Know homo, brah

[devidee]

U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage nationwide

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-...ide/ar-AAcaBM5

[DRK Star]

[4Dragons]

[Krypt]

[Suicide King]

NSFW

 

[4Dragons]

[SrslySirius]

[Sloppy Joe]

Congratulations, Garrett!

[DJ_Chaps]

Scott Matusow
2 hrs · Henderson, NV, United States ·

Supreme Court once again legislates from the bench - allows Gay Marriage, ignoring the constitution that commands that the state should not dictate to the church and vice a verse. marriage has always been defined by the church, which in essence belongs to them. a law cannot be made to interfere with something that belongs to the church. Get ready, destruction is coming
Like Comment Share

[SrslySirius]

ignoring the constitution that commands that the state should not dictate to the church and vice a verse. marriage has always been defined by the church, which in essence belongs to them. a law cannot be made to interfere with something that belongs to the church. Get ready, destruction is coming
Like Comment Share

I've never understood this reasoning. If there's any validity to it, can someone explain it to me?

A few things I don't get:

1. Doesn't the concept of marriage predate all the Abrahamic religions?

2. If marriage does belong to the church, which one does it belong to? What about religions that permit same sex marriage?

3. If it belongs to Christianity, why would it be the government's place to enforce their definition of it? Wouldn't that be a more direct violation of the 1st amendment?

I could go on, but that's a start.

[Crowe Diddly]

Why can't we just be happy with the way marriage used to be, like the bible says, just like Solomon, Abraham, JAcob, and David and their traditional marriages with many, many, many wives?

[bukowski72]

Taylor Swift is happy.

[4Dragons]

ignoring the constitution that commands that the state should not dictate to the church and vice a verse. marriage has always been defined by the church, which in essence belongs to them. a law cannot be made to interfere with something that belongs to the church. Get ready, destruction is coming
Like Comment Share

I've never understood this reasoning. If there's any validity to it, can someone explain it to me?

A few things I don't get:

1. Doesn't the concept of marriage predate all the Abrahamic religions?

2. If marriage does belong to the church, which one does it belong to? What about religions that permit same sex marriage?

3. If it belongs to Christianity, why would it be the government's place to enforce their definition of it? Wouldn't that be a more direct violation of the 1st amendment?

I could go on, but that's a start.

The only thing that bothers me is that Marriage is a religious rite and with our 'separation of Church and State', our State has no business defining marriage in any way, shape or form. Nor should it license it, nor should it recognize it, nor should it give out or deny benefits because of it.

[SrslySirius]

The only thing that bothers me is that Marriage is a religious rite and with our 'separation of Church and State', our State has no business defining marriage in any way, shape or form. Nor should it license it, nor should it recognize it, nor should it give out or deny benefits because of it.

Sounds reasonable to me. But if the government stopped recognizing marriages and moved all those benefits over to civil unions (or whatever), I somehow doubt that would satisfy the fundies.

[Crowe Diddly]

The only thing that bothers me is that Marriage is a religious rite and with our 'separation of Church and State', our State has no business defining marriage in any way, shape or form. Nor should it license it, nor should it recognize it, nor should it give out or deny benefits because of it.

Marriage is, and always has been, a legal coupling as much as a religious coupling. Lets not ignore obvious facts, pls.

[DJ_Chaps]

153 comments on that Scott Matusow post, for the morbidly curious folks on FB.

[4Dragons]

The only thing that bothers me is that Marriage is a religious rite and with our 'separation of Church and State', our State has no business defining marriage in any way, shape or form. Nor should it license it, nor should it recognize it, nor should it give out or deny benefits because of it.

Marriage is, and always has been, a legal coupling as much as a religious coupling. Lets not ignore obvious facts, pls.

You live in the United States of America, a place that only existed as a figment of someone's imagination up until a couple of hundred years ago and was created in a way that no other Country on Earth had ever been. By your logic, because of history, we would most certainly have slavery because up until our Bill of Rights, slaves were ALWAYS part of history. Our laws aren't like European laws. We took the Magna Carta and put a turbo charger on it. Nothing is what it was when it comes to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Everything thereafter changed. France even killed off it's Royals because of the ideas that we set forth upon the world. Nobody had ever set up a meritocracy before. The State is the State, the Church is the Church. Crystal clear black and white line.

[DJ_Chaps]

Whoa, grats Weiss.

[ToasterOven]

Is that John Wayne kissing Steve McQueen?

[Crowe Diddly]

Marriage is, and always has been, a legal coupling as much as a religious coupling. Lets not ignore obvious facts, pls.

You live in the United States of America, a place that only existed as a figment of someone's imagination up until a couple of hundred years ago and was created in a way that no other Country on Earth had ever been. By your logic, because of history, we would most certainly have slavery because up until our Bill of Rights, slaves were ALWAYS part of history. Our laws aren't like European laws. We took the Magna Carta and put a turbo charger on it. Nothing is what it was when it comes to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Everything thereafter changed. France even killed off it's Royals because of the ideas that we set forth upon the world. Nobody had ever set up a meritocracy before. The State is the State, the Church is the Church. Crystal clear black and white line.

Dude, I don't know wtf you are trying to say there, other than some weird sort of grandstand that has nothing to do with what I was trying to say at all. Marriage has been a legal institution in the US since always, before and after the constitution. Just like everywhere else, even with all the American exceptionalism you throw out there.


Here is what I was trying to say in a nutshell. You keep saying Marriage is A, not B. I'm saying it is and has always been both, here and everywhere else in the world and in history, though I'm sure exceptions exist somewhere. When you say marriage isn't a legal thing, you are just wrong. You can say it shouldn't be, but it is.

Hell, plenty of marriages have NO religious connotation.