Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[annabenedetti]

It's a great lens.


If you like. It won't alter the truth of the experience. There are three elements, I think, to a great marriage. Serious consideration entering into the estate, God, and the ability to laugh at yourself when it costs you something.

You get two people who match out on that and it's going to go well, even when it doesn't.

Oh, I'm not questioning the truth of the experience. I would never do that. I really am very happy for you and wasn't looking to make the observation personal, it was meant to be generalized. I was looking at something different entirely, the way people perceive their situations, how they frame their expectations, some of the unconscious biases they have. But on second thought, it's off topic so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[moparguy]

Your point, I suppose, is that just as we should be concerned about child molestation, we should also be concerned about homosexual conduct. After all, sicko is sicko. Right?

You suppose wrongly.

As far as the obergefell mess, my point is it's illegal because unconstitutional. As far as law in general, any law that supposedly makes an evil "right in the eyes of the law" isn't a law.

 

[moparguy]

See, that's the thing that doesn't work. It's one thing to know a child has been molested (a crime has been committed, and you act on knowledge of that fact) and another entirely to make it my responsibility to think about what might be happening to a random child I don't know, can't identify, have no knowledge of, and no awareness that a crime has been committed.

You're missing the point here.

Prevention before the act requires knowing what signs to look for in order to make a Godly judgment on the topic.

Pedophiles are quite good at hiding their actions and making their victims not tell. It may be years until their victims speak out - if ever... when many clues and witnesses are hard to find, if they are even still around.

You're wanting to compare that sort of speculative thinking to my not wanting to know or consider any of my business what happens in a bedroom between two consenting adults who aren't committing any crime.

I am?

...

Where?

 

[chrysostom]

I know you have answered this before
and
I know it is not the topic of this thread
but
please take this opportunity to answer it again

what do you think the meaning or purpose of marriage is or should be?

thank you

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Full Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

It doesn't mention anything about having children. Perhaps it is because it has NEVER been the sole purpose of marriage.

I am not asking for a definition
and
I am not asking you

I am asking town

 

[Rusha]

I am not asking for a definition

Of course you aren't ... you wouldn't want to deal with the facts. The requirement for marriage has never been for a couple to be willing and able to have children. Why are you unwilling to admit this?

 

[chrysostom]

It's a great lens.


If you like. It won't alter the truth of the experience. There are three elements, I think, to a great marriage. Serious consideration entering into the estate, God, and the ability to laugh at yourself when it costs you something.

You get two people who match out on that and it's going to go well, even when it doesn't.

I know you have answered this before
and
I know it is not the topic of this thread
but
please take this opportunity to answer it again

what do you think the meaning or purpose of marriage is or should be?

thank you

 

[kmoney]

just ask the kids
if
they think mommy and daddy should stay together

In what way do you think marriage laws keep mommy and daddy together?

 

[chrysostom]

In what way do you think marriage laws keep mommy and daddy together?

it no longer does
it no longer has any meaning when it is just two guys living together
it was supposed to protect the mother who might stay home
it was supposed to provide financial incentives to stay together
it was supposed to be a commitment that would get you thru difficult times
it was supposed to protect the children who are really hurt when they don't stay together
today you don't need a father
today you just need a hand out
today it is just a means of approving two guys living together

 

[kmoney]

Man, do I hope for your sake you aren't married. lain: You think most people marry because they think they'll be less happy that way?

Of course I think people marry because they think they are/will be happy. My question was about the laws. The US could wipe out every marriage law and people would still form relationships. How many people get married because of the laws? I'd imagine none. People will couple up or not. And they will be happy or not. Any benefit through the law is just extra, not an underlying cause. So why does the state care about two guys staying together? They might prefer happy, productive citizens, but I don't think marriage laws have any significant impact one way or the other.

I think benefits related to children are slightly different. While I don't think anyone has children because of the benefits (meaning they wouldn't want a child at all, otherwise), some couples might think twice about having a child if the benefits weren't there, because of affordability. And in this area I think I would agree with you. If someone wants to say that marriage laws are about protecting the children then wouldn't that include adopted children as well? And if homosexuals can adopt then on what basis would they be denied a marriage license? Presumably religious reasons. Unless there is some persuasive social science study that says gay parents are bad.

