On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
But if any two people can get married, why not 3?
Isn't that protected under the 14th too?

Who will have the authority to deny any combination to marry, now?

--
Maggie

"Muggles" wrote in message
al-september.org...
.

I've seen all sorts of arguments for and against gay marriage. The most
interesting one I've seen argued was someone said that gays already had
the same right to marry as everyone else- to marry someone of their choice
of the oppose sex. To grant gays the right to marry the same gender was
akin to granting rights to a special interest group and therefore it would
nullify any idea of equal rights under the law and end up promoting rights
for special interest groups, instead.

--

I don't like the same sex marriage. However if two of the same sex want to
live together, then maybe a civial contract could be made so they have the
same rights. This would not require any special ceramony,but just the
simple signing of a paper such as buying a car. Simple as a building permit
or such. No religion involved.

In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 9:02:58 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:35:37 -0700, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
Imo, we're all rebels when we speak up for what we
believe, and I

*I keep imagining* a small, but not insignificant
group of nazi's in Germany using these very same
words about flying their flag

It doesn't take much imagination to use the genetic default 'nazi'
this or that response. Next time maybe you could think it thru and
post an original well thought out post.

--
Maggie

Malcontent Reynolds believes that people who want to keep their Confederate
battle flags want to take over the world just like Nazis. He/she/it has a
fantasy about racist White people taking over North and South America then
rounding up all the non-White people to put them in concentration camps where
they will be gassed and cremated. The moon bat also supports gun control but
will never acknowledge that the language in gun control laws was borrowed
from the Nazis.(yes, it was translated into English) Sheesh! O_o

[8~{} Uncle Nazi Monster

It doesn't take much imagination, but you lack even that. I don't for
the most part care what "people" want to do with their flags, I do,
however, care about what the "state" wants to do with their flags. But
it's nice to know that you support the idea that Germans should be
allowed to fly nazi flags over their "statehouses"

On 7/1/2015 12:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:


The most interesting question I see is that now that gay marriage is
OK, what about the Mormons that want multiple wives? Or others for
that matter. Mormons are probably on firmer ground because as I understand
it, it's sanctioned by their religion. Maybe Stormin can help us out.
But if any two people can get married, why not 3? Isn't that protected
under the 14th too?


No idea of the legality of multiple wives, but in the name of research
I'm willing to try it for a few hours one night.

Muggles writes:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
But if any two people can get married, why not 3?
Isn't that protected under the 14th too?

Who will have the authority to deny any combination to marry, now?

Why would _you_ care who marries whom, in any combination?

Frankly, it is none of your (or my) business.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 6/29/2015 10:40 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:


A good example of "The Dumbassification Of America". Why didn't baker,
who probably has a smart phone, take a picture and search the web.

[8~{} Uncle Flag Monster


You have high expectations from a $7.25/hour clerk.

That is why they need to be paid a minimum of $15.00/hour. So we can expect
more. Uh huh.

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:46:25 PM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 9:02:58 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:35:37 -0700, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
Imo, we're all rebels when we speak up for what we
believe, and I

*I keep imagining* a small, but not insignificant
group of nazi's in Germany using these very same
words about flying their flag

It doesn't take much imagination to use the genetic default 'nazi'
this or that response. Next time maybe you could think it thru and
post an original well thought out post.

--
Maggie

Malcontent Reynolds believes that people who want to keep their Confederate
battle flags want to take over the world just like Nazis. He/she/it has a
fantasy about racist White people taking over North and South America then
rounding up all the non-White people to put them in concentration camps where
they will be gassed and cremated. The moon bat also supports gun control but
will never acknowledge that the language in gun control laws was borrowed
from the Nazis.(yes, it was translated into English) Sheesh! O_o

[8~{} Uncle Nazi Monster

It doesn't take much imagination, but you lack even that. I don't for
the most part care what "people" want to do with their flags, I do,
however, care about what the "state" wants to do with their flags.

So, you live in South Carolina?

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 19:11:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
But if any two people can get married, why not 3?
Isn't that protected under the 14th too?


Who will have the authority to deny any
combination to marry, now?


Why would _you_ care who marries whom, in any
combination?
Frankly, it is none of your (or my) business.


Does being a member of society mean we have any obligation at all to
not only take responsibility for the quality of life it's citizens
live by, but also the moral messages we set in motion by either our
willingness to take a stand or not in any given issue?

