Actually, the marriages have to be recognized by every state, otherwise the states are being unconstitutional, and therefore tyrannical, due to their violation of the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which states that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."Originally Posted by Lacquer Head
It also violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states that "full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state."
Laws are put in place for a reason. They're put in place to be followed, and so that when the justice system ****s up as badly as it has with gay marriage, citizens can defend their rights by using the Constitution, and point out that lawmakers are retarded homophobics.
Since they are state laws that legalize homosexual marriage, they only count in that state. Until it's a federal law, states can do whatever they want regarding gay marriage (unless it is already legalized)
Even if it were, that is STILL not a viable option. That would force people to move cross country for a marriage.
Oddly enough, I'm with Sasquatch on this one. Marriage IS a religious institution, despite being recognized by law, its upto the religion/church to decide who gets married, no matter how bigoted/racist etc the church is. The thing is, a gay couple can still be joined together in civil union, just not be 'married'. Theres inheritly no difference between the two, except one is outside religion. Do you expect christian churches to start marrying Hindu? To start marrying muslims? I dont like people trying to guilt me into telling me how I should be running my buisiness. I think since my time on the forums here you know that im very anti-religious. Having said that, you can then understand why im defending the church in this case, its because im honest and I truly think that if you are going to respect secularism, then you need to respect the churches right to decide who they do and do not want to marry.
Welp, rowan said what I was going to say.
Basically,
You can get "married" legally reguardless of your gender, race or religion.
I wonder if the desire to be married in a christian church is really a sideways way of going about rocking the boat and getting some people shaken up.
Then the church shouldn't get tax money from gay or black people? Why pay for an institution who won't see you, that's ridiculous.
"Everyone was so happy. 'Great job. You did it. You saved us... all.' There were too many smiles to count.
But now...When I look back... The people who should be here aren't.
The ones who should be smiling with me aren't here."
I find it hard to believe there were no warning signs before this, or that the members were accepting of them even going to that church "as long as they don't get married". There is something missing with this story.
State laws have to abide by the Constitution regardless. The 10th Amendment gives all states the freedom to establish laws not stated in the Constitution, but only if those laws don't conflict with those presented in the Constitution.
Since banning people an equal right to marriage through state law goes against the Equal-Protection Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, banning same-sex marriage under the law is illegal, and there is no doubt about that.
The Constitution is the Constitution. It's written in iron pen, and it's inhumane to take any of our freedoms away from us. Even the little ones.
As for the church denying same-sex partners the right to marry, since a church is a private organization, that's perfectly alright. It's easy to leave a bigoted church and find one that isn't run by homophobic secretly-homosexual pedophiles. However, no government, either federal or state, has the right to deny anybody the freedom to marry.
And the only reason that governments get away with deliberately ignoring selected rights granted by the Constitution is because the government is run by rich people who don't give a shit about freedom, the people, or the law, as long as their pockets are lined.
The issue is that it isn't a prohibition, it's just not recognized as something that should be protected.
It is recognized as something that should be protected, according to the US Constitution. Just not according to most state and federal law. Then again, since when does government ever abide by the proper law?
That's what i mean lol
Mississippi Church Rejects Black Wedding - ABC News
Nothing missing. It's just good ol' fashion southern-segregation.
So basically, the only thing we have to go by here is the word of the couple. No others that had any knowledge were interviewed. No documentation was found.
This couple is claiming that they were refused a marriage in that church because of their skin color, and everybody else is surprised by it. That's prettymuch an instant red flag that they're not covering the entire story. But, of course, the entire story wouldn't be as interesting (or draw as many accusations of Southern racism), so instead of actually research and reporting the entire story, they base the entire thing off interviews with the couple.
I'm calling bullshit.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Never underestimate the power of denial, as we can see with Sasquatch over and over and over....
Watch the video coverage at least, do a bit of research for yourself and post some findings(the "entire thing" involves more than just their word. Why do you troll with extreme bias so frequently?.)
I challenge you to do something more than speculate and then translate with your hysterical delusions of grandeur and minimal knowledge.
This is my take on the subject, I am a Christian and if more Christians would read thier Bible instead of listening to thier preacher this world would be better. God has given everyone free will...a free will to obey his laws or not. I respect everyones free will, even if I don't agree with it. The reason why I respect everyones free will is because it is from God. I love gays, blacks, muslims, Atheists (even the ones that laugh at me and tell me that God is just a imaginary friend for adults) pretty much anybody. To me homosexuality is wrong in my eyes but I still love you like a brother.
I respect peoples differences...doesnt mean I have to agree. Because here is the thing, when I die I don't have to answer for anyone but me. Jesus says love each other...not Love each other except this person and that person.