Well, he's a Chiefs' fan so there's reason to wonder if he can distinguish between pleasure and pain.

:IA:

 

[kmoney]

it no longer does
it no longer has any meaning when it is just two guys living together
it was supposed to protect the mother who might stay home
it was supposed to provide financial incentives to stay together
it was supposed to be a commitment that would get you thru difficult times
it was supposed to protect the children who are really hurt when they don't stay together
today you don't need a father
today you just need a hand out
today it is just a means of approving two guys living together

What protections for stay-at-home mothers are gone?
What financial incentives are gone?
What protections for children are gone?

 

[chrysostom]

What protections for stay-at-home mothers are gone?
What financial incentives are gone?
What protections for children are gone?

the meaning and purpose of protecting the children is gone

 

[annabenedetti]

the meaning and purpose of protecting the children is gone

Why do you think homosexual marriage has any bearing on heterosexual marriage? How does it affect the marriage of anyone you know in your circle of family and friends?

 

[Town Heretic]

Of course I think people marry because they think they are/will be happy. My question was about the laws. The US could wipe out every marriage law and people would still form relationships. How many people get married because of the laws? I'd imagine none.

When the state creates a legally binding commitment it speaks to something, a hope, desire, intention that is expressed in the most powerful terms of the compact, as an expression of right binding right. That has gravitas and we respond to it as human beings.

People will couple up or not. And they will be happy or not.

Sure, but happiness is comprised of any number of things. Why do we have and celebrate anniversaries? Why do we exchange rings? We like symbols. They mean things to us. And their use underscores and even contributes to our happiness. When you're legally bound you're as publicly tied to another human being as the compact can make you. You've added a powerful symbol and public recognition to your personal commitment.

Any benefit through the law is just extra, not an underlying cause.

I think you're a little wrong there, supra. Beyond that, I know that being married feels different, is different than dating or simply being in a relationship that you can walk away from without much more than a contrary intent.

So why does the state care about two guys staying together?

That's the wrong question the moment you qualify it. Had you asked why it should care about two people I'd say I've answered a little of that. Happier people are better citizens and stable relationships contribute to our happiness, as do the symbols and trappings of them that are meaningful to us.

I think benefits related to children are slightly different...And in this area I think I would agree with you. If someone wants to say that marriage laws are about protecting the children then wouldn't that include adopted children as well? And if homosexuals can adopt then on what basis would they be denied a marriage license? Presumably religious reasons. Unless there is some persuasive social science study that says gay parents are bad.

So you're half way reasonable today, my unmarried friend.

:IA:

Get ready for more of one of those this weekend. :rip:

 

[Town Heretic]

In what way do you think marriage laws keep mommy and daddy together?

it no longer does

Then it never really did.

If your neighbor has to be an honorable man for you to maintain your honor then all you possessed of honor to begin with was the form.

Or, if all your friends get divorced does that mean you have to?

With special thanks to moms everywhere for that last bit.

 

[Rusha]

In what way do you think marriage laws keep mommy and daddy together?

it no longer does

It hasn't for a very long time ...

it no longer has any meaning when it is just two guys living together

For you, of course not. That is because you couldn't care less about anyone finding contentment in marriage UNLESS you approve of the participants.

 

[chrysostom]

Why do you think homosexual marriage has any bearing on heterosexual marriage? How does it affect the marriage of anyone you know in your circle of family and friends?

the meaning and purpose of protecting the children is gone

 

[Rusha]

the meaning and purpose of protecting the children is gone

Only in your mind. Children were never an absolute equation in every marriage.

Also, heterosexuals WITH children are not mandated to stay married.

 

[chrysostom]

the meaning and purpose of protecting the children is gone

this is not accepted by

town
kmo
rusha
anna

they all support same sex marriage

 

[Rusha]

this is not accepted by

town
kmo
rusha
anna

they all support same sex marriage

Does your nose grow when you make such intentionally, dishonest statements?

The *protecting the children* is just a smoke screen that you hide behind as a way to justify your hatred of gays and dismissal of women.

 

[chrysostom]

I want to protect the child

town
kmo
rusha
anna

want to protect two guys living together