Why should we care? Perhaps, we need to realize that the world we
allow I'm the present is the legacy we leave our children.

--
Maggie

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 14:39:19 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:
I don't like the same sex marriage. However if two of
the same sex want to live together, then maybe a
civial contract could be made so they have the
same rights. This would not require any special
ceramony,but just the simple signing of a paper such
as buying a car. Simple as a building permit
or such. No religion involved.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

--
Maggie

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 3:45:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 14:39:19 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:
I don't like the same sex marriage. However if two of
the same sex want to live together, then maybe a
civial contract could be made so they have the
same rights. This would not require any special
ceramony,but just the simple signing of a paper such
as buying a car. Simple as a building permit
or such. No religion involved.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

--
Maggie

It's not the religious aspect that's involved. It's that
govt has chosen to make *marriage* part of law and in turn
extend legal protection, legal benefits to people who are
married. You can't get married without getting a marriage
license. And when you get are married, then govt extends
rights, tax breaks, survivor benefits that are codified
under law and apply only to those that are married. THAT
is the issue and the SC found that it violates the 14th
amendment.

On 7/1/2015 11:32 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/1/2015 11:05 AM, Muggles wrote:


They aren't requiring you to be gay or to enter a gay
marriage.

They want to force people to accept it as normal when it isn't normal
for many people who believe it's perverted. You won't change minds with
force.


I don't think we are being forced to accept it as normal, just that we
cannot discriminate against it. You don't have to accept it as right or
normal.

After decades of seeing marriage between a man and woman, I found it to
be strange. OTOH, I can't think of solid reasons to deny them a
relationship together



Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/1/2015 2:23 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
But if any two people can get married, why not 3? Isn't that protected
under the 14th too?

Who will have the authority to deny any combination to marry, now?


And, that makes for a HUGE concern for many folks.
What's next? Animals? Children? Pet rock?


-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/1/2015 3:11 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
Who will have the authority to deny any combination to marry, now?

Why would _you_ care who marries whom, in any combination?

Frankly, it is none of your (or my) business.


One of the things I've learned, is to watch
for incremental progress. Now that we've
decided it's no one's business who marries
who, how about age? May a 75 year old man
marry a 9 year old girl?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:09:07 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/1/2015 11:32 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/1/2015 11:05 AM, Muggles wrote:


They aren't requiring you to be gay or to enter a gay
marriage.

They want to force people to accept it as normal when it isn't normal
for many people who believe it's perverted. You won't change minds with
force.


I don't think we are being forced to accept it as normal, just that we
cannot discriminate against it. You don't have to accept it as right or
normal.

After decades of seeing marriage between a man and woman, I found it to
be strange. OTOH, I can't think of solid reasons to deny them a
relationship together



Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?



First amendment, solid enough for you?

On 7/1/2015 12:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:
After decades of seeing marriage between a man and woman, I found it to
be strange. OTOH, I can't think of solid reasons to deny them a
relationship together

The most interesting question I see is that now that gay marriage is
OK, what about the Mormons that want multiple wives? Or others for
that matter. Mormons are probably on firmer ground because as I understand
it, it's sanctioned by their religion. Maybe Stormin can help us out.
But if any two people can get married, why not 3? Isn't that protected
under the 14th too?


Been a while since we had a class on plural marriage,
but I remember that in the early days, there were
more men than women. The trek west also killed off
a lot of the men. The revelation about polygamy
wasn't greeted with great joy, and it was later
revoked.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/1/2015 11:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:13:59 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Lol... I've heard people mention the next trend will be normalizing
transgender, and forcing people to accept it as normal... After that
will be attacking hetero's as being abnormal in need of psychiatric
re-education.

--
Maggie

That is taking things to an absurd extreme.


I just saw on FB, a bunch of US military guys bending
over in Islam prayer, in sensetivity to the country
where they live. Also, pork products like Slim Jims
or pizza with pepperoni may not be imported into Muslim
nations. More than a few things have gone to the absurd
extreme, in the last few years. Peace be unto you.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

Muggles writes:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 19:11:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
But if any two people can get married, why not 3?
Isn't that protected under the 14th too?


Who will have the authority to deny any
combination to marry, now?


Why would _you_ care who marries whom, in any
combination?
Frankly, it is none of your (or my) business.


