I would think people would’ve gotten hip to this concept a long time ago. Why would they want to follow a religious construct? This seems like a prime candidate to eliminate from the laws by the left.
OT but WV related.
- Thread starter Darrin class of 1989
- Start date
Yes you're being extreme with the nukes. You obviously don't understand what Americans can own if they pay the tax and pass the background check. But we aren't really talking about that are we. Many Democrats have gone on record wanting to ban semi auto guns and magazine capacity. In my book it's non- negotiable and not open for debate. FFS how many guns were passed out to citizens when Russia invaded. How many living in China wish they had a rifle? I could go on but you should get the point. Now stay out of my gun safes.
Of you don't realize the media is government propaganda I don't know what to tell you.
you're missing my point if you think I want to take your guns.. not everyone's out to get you.. damn man, thought you weren't so sensitive. I'm all for regulation of gun ownership...i.e., minimum age, background checks, tested, licensed, etc.. no argument there. Kinda similar to driving a car, etc. Unfortunately to my understanding that is not our current set of laws.
wait.. so you guys are saying "marriage" is purely defined as a religious status and not a legal status? That's news to me, although I admittedly have not researched the shit out of this topic.. a quick google search says marriage started in the Middle Ages as a secular, legal contract.. Why should it only apply to religious unions? My definition is a legal definition and not religious, hence my comments.
That said, if you are religious and own a cupcake shop I have no problem with your right to refuse to send cupcakes to a gay wedding, or any other event for that matter. That is your right as a private business owner.
There are numerous threads on here of Democrats telling you they are definitely coming after the guns. Go read them.
I'm sure there are.. people say all kinds of shit.. what I said was I was not coming after your guns.. I do believe in common sense laws around regulation, etc. as discussed.
look man, I've enjoyed the back and forth conversation.. and I respect and appreciate your right to your beliefs and views.. I like to understand all sides and then make my own decisions, this exchange has been part of that in terms of me seeking to understand other viewpoints. I'm still coming to my own conclusions, as you will as well of course.
That said, I always approach these things as though there is a chance my preconceived ideas could be wrong.. do you? What if it is actually your viewpoints that are being colored by the media and/or politicians and they are force feeding you a particular narrative that may or may not be true.. do you consider that possibility?
@Boomboom521
Come get your boy.
No. Not even close.
What if it is actually your viewpoints that are being colored by the media and/or politicians and they are force feeding you a particular narrative that may or may not be true.. do you consider that possibility?
driving a car and owning a gun are not comparable.
and there are regulations on gun ownership. sounds like you want more regulations that lead to more regulations whereas the end game is to make regulation so obstructive, gun ownership lessens. Another possible example of punishing others with a law, thus abuse of power and restriction of freedom. not cool.
Marriage itself has been around... forever. Up until the 13th century, it was an economic contract. All it took was the man to say "I divorce you" and kick her to the curb.
Due to pressure from Protestants, the Catholics made it a sacrament, and was tracking who is married to whom.
Up until the last few years, the only reason the feds cared was tax reasons, but are trying to change the meaning for everyone. It's not their place.
I have no issues if a church chooses to honor that, as we’ve established, I’m not religious. I have no issue if a gay couple wants to get married in a church. I support gay marriage. THEs point and one I think he’s correct on, is why? If you hate religion, would you allow a religious union be synonymous with a legal contract and Union. As you’ll recall, in the Middle Ages, all official ceremonies were under the contract with God as God’s law was supreme to man’s law or King’s law for that matter. Religion was in fact intertwined one and the same with all facets of state by command of the King.
So, my thoughts, are why in this country would we allow a religious ceremony to be intertwined with a legal contract. Kind of an all Marriages are Civil Unions legally, but not all Civil Unions are Marriages. Get Govt out of Marriage.
Jewish people are doing this in NJ.
They get married in religion but not in law . I agree with it 100 % get government out of it all together
it is a sacrament because marriage is an earthly presence and representation of the christ. Basically the Christ made manifest in an earthly example. It wasn't to track who married whom. The state thereafter tracked the whom. The first domino was Christ materializing and revealing himself in the material world. The state took over to tax and regulate it.
so you guys are saying marriage should only be a religious thing and not a legal thing?
@roadtrasheer How does that work if one is not religious... isn't a civil union (marriage) still legally a marriage in terms of rights, etc.? Since gov't defines tax laws, legal protections, etc, etc isn't there some role for gov't in the definition of marriage and the rights attained by being married?
And @BigLickMountee if I am tracking, you are saying only Christians can get married? Again, what about all the non-Christians, agnostics, atheists, etc?
