Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 03:39:17 PMWhich is why I have said, pretty sure my first post, that I want to get government out of marriage. That way everyone is happy.

No, you want Govt to walk all over the First Amendment, and in doing so, literally opens anyone marrying anything they want, as long as they can find a church to go along with it.
And yes, the left has one, the church of Satan!

Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2022, 08:19:54 PMNo, you want Govt to walk all over the First Amendment, and in doing so, literally opens anyone marrying anything they want, as long as they can find a church to go along with it.
And yes, the left has one, the church of Satan!

Solar, I know you love nature. Have you ever considered dumping Toy and marrying the mountains? Under Zens way you could

Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2022, 08:19:54 PMNo, you want Govt to walk all over the First Amendment, and in doing so, literally opens anyone marrying anything they want, as long as they can find a church to go along with it.
And yes, the left has one, the church of Satan!

Technically yes, but isn't this whole scenario about limiting marriage to one man and one woman?  No legitimate church would do that kind of marriage and it wouldn't be legally recognized in any state. It would be meaningless.

I could get ordained to do weddings, today, in about 30 minutes and marry my dog to his brother and there's absolutely nothing stopping me.

 

Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2022, 08:19:54 PMNo, you want Govt to walk all over the First Amendment, and in doing so, literally opens anyone marrying anything they want, as long as they can find a church to go along with it.
And yes, the left has one, the church of Satan!

I want to completely get government out of weddings, so churches can only do weddings that align with their beliefs. That's maximizing religious/1st Amendment rights.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 04:49:09 AMTechnically yes, but isn't this whole scenario about limiting marriage to one man and one woman?  No legitimate church would do that kind of marriage and it wouldn't be legally recognized in any state. It would be meaningless.

I could get ordained to do weddings, today, in about 30 minutes and marry my dog to his brother and there's absolutely nothing stopping me.

So in this post you prove the point that the bill of Rights was Right all along.
The only thing stopping these freaks is morality and the people.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 04:58:26 AMI want to completely get government out of weddings, so churches can only do weddings that align with their beliefs. That's maximizing religious/1st Amendment rights.

Yet in this post, you want the courts involved, so they can write law deconvolving the courts?

What Part Of Govt Being Forbidden In Even Entertaining The Idea Of Hearing A Case, DO YOU NOT GET?

Quote from: T Hunt on December 14, 2022, 10:51:30 PMSolar, I know you love nature. Have you ever considered dumping Toy and marrying the mountains? Under Zens way you could

Better yet, I'll marry all the animals in the forest and keep Toy as well.
We'll call it Zen's law...

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 04:58:26 AMI want to completely get government out of weddings, so churches can only do weddings that align with their beliefs. That's maximizing religious/1st Amendment rights.

Sorry, that horse has already left the barn. You have been arguing for a situation that is totally irrelevant to your feelings and to what you think. Here, read this,

QuoteStates cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions, the Supreme Court says in a ruling that for months has been the focus of speculation. The decision was 5-4.

Want to read that again?

QuoteStates cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions, the Supreme Court says in a ruling that for months has been the focus of speculation. The decision was 5-4.

You stated what your intent was in a couple of posts, and it had noting to do with allowing the church to set the definition of marriage, quite the opposite. So cut the crap and answer Solar's and THunt's question, where do you plan on a line being drawn.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages

Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2022, 05:36:09 AMBetter yet, I'll marry all the animals in the forest and keep Toy as well.
We'll call it Zen's law...

Thanks Sweetie! 

Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2022, 05:28:52 AMSo in this post you prove the point that the bill of Rights was Right all along.

I don't know which aspect of the bill of rights you're saying was right all along.

QuoteThe only thing stopping these freaks is morality and the people.

That's true in any society.  In some societies religion plays a larger role than in others as far as determining what's moral.  In the US, society has convinced themselves that a lot of things were ok at one point in time.  Society once believed that slavery was ok, women shouldn't vote, it was ok to marry and impregnate 13 year old girls, blacks shouldn't count as a whole person and specific sex acts should be outlawed. In Biblical times, it was once seen as ok to stone a woman to death or murder her for not being a virgin on her wedding night.  The evolution of morality has been dramatic.

QuoteYet in this post, you want the courts involved, so they can write law deconvolving the courts?

What Part Of Govt Being Forbidden In Even Entertaining The Idea Of Hearing A Case, DO YOU NOT GET?

Not sure what you're saying here.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 06:25:33 AMI don't know which aspect of the bill of rights you're saying was right all along.

ALL OF IT!!!

QuoteThat's true in any society.  In some societies religion plays a larger role than in others as far as determining what's moral.  In the US, society has convinced themselves that a lot of things were ok at one point in time.  Society once believed that slavery was ok, women shouldn't vote, it was ok to marry and impregnate 13 year old girls, blacks shouldn't count as a whole person and specific sex acts should be outlawed. In Biblical times, it was once seen as ok to stone a woman to death or murder her for not being a virgin on her wedding night.  The evolution of morality has been dramatic.Not sure what you're saying here.

