RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/29/2006 11:04:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

What country are you talking about?  The United States of America was founded in 1789.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle

I beg to differ.  This country was founded over 180 years before the Constitution was enacted and was definitely founded on "church."



No, the Constitution was enacted in 1789.  This country was founded in the early 1600s.  It was first called "the United States of America" in 1776 in the Declaration of Indepence.



leakylee -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/29/2006 11:09:06 PM)

Are you referring to the Spanish, Frech, Dutch, and English colonies?



Lordandmaster -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/29/2006 11:09:48 PM)

No COUNTRY was founded here in the 1600's.  Colonies, settlements--sure.  But the country we live in was founded in 1789.  If you want to use the date of the Declaration of Independence, that's fine, but the structure of the country wasn't established until the Constitution was ratified.

Otherwise you might as well say that Italy was founded by Romulus and Remus.



MsMacComb -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/29/2006 11:12:05 PM)

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment 

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. 
 
 I don't know how it could be any clearer. Its the first line of the First Amendment.
 Marriage can be performed by a judge or preacher. Gay's should be allowed to get married under the law. What happens within the churches and cults is up to them.



leakylee -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/29/2006 11:14:24 PM)

Exactly prior to 1789, we were just a loose conderfation of states after the break from England. Before that, it was a brunch of people that lived in colonies that owned thier alliegance to European nations.

sitting here wondering how in the world this happened..



leakylee -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/29/2006 11:17:31 PM)

WOOHOO!! MsMacComb, that sums it up. Strip it down and just strick with the bloody constitution. 



petwolf22 -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/29/2006 11:23:37 PM)

Let's just hope no one ever succeeds in making an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage. [8|]



HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/29/2006 11:31:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

No COUNTRY was founded here in the 1600's.  Colonies, settlements--sure.  But the country we live in was founded in 1789.  If you want to use the date of the Declaration of Independence, that's fine, but the structure of the country wasn't established until the Constitution was ratified.

Otherwise you might as well say that Italy was founded by Romulus and Remus.


A building is not founded when the structure is completed; it's founded when the foundations are laid.
A government is not a country. A nation/state is not a country.  A People and a culture in a specific place is a country.  Any history of the American People begins not in 1789, or in 1776, but in 1607 with the founding of the Jamestown colony.

No, Italy was not founded by Romulus and Remus.  Rome wasn't even founded by them, as Romulus and Remus were mythical characters.  By your argument, Italy wasn't founded until 1861, when it became a unified nation/state.  In fact, Italy wasn't "founded" at all, it evolved in place.



HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/29/2006 11:45:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leakylee

Exactly prior to 1789, we were just a loose conderfation of states after the break from England. Before that, it was a brunch of people that lived in colonies that owned thier alliegance to European nations.

sitting here wondering how in the world this happened..



We were indeed a loose confederation of states, even during the break from England.  But, we were also a country, and considered as such by a great many people.

In his last speech to Parlaiment, opposing the use of military force against the American revolt, former Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder said, "  [image]http://en.thinkexist.com/i/sq/0star.gif[/image]   [image]http://en.thinkexist.com/i/sq/ThumbsUp.gif[/image] [image]http://en.thinkexist.com/i/sq/ThumbsDwn.gif[/image]“If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms -- never! never! never!”



leakylee -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/29/2006 11:47:57 PM)

Is just gonna growl and shut up...



SirKenin -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/29/2006 11:57:41 PM)

Many people, including the dictionary, make the mistake of thinking that marriage is a contract.  Marriage is not a contract, it is a covenant.  There is a difference between the two.  A contract can be broken by only one party, a covenant must be broken by all involved.  In a church marriage, that includes God.  The State cannot rule whether anyone can speak on behalf of God.  Homosexuals, whether they want to or not, can not stand before God and demand marriage.  It just does not work.  I guess they can go through the motions, but that does not mean it is valid in God's eyes, and that is what matters.

The State has no right to impose upon the Church to marry homosexuals.  They have no jurisdiction, thanks to Jefferson.  They have tried to sink their teeth into it because it is a cash cow for them, but as far as I am concerned they can butt out.

A legal union, on the other hand, is a contract that either can break.  Let the State dictate it.  It is their institution, they have the right to do with it what they want.  If the homosexuals want to marry, let them have a union.  Suits Me just fine.  After all, I believe in common-law marriages.  I am not a big proponent of Church marriages.



MsMacComb -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 12:05:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Many people, including the dictionary, make the mistake of thinking that marriage is a contract.  Marriage is not a contract, it is a covenant.  There is a difference between the two.  A contract can be broken by only one party, a covenant must be broken by all involved.  In a church marriage, that includes God.  The State cannot rule whether anyone can speak on behalf of God.  Homosexuals, whether they want to or not, can not stand before God and demand marriage.  It just does not work.  I guess they can go through the motions, but that does not mean it is valid in God's eyes, and that is what matters.

The State has no right to impose upon the Church to marry homosexuals.  They have no jurisdiction, thanks to Jefferson.  They have tried to sink their teeth into it because it is a cash cow for them, but as far as I am concerned they can butt out.

A legal union, on the other hand, is a contract that either can break.  Let the State dictate it.  It is their institution, they have the right to do with it what they want.  If the homosexuals want to marry, let them have a union.  Suits Me just fine.  After all, I believe in common-law marriages.  I am not a big proponent of Church marriages.
  


Damn those pesky dictionaries. Notice how one definition has marriage included and the other umm, not so much. Oh well, thankfully you were here to line us and all those homosexuals, out. Oh and by the way, for those of us that know God is a myth (as in fiction, made up, lies, bullshit, not true, false, fantasy), really that whole argument doesnt apply does it now? [:)] 

con·tract   (k[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/obreve.gif[/image]n[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gif[/image]tr[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/abreve.gif[/image]kt[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/lprime.gif[/image])

NOUN:
  1. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.
    The writing or document containing such an agreement.