Does being a member of society mean we have any obligation at all to
not only take responsibility for the quality of life it's citizens
live by, but also the moral messages we set in motion by either our
willingness to take a stand or not in any given issue?


What gives you the right to decide what is a moral message?

Stormin Mormon writes:
On 7/1/2015 11:32 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/1/2015 11:05 AM, Muggles wrote:


They aren't requiring you to be gay or to enter a gay
marriage.

They want to force people to accept it as normal when it isn't normal
for many people who believe it's perverted. You won't change minds with
force.


I don't think we are being forced to accept it as normal, just that we
cannot discriminate against it. You don't have to accept it as right or
normal.

After decades of seeing marriage between a man and woman, I found it to
be strange. OTOH, I can't think of solid reasons to deny them a
relationship together



Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?

This is america. Freedom from religion is a bedrock principle.

In article
almarsoft.6495023304733193707
@reader443.eternal-september.org,
lid says...

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:30:10 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:
I keep imagining a small, but not insignificant group of nazi's
in
Germany using these very same words about flying their flag


I knew it! Some Tran-Intelligent Progressive Liberal Leftist
Commiecrat Freak was going to bring up the Nazis. You moon bats are
so predictable. snicker


Moonbats! LOL

what is a moonbat?

i'm confused.



--
--
- real bull**** is bitching that no
one cares while you care enuf
to bitch about it

In article
almarsoft.5223712455899802197
@reader443.eternal-september.org,
lid says...
Apparently 40% of blacks living in SC agree with you,
they have no problem with the confederate flag
either. Leading you to wonder,
who the real racists are.

These days if you recognize the fact that people come from different
races you get called a racist. There's no hate attached to
acknowledging race. It's the people who hate anyone who's different
from themselves that feed the idea of racism. I think it's a
mistake to make it politically incorrect to even talk about race.



I like racing.

we have good races here.



--
--
- real bull**** is bitching that no
one cares while you care enuf
to bitch about it

On 7/1/2015 4:26 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:09:07 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
After decades of seeing marriage between a man and woman, I found it to
be strange. OTOH, I can't think of solid reasons to deny them a
relationship together



Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?



First amendment, solid enough for you?



=========================================
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
==========================================

So, what does the right to free speech (and
the prohibition of a government created church)
have to do with this?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/1/2015 4:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

After decades of seeing marriage between a man and woman, I found it to
be strange. OTOH, I can't think of solid reasons to deny them a
relationship together



Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?

This is america. Freedom from religion is a bedrock principle.


======================================
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.
======================================

The founding documents describe freedom OF
religion. No where do I read freedom FROM
religion.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/1/2015 4:09 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/1/2015 11:32 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/1/2015 11:05 AM, Muggles wrote:


They aren't requiring you to be gay or to enter a gay
marriage.

They want to force people to accept it as normal when it isn't normal
for many people who believe it's perverted. You won't change minds with
force.


I don't think we are being forced to accept it as normal, just that we
cannot discriminate against it. You don't have to accept it as right or
normal.

After decades of seeing marriage between a man and woman, I found it to
be strange. OTOH, I can't think of solid reasons to deny them a
relationship together



Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?

No. They were written by men that interpreted happenings by their own
views. There are a lot of things I believe in, but I'm skeptical of
others. I guess you can say I'm spiritual, but many aspects of
organized religion does not sit so well with me. Twelve years of
Catholic school made me that way.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 20:39:29 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Does being a member of society mean we have any
obligation at all to not only take responsibility for
the quality of life it's citizens live by, but also the
moral messages we set in motion by either our
willingness to take a stand or not in any given
issue?


What gives you the right to decide what is a moral
message?

I'm only one vote in an ocean of people who make such decisions.
OTOH, I'm also one voice, and often it's one voice that makes a
difference.

Society as a whole decides what its legacy will be, and those people
who object get a tiny honorable mention when recalling that history.


I like to think ahead about how our decisions today will affect our
children and future generations. If we open a door today, who will
try to walk through it tomorrow, and how will those people manipulate
what we've set in motion now. It may seem like a good idea to allow,
for example, gay marriage, but now that the door is open to
redefining marriage, who will have the authority in the future to say
'no-that's too far for society to go'? What argument will be valid
enough to stop something like trios, or children marrying adults?

Once marriage is redefined, there is no boundary, now.

--
Maggie

In article
almarsoft.8520562852647794994
@reader443.eternal-september.org,
lid says...

