Another victory for the real American way of life

[hork]

Kudos to you NH

[StockTrader]

Unlike other states, there was no active court challenge to push New Hampshire to act on the issue.

Tax dollars used for a 1% minority that wasn't even making any "cry" for help.

Nick

[ldzppln]

Marriage, as defined by the Catholic Church (the one true Church, established by Christ, btw) is an indissoluable bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace. It is one of the seven sacraments.

It's really not that complicated people.

[hork]

true, as does most other churches however, what the heck does that have to do with a civil institution? hard to claim marriage is a religious institution when i had to pay my local government in order to get married, or when laws regarding marriage are set down by a state/federal government neither of which has the authority to estabish and/or endorse any specific religion. but that's neither here nor there, the religious arguement is at best moot.

the issue at hand in NH, VT, and Connecticut is not the legalization of gay "marriage", but rather the institution of civil unions which guarantee homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. and last time i checked equal protection under the law and equal rights afforded by the constitution were intended to apply to all citizens, not just those who conform to our ideals. hence there is no logical (at least none that has been offered yet) reason as to why such laws are needed in the first place. the mere existence of them is an affront in the largest degree to the US Constitution and the foundations that this nation were founded upon.

now if anyone has a viable reason as to why such unions should not be allowed i'd be more than happy to hear them. be it on these boards or from some elected official hell anyone for that matter.

[ldzppln]

true, as does most other churches however, what the heck does that have to do with a civil institution? hard to claim marriage is a religious institution when i had to pay my local government in order to get married

Marriage is an institution of religion. I thought I covered that in my first post. Without religion, marriage does not exist. It's just two folks living together (in sin, btw). Whatever fee or tax you paid prior to getting married is just that - a revenue stream for your local/state gov't. It's also their way of keeping track of your holy & sacred matrimony.

...or when laws regarding marriage are set down by a state/federal government neither of which has the authority to estabish and/or endorse any specific religion.

Which laws do you speak of? I know of no laws (written by man) specific to married couples, other than the one about not being able to force one spouse to testify against another in court (I got that from Law & Order - may come in handy some day!).

but that's neither here nor there, the religious arguement is at best moot.

Au contraire, it's all about religion. Like I said above, if religion is not involved, it's not marriage.

now if anyone has a viable reason as to why such unions should not be allowed i'd be more than happy to hear them. be it on these boards or from some elected official hell anyone for that matter.

God has His reasons, and He has made quite clear the definition of marriage - read my first post on the subject if you need clarification.

[hork]

let's suppose for a minute the couple in question practices a religion that allows homosexuality for example some pagan religions that actually encourage it. given their religion promotes it they should be able to marry correct?

or is it only a viable religion if it suscribes to one particular text?

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by hork

let's suppose for a minute the couple in question practices a religion that allows homosexuality for example some pagan religions that actually encourage it. given their religion promotes it they should be able to marry correct?

or is it only a viable religion if it suscribes to one particular text?

It's only a viable religion if it subscribes to the teachings of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ Himself. I thought we covered this already. This really isn't that difficult. Marriage is a sacrement of the Church. It's not marriage unless it's blessed by the Church. By definition, marriage is an indissoluable bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace. That's what marriage is. It cannot, by it's own definition, be anything else.

[hork]

putting aside the fact that roman catholocism can trace it's roots to peter, last i checked there are protections against the endorsement of a specific religion. ergo to use religion as the sole means of justification for civil laws is in and of itself anti-american (in at least so much as it is a direct violation of the Constitution) no?

my next question is, given your recent "enlightenment" to the misdeeds of the current regime and their blatant attempts to curb our Constitutional freedoms, doesn't your position here pose a bit of a problem for say credibility purposes?

i acknowledge and respect any religion's right to reject performing such unions as it clearly violates their theology but given no single church has any priority (or at least is not supposed to) in our nation over any other (last i checked in spite of what the evangelical right is trying to do, we're still not a theocracy) and therefore to use such justification seems at best feeble and more correctly at it's very foundation unamerican.

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

It's only a viable religion if it subscribes to the teachings of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ Himself. I thought we covered this already. This really isn't that difficult. Marriage is a sacrement of the Church. It's not marriage unless it's blessed by the Church. By definition, marriage is an indissoluable bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace. That's what marriage is. It cannot, by it's own definition, be anything else.

I'm not sure if you are serious, or attempting to sound like Stephen Colbert.

That may fit the Roman Catholic definition, however marriages had been an institution long before Christ.

[StockTrader]

Originally Posted by hork

the issue at hand in NH, VT, and Connecticut is not the legalization of gay "marriage", but rather the institution of civil unions which guarantee homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

From your article:

Sponsors of the civil unions bill called it a door to marriage in all aspects but name. Opponents argued it would lead to the collapse of traditional values.

Nick

[StockTrader]

My semi-religious fews on SSM:

I thought the idea of marriage was to unite a man and a woman. Furthermore, if a couple so chooses, to procreate and have children. [I hope that was the right use of procreate ...]

What would happen if there were only MM/FF marriages? Let me guess, we can just artifically inseminate the women, right? I suppose, but there goes the phrase "Dad, teach me about this" or idea of the tender love of a mother. Let me guess, a father can subsitute a mother? I'm sorry, but no. There is something special about a mother, and that can never be replaced by a man. Let me guess, a mother can teach anything to a child that a father can? I'm sorry, but it just isn't the same. Having a male role model is not the same as having a female role model that is pretending to be a "man".

Just my thoughts.

Nick

[hork]

still not seeing or hearing a viable arguement against it. i've heard more often than i can count religious based arguements but they're irrelevant (at least legally they are) still waiting to hear a viable legal based arguement.

again not necessarily from this board but from anyone at all. be they a politician or otherwise.

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by hork

still not seeing or hearing a viable arguement against it. i've heard more often than i can count religious based arguements but they're irrelevant (at least legally they are) still waiting to hear a viable legal based arguement.

again not necessarily from this board but from anyone at all. be they a politician or otherwise.

I'll give you one.

Using the logic applied to justify this new legal class... not allowing any two (or three, or six or more) individuals to form a civil union without the same privileges and protections violates those persons rights.

Why no provisions for legal polygamy?

Why no provisions for legal domestic partnerships with no familial pretense, however with all the rights and protections of marriage?

[hork]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

Why no provisions for legal polygamy?

good question, why not if all involved are legally able to give consent and do why not.

Why no provisions for legal domestic partnerships with no familial pretense, however with all the rights and protections of marriage?

the difference here is no legal binding contract (i.e., liscence) as there is in marriage and/or civil unions establishing equal partnership and legal obligation.