APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

Dixie said:
Go back and read your response to my posts, you are the one wanting to argue stupid shit that has nothing to do with any of this. You are the one saying I am illogical, throwing out strawmen, whatever. I haven't disagreed with you on anything other than your incorrect assertions that marriage licenses *poof* just appeared in the mid-1800s, that was false. Furthermore, it was an insidious slap at traditional institutions, religion, and the people of America who adopted the policies we currently have. It was a prejudiced view, based on a largely false stereotype, and it was unnecessary to this debate. Only you know why you believe this, I can't say, but the fact that you felt compelled to "blame" marriage licenses on racists who wanted to prevent blacks and whites from marrying, is very telling.

I maintain, it was a long-standing religious custom, and indeed it was regulated by the church in Europe, but that is because the Church was the State, they controlled what the State did, they made the determination on what the State controlled, it was under their purview because they WERE the authority in charge! It's frustrating to be faced with your inane ability to comprehend a pre-American-democracy time, BEFORE we had a Constitution restricting the government from respecting an establishment of religion. Governments indeed respected the establishments of religion in 14th century Europe, including the licensing of marriage. To pretend that government and the state was not regulating marriage because it fell under purview of the Church, is failure to comprehend the power structure and how much influence the church had on government. The only point that you can ultimately take away from any of this, societies have always regulated marriage, and it has always been a religious tradition and union of man and woman.
Click to expand...
I never said they "just appeared" I said very clearly that government licensing began at that point in the US, and what the laws said, how they were applied...

That was in argument against SM's assertions that they have been thus regulated forever in the past, thus it was the "tradition" for government to define and regulate a fundamentally religious institution. They haven't. Previous to that point marriage was regulated by the churches, it should still be.
 
WinterBorn said:
I was just double checking, because you seemed adamant about there not being gay marriages, and in this solution it is left up to the individual churches.

I agree that it should be left up to the churches.
Click to expand...

That is because I am adamant about passing any kind of LAW where our government recognizes "marriage" based on a sexual behavior. I just flat out oppose that, and I have articulated why. It has nothing to do with me hating gays, or being religious, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination, denying anyone rights, or prejudice bigotry of any kind. Those are attributes unfairly attached to my profound rejection of legalizing gay marriage.

As I explained, my solution works for all sides. It releases our government from any sanction, endorsement, or regulation of, social and religious values. It enables freedom and liberty of the individual across the board, including people who aren't even given consideration in other measures. An elderly mother lives with her daughter, they should be able to qualify for the same benefits of any other partnership arrangement. It also allows religious institutions the freedom and liberty to retain sanctity for traditional marriage, or to modify their own traditions and include gay couples in the tradition of marriage. And last but certainly not least, it doesn't codify in law, a definition of marriage based on sexual behavior.
 
Damocles said:
I never said they "just appeared" I said very clearly that government licensing began at that point in the US...
Click to expand...

Here is what you said...

"Centuries and centuries passed with nary a government license, then in the mid 1800s, just after the war, suddenly licensing appeared."


This is false, there are public records of colonial marriage licenses from the 1600s. Europeans licensed marriages as early as the 14th century, and it is believed to have first been done in 1215. You can argue the minute detail of what you meant by 'government' but before 1776, there was no separation of church and state, they were often one in the same. It is an inane argument.
 
Southern Man said:
This was never brought up until now.
Click to expand...

If you think that is true, you need to read the threads more carefully. I have brought it up at least twice, and others have mentioned it several times too.

I just thought you were avoiding it, like the other items I brought up and you couldn't (or wouldn't) debate.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Here is what you said...

"Centuries and centuries passed with nary a government license, then in the mid 1800s, just after the war, suddenly licensing appeared."


This is false, there are public records of colonial marriage licenses from the 1600s. Europeans licensed marriages as early as the 14th century, and it is believed to have first been done in 1215. You can argue the minute detail of what you meant by 'government' but before 1776, there was no separation of church and state, they were often one in the same. It is an inane argument.
Click to expand...
Again, the licensing previous to the mid-1800s was church licensing. It is disingenuous to pretend that I haven't clearly pointed out the difference by now.

The only person trying to redefine government into "church" happens to be you. Nor do I argue that we should stop churches or force churches into licensing anything. It's simply a false premise.

The government in the US did not license marriages until just after the Civil War, for the reasons I put forward, and with the laws as I described them.

The reason I pointed this out to SM was to show that the tradition has not been that the government regulate the religious institution of marriage, that is very recent on a historic scale. I also pointed out that today it is largely used as revenue, yet still it is used as a personal restriction on religious ceremonies.
 
Southern Man said:
There's no requirement to read every post, and most of yours are ignored. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I have noticed that. If it were someone else I would guess it is because I insulted you.

But you choose to ignore points you cannot argue against. So the reason you ignore them is quite obvious.
 
Damocles said:
You have not demonstrated anything of the sort. The only thing you have demonstrated is the capacity to cheer on government intrusion where it doesn't belong so long as it goes the way you want it to.
Click to expand...
Where you see intrusion I see standards that protect others from intrusion, like requiring people to drive on the right side of the road.
 
Southern Man said:
Where you see intrusion I see standards that protect others from intrusion, like requiring people to drive on the right side of the road.
Click to expand...
Which is entirely different than government intrusion into religion and establishing law based on religious dogma.

I believe in the freedoms guaranteed to us, including to follow different dogma, or even none whatsoever. Nobody should be forced to follow your religion.
 
Southern Man said:
Where you see intrusion I see standards that protect others from intrusion, like requiring people to drive on the right side of the road.
Click to expand...

What kind of intrusions would gay marriage make into your life?

Absolutely none, except your religious dogma wouldn't be enforced by the law any longer.
 
Yurt said:
oh i do....

its the same argument you and SM are using....


if let people who commit murder marry.....our children will be forced to learn that murder is normal

yours truly,

northern man
Click to expand...

I've never said anything remotely close to that, have you had your meds checked lately? Read my proposed solution again, and tell me what you disagree with. It's okay if you can't, so far, no one has found any disagreement. It's funny how you all seem to keep trying to find something to argue about here, but you can't. So instead, you are reverting back to calling me names, insinuating I am homophobic, racist, intolerant and bigoted, because I disagree with altering the meaning of traditional marriage in law.

It's almost as if you don't really seek a solution to the problem, you had rather cling to the issue, as a means to attack religion and religious institution. It's not that you have sympathy for the plight of gay couples, you are using this to pound on religion and those who support religion. It's the only rational explanation I can come up with, in light of the perfect solution I have offered.
 
Damocles said:
Which is entirely different than government intrusion into religion and establishing law based on religious dogma.

I believe in the freedoms guaranteed to us, including to follow different dogma, or even none whatsoever. Nobody should be forced to follow your religion.
Click to expand...
They're not forced to follow my religion. If they aren't qualified for traditional marriage, they can have several kinds of legal relationships.

By the way we have a lesbian couple that goes to my church. They ain't married, and don't expect to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top