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 14:39:19 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:
I don't like the same sex marriage. However if two of
the same sex want to live together, then maybe a
civial contract could be made so they have the
same rights. This would not require any special
ceramony,but just the simple signing of a paper such
as buying a car. Simple as a building permit
or such. No religion involved.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

It does?

I think it sticks to something
communist.

On 7/1/2015 5:33 PM, Muggles wrote:
In article
almarsoft.8520562852647794994
@reader443.eternal-september.org,
lid says...

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 14:39:19 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:
I don't like the same sex marriage. However if two of
the same sex want to live together, then maybe a
civial contract could be made so they have the
same rights. This would not require any special
ceramony,but just the simple signing of a paper such
as buying a car. Simple as a building permit
or such. No religion involved.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

---forgery---
It does?

I think it sticks to something
communist.
--forgery---

This text is a forgery or the attributions got mixed up somehow. I
didn't post it.

--
Maggie

On 7/1/2015 4:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/1/2015 4:09 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
After decades of seeing marriage between a man and woman, I found it to
be strange. OTOH, I can't think of solid reasons to deny them a
relationship together



Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?

No. They were written by men that interpreted happenings by their own
views. There are a lot of things I believe in, but I'm skeptical of
others. I guess you can say I'm spiritual, but many aspects of
organized religion does not sit so well with me. Twelve years of
Catholic school made me that way.


That's reasonable enough. On the usenet list alt
home repair, a former poster using the screen name
The Daring Dufas describes a similar point of view.

Will try not to press my views on you, at least not
in this instance.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/1/2015 7:58 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:


Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?

No. They were written by men that interpreted happenings by their own
views. There are a lot of things I believe in, but I'm skeptical of
others. I guess you can say I'm spiritual, but many aspects of
organized religion does not sit so well with me. Twelve years of
Catholic school made me that way.


That's reasonable enough. On the usenet list alt
home repair, a former poster using the screen name
The Daring Dufas describes a similar point of view.

Will try not to press my views on you, at least not
in this instance.

This is not the venue to discuss it, but if we ever meet I bet the sum
of our vales are not much different even if we follow a different road
to get there.

On 7/1/2015 5:03 PM, Muggles wrote:

I like to think ahead about how our decisions today will affect our
children and future generations. If we open a door today, who will try
to walk through it tomorrow, and how will those people manipulate what
we've set in motion now. It may seem like a good idea to allow, for
example, gay marriage, but now that the door is open to redefining
marriage, who will have the authority in the future to say 'no-that's
too far for society to go'? What argument will be valid enough to
stop something like trios, or children marrying adults?

Once marriage is redefined, there is no boundary, now.


The minimum age limits have not changed. Morally, nothing has either.
Gay couple have been living together anyway whether you approve or not.
.. The major change is legal status for insurance, inheritance and the
like. More prospective customers for divorce lawyers too.

On 7/1/2015 9:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/1/2015 7:58 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:


Will try not to press my views on you, at least not
in this instance.

This is not the venue to discuss it, but if we ever meet I bet the sum
of our vales are not much different even if we follow a different road
to get there.


I've heard at least a few people say this. My take
is that Big J didn't say "I am one of many roads
to get there". OTOH, maybe different roads lead to
the point where a man is willing to accept truth?

Well, some day, we might meet. Never know.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:34:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 9:48:39 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


My guess is the AG wants the good publicity he gets amongst fellow
evangelicals. If he gets his name in the paper enough he will win the
next governor election. Perry wants to be President.

Your mention of election made me think. I was assuming that
the attorney general in TX is appointed and works for Perry,
like here in NJ. But some states, it's an elected position
and that's the case in TX. So, I think you're right, the AG
is probably doing it on his own, for his own reasons, and I
take back what I said about Perry being involved.

Besides that, Perry is not governor of Texas.

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:48:48 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/1/2015 4:26 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:09:07 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
After decades of seeing marriage between a man and woman, I found it to
be strange. OTOH, I can't think of solid reasons to deny them a
relationship together



Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?



First amendment, solid enough for you?



=========================================
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
==========================================

So, what does the right to free speech (and
the prohibition of a government created church)
have to do with this?


You posted a list of reasons to deny gay marriage:

Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?

When you want the government to make law on gay marriage on the
basis of what various religions say or don't say about it, it's a
violation of the first amendment. It's a step in the direction
of a theocracy, like those crazy nut countries that have all kinds
of screwy laws, with very bad consequences, based on religion.