All of which was covered in the Constitution, if you had ever bothered to read it.
Now answer my question:
Where do you draw the line on your slippery slope equation?
Once you defile the First, then anything goes, there will be no moral argument for law of any sort!

Murder will be up for discussion as well. but you don't care or even consider the repercussions, because you "FEEL" you are somehow taking the moral high ground.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 04:49:09 AMTechnically yes, but isn't this whole scenario about limiting marriage to one man and one woman?  No legitimate church would do that kind of marriage and it wouldn't be legally recognized in any state. It would be meaningless.

The church of Satan would. Satanism would do anything. But here in America thank God Satanism doesnt have equal rights to actual religion.

QuoteI could get ordained to do weddings, today, in about 30 minutes and marry my dog to his brother and there's absolutely nothing stopping me.

But no one cares cuz its not legal. The govt isnt forcing anyone to recognize such a marriage. But that would be bestiality. Why are you discriminating against bestiality?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 04:58:26 AMI want to completely get government out of weddings, so churches can only do weddings that align with their beliefs. That's maximizing religious/1st Amendment rights.

No, thats not allowed under the 1st Amendment because legally recognizing strait civil unions as equal with gay civil unions redefines marriage for christians. Unconstitutional. Biology matters.

Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2022, 09:05:47 AMALL OF IT!!!

All of which was covered in the Constitution, if you had ever bothered to read it.
Now answer my question:
Where do you draw the line on your slippery slope equation?
Once you defile the First, then anything goes, there will be no moral argument for law of any sort!

Murder will be up for discussion as well. but you don't care or even consider the repercussions, because you "FEEL" you are somehow taking the moral high ground.

I would draw the line where it's always been drawn - consent.  The obsession with genitals, when you're talking about basically a social contract, is odd.  If two women went into business together, the state sets certain parameters for how they operate and what happens if the business dissolves. There's nothing more to a legally recognized relationship in the eyes of the state and their shouldn't be.  It's transactional.  Only to the religious is there this deeper meaning and question of morality if you don't follow your god's rules for marriage.

Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2022, 05:36:09 AMBetter yet, I'll marry all the animals in the forest and keep Toy as well.
We'll call it Zen's law...

Does that include that scared

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 06:25:33 AMThat's true in any society.  In some societies religion plays a larger role than in others as far as determining what's moral.  In the US, society has convinced themselves that a lot of things were ok at one point in time.  Society once believed that slavery was ok,

Wrong. American society never thought slavery was ok. The founders were open about being against it from the beginning. You are spreading misinformation. The only ones who thought it was ok were the progressive democrats, and the GOP trounced them. 

Quoteit was ok to marry and impregnate 13 year old girls,

Medically it is ok, what are you talking about? Black 12 year olds routinely have sex and get pregnant in the inner cities. Guess you just dont want them to be married for security beforehand. How mean of you.

The only reason the age was raised is due to the lack of maturity among teenagers for a few generations.

Quoteblacks shouldn't count as a whole person

Again, that was just the democrats, not most of America.

Quoteand specific sex acts should be outlawed.

Specific sex acts are STILL not allowed. Bestiality comes to mind. So are cousins. Both of which you inexplicably discriminate against....

QuoteIn Biblical times, it was once seen as ok to stone a woman to death or murder her for not being a virgin on her wedding night.

Actually society still believes that adultery should be a death sentence. As recently as the 80s there were laws allowing a cheating husband to kill his wife and lover if found in bed together. Even afterwards husbands that do still only get like a year or two at most. So yes, society still agrees with the bible overall.

QuoteThe evolution of morality has been dramatic.

Actually there hasnt been any evolution in morality. As I just proved morality has been objective and the same since ancient biblical times. The bible always has the moral high ground.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 10:15:04 AMI would draw the line where it's always been drawn - consent.

Thats not the line. Adultery between consenting adults is still illegal. Even if minors consent they still arent allowed. Why are you discriminating against minors and adultery? 

QuoteThe obsession with genitals, when you're talking about basically a social contract, is odd.

We arent tho. We are talking about marriage and families. 

QuoteIf two women went into business together, the state sets certain parameters for how they operate and what happens if the business dissolves. There's nothing more to a legally recognized relationship in the eyes of the state and their shouldn't be.

Yes there is. You are forgetting about the FAMILY unit. Gays cannot form a family unit. You are not only redefining marriage for christians, you are also redefining the FAMILY unit.

If you allow gays and trans to get married or civil unions then you must also allow them to form families. And that is a dark dangerous hole to go down, according to history.

QuoteIt's transactional.

See, its actually sacred but you want to redefine it as transactional. 

QuoteOnly to the religious is there this deeper meaning and question of morality if you don't follow your god's rules for marriage.

So only to 99.999999999999999% of people.      ok