Friendly neighborhood noobie
3:32 AM 8/3/12 Sasquatch negatively rates me immediately after I unblock his ignore status(ironically, ignoring someone still lets them read what you post on TFF): "Yes, I can see what you post. You ignored me, not the other way around. It's a shame you can't see your own intellect being bitch-smacked."
You're a freak-job; I feel sorry for your mother.. You are incapable of ever posting anything of grace and you are a parasite to society. Your retardation of ever posting a positive thought speaks paragraphs of your worth. The responses you additively conformed to are much in the same as the "Hobaged-facist" extreme views.
I going to say it one more time: "come back with solid evidence that u're conspiracy(bullshit) theories are accurate."
I think explaining how the mayors response to the issue was a "hoax" would suffice...
Last edited by Joxsjua; 08-03-2012 at 04:15 AM. Reason: This was perfectly worded before. I found another glitch to where it will double post a thread. It seems the more I idle chat the bigger waste of time here.
Everyone calm down. This issue deserves better than flinging insults back and forth.
Curious?
Read more.
TFF Awards:
"I hope I never ridicule what is wise or good. Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can."
. SOLDIER ('04) . cHoSeN ('04) . Por Rorr Kitty9 ('09).
HEY DO YOU LIKE MUSIC? Because I make music.
LISTEN HERE!
Sir, you have just made my day. Thank you for this because I've never been able to provide proper evidence that not everyone that takes Christianity seriously is borderline ignorant/intolerant.
Sassy whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You presume this couple is lying but it's your word against theirs when it boils down to it. I don't know.. Just practice what you preach. No need for insults, or name calling. We're all rational people here.
A wild whogivesafuck appears!
Crao Porr Cock8: Getting it while the getting's good
Hahaha!
Ragna, that acutally made me laugh.
How are they not related? It's people who love each other, who are you to tell them that they can't get married?
Why not?Polygamy, in itself, from a scientific standpoint can be perfectly healthy. However, I don't support the idea of polygamous marriages.
First off, if you're trying to say that homosexuality has nothing to do with anything else, you're pushing it into its own corner to protect it. It is related, for the reasons I've already mentioned.Oh, and lowering the age of consent also has nothing to do with homosexual marriages, homosexuality as what we know it today (one person of the same gender marrying another) is not related to pedophilia (some priests are though).
If people "love" each other, who are you to say that they shouldn't be married?
Secondly, children are exponentially more likely to be molested by a public school teacher than they are by a clergyman. I suppose that wouldn't fit into any stereotypical hatred of religion, though, so it's too inconvenient for you to bring up.
"LOL" is commonly used now -- just like "google" -- so it only made sense to include it in the dictionary. "Gay" has been adopted by homosexuals because they decided that they didn't like "queer" anymore -- just like how people have changed the definition of "homophobe" from "somebody who has a fear of homosexuals" to "somebody who doesn't support special rights for homosexuals".Webster's Dictionary now includes LOL, and abbreviations/terms of that nature. Gay used to mean happy fifty or so ****ing years ago, that definition's changed too.
Religion has been used as motivation for some bad things, and also for many good things. The most destructive regimes of the last century were Atheistic. Look at the best and worst people in history. Some of the best: Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Dalai Lama ... all religious. Some of the worst? Hitler, Stalin, Mao ... none religious. To say that religion in general has been the "root" of evil makes about as much sense as saying that national pride is the "root" of wars. It has been used as such, but is in no way their purpose.I see, so all that shit can change, but marriage can't be redefined to not be "gender specific"? Forgive me, but to try and preserve any religious aspect is ridiculous. Religion has been the root of some of the most meaningless wars and other fiascos in this world.
So what's your reasoning behind denying other people the same "right"?Let's totally use it as a reason to deny rights to something you may or may not understand, but nevertheless involves love.
There is absolutely no evidence of any physical or genetic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Since a homosexual lifestyle prevents reproduction, it cannot be genetic, unless it is a genetic deformity like Down's Syndrome. Since it is not taught, it cannot be learned or developed. There is only one way for somebody to be attracted to those of the same sex -- choice.
So is murder and cannibalism. I like to think that we're a bit better than simple animals.
Male lions prettymuch rape other male lions to assert their dominance.Dwarf chimpanzees are one of the closest genetic relatives to humans and they are all bisexual. The younger ones even have oral sex with the older chimpanzees. Lions are homosexual. The male lions will have sex with each other to create a better bond in the pack.
A friend of mine used to have a dog that humped everything. Couches, legs, other dogs, stuffed animals ... cats ... the stump in his backyard ... everything. With the argument of, "well, animals do it, so it must be alright for humans to do it", morality and ethics go out the window, right along with decency. So if you happen to be walking by a park one night and see a guy givin' it to a bench, just know that it's completely natural and you shouldn't judge him.