On 7/1/2015 3:07 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 3:45:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 14:39:19 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:
I don't like the same sex marriage. However if two of
the same sex want to live together, then maybe a
civial contract could be made so they have the
same rights. This would not require any special
ceramony,but just the simple signing of a paper such
as buying a car. Simple as a building permit
or such. No religion involved.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

--
Maggie

It's not the religious aspect that's involved. It's that
govt has chosen to make *marriage* part of law and in turn
extend legal protection, legal benefits to people who are
married. You can't get married without getting a marriage
license. And when you get are married, then govt extends
rights, tax breaks, survivor benefits that are codified
under law and apply only to those that are married. THAT
is the issue and the SC found that it violates the 14th
amendment.

You are exactly correct.

On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 05:29:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
When you want the government to make law on gay
marriage on the basis of what various religions say
or don't say about it, it's a violation of the first
amendment. It's a step in the direction of a
theocracy, like those crazy nut countries that have all
kinds of screwy laws, with very bad consequences,
based on religion.

I'm against theocracy. Changing the definition of marriage has opened
the door now for all kinds of screwy laws from this point on. There
will be nothing to stop what crazies and nut jobs want to make legal
in the near future.

Do you know who will have the authority to say no to other marriage
combinations, now?

--
Maggie

On 7/2/2015 8:29 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:48:48 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/1/2015 4:26 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:09:07 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
After decades of seeing marriage between a man and woman, I found it to
be strange. OTOH, I can't think of solid reasons to deny them a
relationship together



Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?



First amendment, solid enough for you?



=========================================
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
==========================================

So, what does the right to free speech (and
the prohibition of a government created church)
have to do with this?


You posted a list of reasons to deny gay marriage:

Bible
Book of Mormon
teachings of LDS church
Koran

Solid enough for you?

When you want the government to make law on gay marriage on the
basis of what various religions say or don't say about it, it's a
violation of the first amendment. It's a step in the direction
of a theocracy, like those crazy nut countries that have all kinds
of screwy laws, with very bad consequences, based on religion.


The founding fathers were religious, I've heard
they were "theists" but not of any particular
brand other than Bible reading. First says the
Fed shall not establish its own church, doesn't
say that church influence is prohibited.

As to laws based on Bible principles, I'm not sure
where I stand. So many people read the Bible and
arrive at different conclusions. So hard to know
what direction that will go.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 9:05:11 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 05:29:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
When you want the government to make law on gay
marriage on the basis of what various religions say
or don't say about it, it's a violation of the first
amendment. It's a step in the direction of a
theocracy, like those crazy nut countries that have all
kinds of screwy laws, with very bad consequences,
based on religion.

I'm against theocracy. Changing the definition of marriage has opened
the door now for all kinds of screwy laws from this point on. There
will be nothing to stop what crazies and nut jobs want to make legal
in the near future.

Do you know who will have the authority to say no to other marriage
combinations, now?

--
Maggie

The federal courts and ultimately the SC will have the authority,
when and if such a case is brought. Alternatively, govts have the
choice of getting out of the marriage business altogether. If they
don't require you to get a marriage license, don't have tax benefits,
survivor benefits, etc as part of law, then govt won't have to be
involved at all in what constitutes marriage.

The "door is now opened" logic has been applied in the past to
making slaves citizens, Jim Crow laws, inter-racial marriages,
ie similar changes that people were against at the time.

On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 06:22:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
The "door is now opened" logic has been applied in
the past to making slaves citizens, Jim Crow laws,
inter-racial marriages, ie similar changes that people
were against at the time.

When we get into the business of changing how people view the world
and try to legislate that such laws are difficult to even get passed,
but not impossible. It takes time and America was set up So the
people could lobby for changes and see them happen.

What kind of society do we want to leave as our children's
inheritance is something many people don't even consider. Should
morals even have anything to do with which laws are enacted, and if
we don't have some sort of gauge that contains a logical line drawn
in the sand what's the point in society even being concerned with
enacting laws? Should those lines in the sand just be random or have
a moral basis?

When marriage was defined as being between one man and one woman our
society had a specific line drawn in the sand that we'd accept as a
valid standard for marriage. Redefining that standard for marriage
has removed the line, and it no longer exists. So, how will we now
define how far we'll allow our society to go?

