total lack of understanding of time.
Click to expand...

I understand that you are relying on a logical fallacy for your argument: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
 
Damocles said:
And through those standards control them...

:rolleyes:

The government has no business in marriage, other than to ensure that only people of age to consent would be allowed to enter them.
Click to expand...

Why is the age of the participants an issue while their sex is not? Next you'll want to allow folks to marry animals, or objects. Or retards. :)
 
Southern Man said:
I understand that you are relying on a logical fallacy for your argument: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Click to expand...
I understand that you are pretending that it was traditionally the purview of the government, even after evidence is presented showing it was not.

This is simply deliberate ignorance on your part.
 
Damocles said:
I understand that you are pretending that it was traditionally the purview of the government, even after evidence is presented showing it was not.

This is simply deliberate ignorance on your part.
Click to expand...
I'm not pretending anything. And I've always maintained that it is up to the States to regulate marriage.

Now can you prove cause and effect on the racial angle or not?
 
Southern Man said:
I'm not pretending anything. And I've always maintained that it is up to the States to regulate marriage.

Now can you prove cause and effect on the racial angle or not?
Click to expand...
And I have maintained that no form of government should intrude on this religious institution, except to ensure that nobody in their minority should become the victim of an enforced marriage. That this is held up that the "tradition" of the institution is religious and has been regulated by the churches "traditionally"....

Are you saying that, in this thread, you never mentioned that it was the "tradition" of this "institution" that you sought to protect?
 
Damocles said:
And I have maintained that no form of government should intrude on this religious institution, except to ensure that nobody in their minority should become the victim of an enforced marriage. That this is held up that the "tradition" of the institution is religious and has been regulated by the churches "traditionally"....
Click to expand...
So its OK to force older gals, right?
 
Southern Man said:
So its OK to force older gals, right?
Click to expand...
Not particularly. I have explained that as well, but pretense seems to be the only "argument" you have left.

Consent is the word of the day. Value it. Only those of age can give it, only humans have the capacity for it.
 
Southern Man said:
How ironic.
Click to expand...
I have yet to pretend you have said anything at all. Conversely you seem incapable of doing anything but.

Can you answer my question or not? Have you at any point in this thread mentioned that it was the "tradition" of the "institution" that you wanted to protect?
 
Damocles said:
I have yet to pretend you have said anything at all. Conversely you seem incapable of doing anything but.

Can you answer my question or not? Have you at any point in this thread mentioned that it was the "tradition" of the "institution" that you wanted to protect?
Click to expand...

I don't see your point, because I do want to protect the tradition, along with the institution, and children. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
I'm not pretending anything. And I've always maintained that it is up to the States to regulate marriage.

Now can you prove cause and effect on the racial angle or not?
Click to expand...
BTW - "Cause and Effect"...

The laws directly stated that people of different races couldn't marry without a state license and then regulated which kinds would be allowed. It isn't that fricking hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top