  • The branch of law dealing with formal agreements between parties.
  • Marriage as a formal agreement; betrothal. 


           cov·e·nant   (k[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/ubreve.gif[/image]v[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gif[/image][image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/schwa.gif[/image]-n[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/schwa.gif[/image]nt)

        NOUN:
      1. A binding agreement; a compact.
      2. Law

        A formal sealed agreement or contract.
        A suit to recover damages for violation of such a contract.

      In the Bible, God's promise to the human race.




        1. HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 12:24:14 AM)

        quote:

        ORIGINAL: SirKenin

        The State cannot rule whether anyone can speak on behalf of God.  Homosexuals, whether they want to or not, can not stand before God and demand marriage.  It just does not work.  I guess they can go through the motions, but that does not mean it is valid in God's eyes, and that is what matters.


        You're correct that the state cannot rule whether anyone can speak on behalf of God.  Neither can you.  Who are you to say what is or is not valid in the eyes of the mythical, omnipotent, invisible man?

        quote:



        They have no jurisdiction, thanks to Jefferson.



        While Jefferson did coin the phrase "Wall of seperation between church and state," he had absolutely nothing to do with the building of that wall.  He wasn't even in the country at the time.



        MsMacComb -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 12:27:43 AM)

        quote:

        ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle
        Who are you to say what is or is not valid in the eyes of the mythical, omnipotent, invisible man?
         

        Who are you to say that "God" is not a mythical, omnipotent invisibile *woman*? [:)]



        Lordandmaster -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 12:51:36 AM)

        Right.  That was 1777.  Not the 1600's.  Did anyone refer to America as a country in the 1600's?  No.

        Italy didn't exist before Garibaldi, by the way.

        quote:

        ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle

        In his last speech to Parlaiment, opposing the use of military force against the American revolt, former Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder said, "  [image]http://en.thinkexist.com/i/sq/0star.gif[/image]   [image]http://en.thinkexist.com/i/sq/ThumbsUp.gif[/image] [image]http://en.thinkexist.com/i/sq/ThumbsDwn.gif[/image]“If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms -- never! never! never!”



        HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 1:00:53 AM)

        quote:

        ORIGINAL: MsMacComb

        quote:

        ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle
        Who are you to say what is or is not valid in the eyes of the mythical, omnipotent, invisible man?
         

        Who are you to say that "God" is not a mythical, omnipotent invisibile *woman*? [:)]


        To quote George Carlin, "I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man. No woman could or would ever have fucked things up like this."



        MsMacComb -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 1:34:37 AM)

        quote:

        ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle
        To quote George Carlin, "I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man. No woman could or would ever have fucked things up like this."
         

        George has a point. Or perhaps its that She made things right, true and good, and man (not mankind, just man) fucked it all up, lol. [:D]



        ArtCatDom -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 2:59:57 AM)


        quote:

        ORIGINAL: slaverosebeauty

        Marriage is a legal contract and personally, I take it very seriously. I don't like it when people say 'its just a piece of paper,' that's liek saying the Bill of Rights or the Consititution is 'just a piece of paper' they all have 'power' and are 'legal' because of what is behind them.

        I will admit, I voted when it came up some years ago in Cali that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, that doesn't mean that I don't think that my friends who are homo-sexual should not be able to be legally committed to their partners, I just don't think the word 'marriage' should be used. That's me.

        This country was founded on 'church' so to try to seperate 'church and state' is hypocritical and self-defeating.


        But what of all those churches who perform marriages for homosexuals? What right do you or the state have to say that is not a valid marriage?

        *meow*




        ArtCatDom -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 3:04:28 AM)


        quote:

        ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

        No COUNTRY was founded here in the 1600's.  Colonies, settlements--sure.  But the country we live in was founded in 1789.  If you want to use the date of the Declaration of Independence, that's fine, but the structure of the country wasn't established until the Constitution was ratified.

        Otherwise you might as well say that Italy was founded by Romulus and Remus.


        What about the Articles of Confederation?

        *meow*



        ArtCatDom -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 3:11:40 AM)


        quote:

        ORIGINAL: SirKenin

        Many people, including the dictionary, make the mistake of thinking that marriage is a contract.  Marriage is not a contract, it is a covenant.  There is a difference between the two.  A contract can be broken by only one party, a covenant must be broken by all involved.  In a church marriage, that includes God.  The State cannot rule whether anyone can speak on behalf of God.  Homosexuals, whether they want to or not, can not stand before God and demand marriage.  It just does not work.  I guess they can go through the motions, but that does not mean it is valid in God's eyes, and that is what matters.

        The State has no right to impose upon the Church to marry homosexuals.  They have no jurisdiction, thanks to Jefferson.  They have tried to sink their teeth into it because it is a cash cow for them, but as far as I am concerned they can butt out.

        A legal union, on the other hand, is a contract that either can break.  Let the State dictate it.  It is their institution, they have the right to do with it what they want.  If the homosexuals want to marry, let them have a union.  Suits Me just fine.  After all, I believe in common-law marriages.  I am not a big proponent of Church marriages.


        Isn't this a two-way street? If the State can not be permitted to impose homosexual marriage upon the Church, what right can the State call upon to prohibit homosexual marriage from the Church?

        My church marries homosexuals. A large number of other churches also marry gays. If the State is as compelled to remain out of the affairs of Church as you claim, how can they refuse to recognize those religious rites which formed a marriage between same-sex partners?





        Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

        Valid CSS!




        Collarchat.com © 2025
        Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
        0.03125