In other countries people can marry their farm animals. What legal
ground do we have at this point that won't allow Americans to do the
same? We've already allowed marriage to be redefined once. There now
a legal precedence to argue in favor of other marriage combinations,
and very little to legally stop it from happening.

--
Maggie

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 9:56:07 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 06:22:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
The "door is now opened" logic has been applied in
the past to making slaves citizens, Jim Crow laws,
inter-racial marriages, ie similar changes that people
were against at the time.

When we get into the business of changing how people view the world
and try to legislate that such laws are difficult to even get passed,
but not impossible. It takes time and America was set up So the
people could lobby for changes and see them happen.

How people view the world has always been changing and always
will be. If it didn't we'd still have slaves, separate counters
for blacks and whites, women wouldn't be allowed to vote.


What kind of society do we want to leave as our children's
inheritance is something many people don't even consider. Should
morals even have anything to do with which laws are enacted, and if
we don't have some sort of gauge that contains a logical line drawn
in the sand what's the point in society even being concerned with
enacting laws? Should those lines in the sand just be random or have
a moral basis?

Obviously 60% of people polled say they are OK with gay marriage.
I don't see how two gay people marrying each other is immoral. How
is that harming you or society? What is more moral, confining gay
people to the shadows or allowing them to enter the same relationships
as heterosexuals? The morality issue seems to be based on what
the bible says and also on fear and ignorance passed down over time.
We've already put aside plenty of what the bible says, for good reason,
as time progresses. And that assumes that you believe it to begin
with. Do you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and a woman
was created from a rib?


When marriage was defined as being between one man and one woman our
society had a specific line drawn in the sand that we'd accept as a
valid standard for marriage. Redefining that standard for marriage
has removed the line, and it no longer exists. So, how will we now
define how far we'll allow our society to go?


As I said before, similar was said when slavery ended, women were
allowed to vote, segregation was ended, inter-racial marriage was
allowed, etc. Yet none of those resulted in the world coming to
an end and in fact, today almost everyone agrees they were the right
thing to do, though at the time, they were hotly contested too.


In other countries people can marry their farm animals.

I've travelled a lot and never run into that. What country would
that be?

What legal
ground do we have at this point that won't allow Americans to do the
same?

Now you're being ridiculous. Do you really think if that case
made it into federal court that there is any doubt as to what
the decision would be? Good grief.


We've already allowed marriage to be redefined once. There now
a legal precedence to argue in favor of other marriage combinations,
and very little to legally stop it from happening.

--
Maggie

Just the courts. And of course if you're really, really that bothered
about gay marriage, you could amend the constitution. Feel free to do so.
With 60% of the people saying they are OK with it, that doesn't seem too
likely. It's how democracy works. Some times you may not like the results,
but it is what it is.

On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 07:19:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
Obviously 60% of people polled say they are OK with
gay marriage. I don't see how two gay people
marrying each other is immoral. How is that harming
you or society?

Majority is never an indicator as to whether or not something is
right or wrong. It is an indicator of a particular statistic, and
statistics can be used to prove anything if the right questions are
asked.

Morality is dependant on personal ideals which may or may not be
harmful to society. A healthy and thriving society will promote the
ideals and morals that help it to thrive.

Take a look at other countries that allow particular behaviors, and
his those societies function. I think that's a better indicator of
where certain laws would send America in the future.

What is more moral, confining gay people to the
shadows or allowing them to enter the same
relationships as heterosexuals?

The argument is moot because gays have been out of the closet for
decades, now. The issue is changing a law that has redefined the
definition of marriage, and how our society will control just how far
we'll allow that redefinition to go.

The morality issue seems to be based on what the
bible says and also on fear and ignorance passed
down over time.

I disagree. The issue is based on common sense and the people's view
of the purpose of the family unit. That definition has also changed
due to the rise in divorce and the increase in blended families. It
was a logical progression based on real changes in our society.

We've already put aside plenty of what the bible says,
for good reason, as time progresses.

If that were true many of our current laws would be moot. Don't kill
and don't steal are just 2 biblical ideals that inspired a basis for
American society.

And that assumes that you believe it to begin with.
Do you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and a
woman was created from a rib?

Belief and faith are different topics altogether from discussing how
legally redefining marriage may affect America and additional
redefinition of marriage in the future.


As I said before, similar was said when slavery
ended, women were allowed to vote, segregation
was ended, inter-racial marriage was
allowed, etc. Yet none of those resulted in the world
coming to an end and in fact, today almost everyone
agrees they were the right thing to do, though at the
time, they were hotly contested too.

All of those things did not redefine what constituted legal marriage
in the U.S. None of those changes owned the door for allowing a
legal precedent for arguing to allow any combination to marry. Once
marriage was redefined to be anything other than one male and one
female a legal precedence was set, and now the question is his long
before we become like other countries that allow people to marry
their goats? We currently have no legal ground to prevent that from
happening in the future in America.


What legal ground do we have at this point that
won't allow Americans to do the same?


Now you're being ridiculous.


Hardly. It only takes one legal precedence to start the snowball
rolling. How many lawsuits have happened since the first time a
women spilled fast food drive thru coffee in her lap and she sued the
day food chain for her own clumsiness?


Do you really think if that case made it into federal
court that there is any doubt as to what the decision
would be? Good grief.


My parents generation said the same thing about gay marriage at some
point in time. It's short sighted to think that decisions we make
today won't allow things to go to an unthinkable place in the future.

--
Maggie

On 7/2/2015 9:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 9:56:07 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 06:22:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
The "door is now opened" logic has been applied in
the past to making slaves citizens, Jim Crow laws,
inter-racial marriages, ie similar changes that people
were against at the time.

When we get into the business of changing how people view the world
and try to legislate that such laws are difficult to even get passed,
but not impossible. It takes time and America was set up So the
people could lobby for changes and see them happen.

How people view the world has always been changing and always
will be. If it didn't we'd still have slaves, separate counters
for blacks and whites, women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

When the SC unanimously invalidated the law against interracial
marriage, they wrote that marriage was a basic civil right. That
statement, more than anything, opened the door for the legalization of
gay marriage. The government involved themselves when Bill Clinton
signed DOMA into law, thereby refusing basic civil rights to gay
couples. All this other stuff seems religious based and that has nothing
to do with law.



What kind of society do we want to leave as our children's
inheritance is something many people don't even consider. Should
morals even have anything to do with which laws are enacted, and if
we don't have some sort of gauge that contains a logical line drawn
in the sand what's the point in society even being concerned with
enacting laws? Should those lines in the sand just be random or have
a moral basis?

Obviously 60% of people polled say they are OK with gay marriage.
I don't see how two gay people marrying each other is immoral. How
is that harming you or society? What is more moral, confining gay
people to the shadows or allowing them to enter the same relationships
as heterosexuals? The morality issue seems to be based on what
the bible says and also on fear and ignorance passed down over time.
We've already put aside plenty of what the bible says, for good reason,
as time progresses. And that assumes that you believe it to begin
with. Do you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and a woman
was created from a rib?

The assumption that gay marriage is immoral is not a widely held belief,
based on what I see. What's wrong with teaching your children that
people are different and that tolerance is the correct way to go? Morals
are usually, by definition, about what's right and wrong, usually as
defined by society. Seems to me that society has decided.


When marriage was defined as being between one man and one woman our
society had a specific line drawn in the sand that we'd accept as a
valid standard for marriage. Redefining that standard for marriage
has removed the line, and it no longer exists. So, how will we now
define how far we'll allow our society to go?


As I said before, similar was said when slavery ended, women were
allowed to vote, segregation was ended, inter-racial marriage was
allowed, etc. Yet none of those resulted in the world coming to
an end and in fact, today almost everyone agrees they were the right
thing to do, though at the time, they were hotly contested too.

Who defined marriage in such a manner, before Bill Clinton decided he
would do that?


In other countries people can marry their farm animals.

I've travelled a lot and never run into that. What country would
that be?

What legal
ground do we have at this point that won't allow Americans to do the
same?

Now you're being ridiculous. Do you really think if that case
made it into federal court that there is any doubt as to what
the decision would be? Good grief.


We've already allowed marriage to be redefined once. There now
a legal precedence to argue in favor of other marriage combinations,
and very little to legally stop it from happening.

--
Maggie

Just the courts. And of course if you're really, really that bothered
about gay marriage, you could amend the constitution. Feel free to do so.
With 60% of the people saying they are OK with it, that doesn't seem too
likely. It's how democracy works. Some times you may not like the results,
but it is what it is.

Seems to me that, outside of religious context, Bill Clinton was the
only person who decided he had the right to define marriage.