Awwwww, somebody doesn't like me ... They even ignored me after I helped themselves prove to be a complete and utter moron on a different subject (and before realizing how "ignore" works) ... What am I going to do with my life, now that an anonymous child on an internet gaming forum doesn't like or agree with me? Are you referring to the thread about Obama, when you claimed ... let me find it ... "... George Bush Sr. was re-elected a second term. Like I said before, there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost. The closest was Bush Jr. when it came to them having to re-count the Florida ballots."?
I did watch the video, genius. How many people did they interview that had any "knowledge" of the situation? The couple, and that's it. The others that commented on it heard it only from the couple. They didn't interview anybody who actually knew about it through firsthand knowledge, only people who had heard about it from the couple.Watch the video coverage at least, do a bit of research for yourself and post some findings(the "entire thing" involves more than just their word. Why do you troll with extreme bias so frequently?.)
That would be like making up a story about me hitting you in a bar, and then telling all of your friends about it. Then reporting it to the media. But the media doesn't interview me, the bartenders, or anybody who was at the bar at the time the attack supposedly happened, they just ask your friends about it, even they don't know anything except what you told them.You tell me -- what happened to innocent until proven guilty? This couple comes out with a story -- a story that goes against conventional knowledge, that surprises everybody with any experience in that church. A story which cannot be backed up by any evidence whatsoever, including (but not limited to) documentation of any sort or the testimony of any of the church's clergy.
It's their word against common sense. They made the accusation, and the pastor (and the church) are innocent until proven guilty.
Last edited by Sasquatch; 08-03-2012 at 11:37 AM.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
When did you decide to become straight?
I'm actually surprised about some things of your post I agree with. What is going on.
Crao Porr Cock8: Getting it while the getting's good
I acknowledged I was wrong and in my wording and restated it adding "Presidents that have never served in cabinet" but you chose to exclude that. Why are you trolling so hard?
Do at least some research on your own about the topic. Many people have been interviewed; The church admits to it happening but Sassy won't.I did watch the video, genius. How many people did they interview that had any "knowledge" of the situation? The couple, and that's it. The others that commented on it heard it only from the couple. They didn't interview anybody who actually knew about it through firsthand knowledge, only people who had heard about it from the couple.
So let me get this right. You have two arguments to state that homosexuality is a choice, instead of something that's natural.
Your first argument is that it prevents reproduction, so it can't be genetic, because naturally, genetic traits tell us to reproduce. All of this is true, but it doesn't prove your point. Since many gay couples resort to surrogacy to have children, then it could indeed be genetic, being as they still have a natural tendency to reproduce.
Your second argument is that homosexual tendencies can't be learned or developed, since it isn't taught. However, heterosexuality isn't taught either, yet I somehow developed heterosexual tendencies.
So, I've pretty much proved that homosexuality is not a choice. Debate on this matter closed, Sassypants.
And naturally the church's clergy wouldn't lie about such an accusation. The fact of the matter is, whether the church is in fact innocent or not, it's still at fault at the moment. Whether they were denied because they're black or not remains to be seen, however, since the church is in racial Confederate country, and the pastor deliberately avoided making a statement, let alone show his face, I have my doubts about your doubts.
My take is as follows, bearing in mind I hold secularism dear and though Agnostic, am one of those who values the idea of freedom of religion.
I feel that a religion should have the right to enforce whatever discriminatory ways they believe inside of their own religion. Don't like it? Find an accommodating religion or different set of beliefs and take solace in the thought that others that matter would probably also dislike their crap. But, I strongly believe people should be allowed to marry on a state or federal level regardless of race, gender or whatever else so long as it's consenting adults who have the capacity to understand their actions. I disagree that marriage should be a religious institution owned by Christianity as it both predates Christianity and wasn't even a major sacrament of Christianity until centuries into the religion. It's because of this that I don't agree that 'civil unions' are about equality - marriage after all is legally binding making it not just an issue of religion. Were it not meaningful in any legal sense I wouldn't care at all.
victoria aut mors
Here
SBC Condemns Church's Refusal to Marry Black Couple
Nice one with the hysterical rant.
If everyone is heterosexual, why would they WANT to start having relationships with other men? Explain this to me, for I do not understand it what so ever. The way sexual identity starts out, you have a predisposition to be homosexual or heterosexual or somewhere in between, gay and straight are hardly effective terms anymore. There are some people that are COMPLETELY heterosexual, and some homosexual. Everyone falls somewhere between the two. But as we grow up, certain things in life affect our sexuality. Be it minor fetishes to changing stuff big time, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that there is no reason NOT to allow these marriages. As for polygamy, I haven't done any research on this subject, as for something like marriage with children, the issue is consent. A child lacks the ability to consent to something on their own merit, same with animals or whatever.