@DvlDog4WVU I've appreciated your comments and agree with many of them.. and I respect the way you approach these discussions in terms of laying out your position but not begrudging anyone else for having theirs, as long as it doesn't impact you or your family. I am pretty similar in that approach tbh..
that said, I think you might feel I am defining marriage as a religious thing.. and thus that all people who want to be married have the right to do it in a church or via a religious ceremony, when in fact I am not saying that at all. I am simply saying all people, regardless of religious beliefs or sexual orientation, should have the right to legally join in a civil marriage that comes with it the legal rights afforded to others in marriage (i.e., hetero couples married in a religious ceremony)..
Are you saying the definition of Marriage is by its nature a religious union and not a civil union? maybe that is our disconnect
that's not what I am saying, that only christians can get married. Anyone can get married. Marriage was originally a sacramental construct originally defined by the church and this is historically proven, however, the "marriage" in the civil sense is for anyone as a contract between two people. This evolved from ecclesiastical origins to the state. Thus the state can regulate and tax it. The act of marriage was taken from the church as a sacrament and ceremony celebration of the Christ to now used by convenience for a different purpose beyond the sacrament, like in this post, to be applied for a specific purpose. Marriage today in the secular sense is not for a sacramental purpose. It's for contract (legal) and state taxation purpose. Anyone can be married as a civil contract but the sacrament of Christ, established by the Church, are for those that accept it as a sacrament. Marriage in a civil sense is for anyone but in a sacramental sense, for those that accept is as a sacrament, Christ made manifest in an earthly fashion. It's spiritual, not civil.
thanks for the thoughtful and insightful reply.. your explanation helped me to better understand what you were saying. And for the record I have no problem with the idea of a Christian/religious marriage having a spiritual/sacrament aspect to it.. My point was only about the legal rights should be the same. Sounds like we are in basic agreement one that piece
but realize a human decree, via the state and laws it creates of what is equal by civil accounts is not judged the same or equal by the Church that it judges from a different standard. Legally, secularly, gay marriage might be sanctioned equal by civil law by the state to heterosexual marriage but the Church doesn't have to agree, and won't, in part because Christ ordain marriage between a man and woman, affirmed daily by the Church, and not ordained between two men or two women, rejected by the Church. The Church as authority in matters eschatological where the state does not, unless at the point of a gun, and then Marxism becomes manifest.
I have no issue with the Church, or any religious entity, choosing not to support gay marriage if it doesn’t fit its beliefs, etc.. as long as the secular legal rights are the same for a gay couple vs a straight couple. I also do not believe the govt should be able to force the Church to perform gay marriages, but the Church does need to recognize the legal status of a gay marriage just like it needs to recognize other legal requirements and laws, etc
I agree. Everyone if they choose to should be afforded the legal rights of a civil union.
Yes. Govt has elected to honor a religious union as a legal civil union. I suppose it doesn’t really matter, people get “married” or have a marriage like ceremony all the time sans God being involved or a pastor or person of the clergy presiding over it. It’s a civil Union.
This is all a pretty academic discussion at least on my part. This isn’t the hill I choose to go up, let alone die on, but it’s interesting to discuss none the less.
Ok, I think we were talking past each other …semantics. All good.
and fwiw, it is a hill for me, my brother is gay and I got ordained in order to marry, via a civil ceremony, he and his partner of 30 years once it became legal in their state. Their relationship is much more loving, committed, and honest than many peoples’ I know who claim to be religious
Have you seen the most recent data? We screwed ourselves over with all the masking and quarantines.
I don't get why it has to be a "marriage" though. Why force people who disagree with it to call it that? That's as much discrimination as anything the other side is, often times justifiably, against.
Agreed. If we were given them and told to wear them in close quarters, it would help. Not what we have today though.
Again marriage in terms of legal rights is not exclusive to the religious definition of marriage. Thus, do non-religious marriages not count as marriages in the eyes of the law? of course they do, so what’s the problem? i don’t agree with paying the amount of taxes I pay but I still call them taxes.
Or maybe said differently… if one doesn't agree with it then who really cares if they refer to it as marriage. It’s about the legal rights, not forcing people who don’t accept it to agree with it. Same to me as the abortion discussion… you don’t agree with it or it’s against your religious beliefs? fine, then don’t have an abortion.. and don’t marry another dude if your beliefs don’t accept gay marriage. But that doesn’t give you the right to take away others rights
Last edited:
I'm like you on this social issue I don't care if a person is gay or not.
I'm saying marriage is a religious matter. Governments use it in a variety of ways and shouldn't be given perks or taken perks one way or the other because of a person's status. If a couple wants to draw up a contract then they can . Gay or straight shouldn't mean a thing
Similar threads