Even IF in this magical world, homosexuality was a choice, what does that change anyway?
I didn't have to decide, it's only natural. Or, you could say that I "decided" to be straight at about the same time I "decided" that I wasn't attracted to children, or animals, or car tailpipes.
Actually, you didn't, and even if you did, you would have still been wrong. Whoops.
When did the church admit to it happening? That wasn't in the article you posted.Do at least some research on your own about the topic. Many people have been interviewed; The church admits to it happening but Sassy won't.
Homosexual adoption is much more common than surrogacy, but the fact remains that acting solely upon homosexuality prevents the passing of genetic material. As such, the only way for it to occur naturally would be as a genetic mutation -- a genetic abnormality, a genetic defect, whatever you'd like to call it.
You're not taught to breathe, crawl, eat, cry, or many other activities. You don't need to be, because they're naturally imprinted on all of us, without the need to be "learned".Your second argument is that homosexual tendencies can't be learned or developed, since it isn't taught. However, heterosexuality isn't taught either, yet I somehow developed heterosexual tendencies.
"Whether they actually did anything or not, they're still at fault"? So much for withholding judgement until facts come out, I suppose. You are believing the story of one couple, without any evidence or supporting arguments to back it up, that goes against the opinions of everybody who has had anything to do with this church.And naturally the church's clergy wouldn't lie about such an accusation. The fact of the matter is, whether the church is in fact innocent or not, it's still at fault at the moment. Whether they were denied because they're black or not remains to be seen, however, since the church is in racial Confederate country, and the pastor deliberately avoided making a statement, let alone show his face, I have my doubts about your doubts.
Why would they want to start having sexual relationships with children, or animals, or dead people? Some people want that sort of thing.
A century or two ago, interracial marriages weren't allowed on the grounds that anybody wanting to marry somebody of a "lesser" race is basically out of their mind, and the partner of the "lesser" race didn't have the mental capacity to choose to be married. Only a few decades ago, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Present day, we have plenty of people -- including some who have posted in this forum -- who believe that a child of nine or two is mature and intelligent enough to choose a partner for a sexual relationship. Hell, the age of consent in some countries is as low as nine years old. Most countries have an age of consent of between 14-16, and even some first-world countries have an age of consent at 13.A child lacks the ability to consent to something on their own merit, same with animals or whatever.
When you start declaring that some people are able/allowed to consent and some aren't, you get into a huge gray area.
Why should a sexual perversion be treated the same as a natural relationship? Whether it's the same "status", or tax breaks, or whatever.Even IF in this magical world, homosexuality was a choice, what does that change anyway?
I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me the natural difference between homosexuality, pedophilia, and zoophilia.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Correct. And my brother snores, and I don't. My eldest brother barely crawled before he walked, whereas I spent ages on all fours. I eat very slowly, my brother was dubbed 'garbage disposal machine' by my father due to the rate at which he ate.You're not taught to breathe, crawl, eat, cry, or many other activities. You don't need to be, because they're naturally imprinted on all of us, without the need to be "learned".
Do I need to go on? The wonderful thing about 'naturalness' is that it has an innate and fantastic diversity. I like women, what's to stop one of my brothers liking men, and why would it matter if he did?
Moreover, why do you feel that the state is barely allowed inside your wallet, but want it involved in the legality of whether two adult, rational human beings can form a legal bond?
Snoring or not, crawling or walking, eating slowly or eating quickly, none of which affect whether or not somebody can reproduce.
Many other species are natural as well, why shouldn't we be allowed to conduct sexual relationships with them?Do I need to go on? The wonderful thing about 'naturalness' is that it has an innate and fantastic diversity. I like women, what's to stop one of my brothers liking men, and why would it matter if he did?
A legal bond ... you mean, like a civil union, which entails all the rights of a marriage, which homosexuals are allowed? Or do you mean the religious bond of marriage, and a church forced by the state to conduct a religious ceremony against its own religion?Moreover, why do you feel that the state is barely allowed inside your wallet, but want it involved in the legality of whether two adult, rational human beings can form a legal bond?
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Why bring other species into the equation? We're talking about our species - you know? Humans.
Also, you don't need religion for marriage, you can be have a ceremony that's not religious, with a humanist instead of a priest - it doesn't have to involve religion at all, marriage was around long before religion adopted it. Heterosexuals can have a civil union, heterosexuals can get married, why should homosexuals not have exactly the same rights as them?
"Everyone was so happy. 'Great job. You did it. You saved us... all.' There were too many smiles to count.
But now...When I look back... The people who should be here aren't.
The ones who should be smiling with me aren't here."
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks