Post Reply
Page 9 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Gayest city in America
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2012 - 4:00PM #81
Do_unto_others
Posts: 9,020

Amen, mindis. You GET it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2012 - 4:07PM #82
Erey
Posts: 18,940

Jan 18, 2012 -- 2:45PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


Jan 18, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Erey wrote:


Jan 17, 2012 -- 3:31PM, mindis1 wrote:


Jan 17, 2012 -- 10:58AM, Erey wrote:


Now we hear you want to CHANGE how other people can get married. You want to alter how other people ENJOY getting married.   A big stupid mistake in my oppinion.  An aggressive, arrogant move



I agree. I don’t know of a single problem that has arisen as a result of clergy or ship captains being invested with the authority to officiate at wedding ceremonies. The wedding officiant only acts as a sort additional witness.




thank you





Erey, you miss the irony, I guess.


mindis points out that not "a single problem that has arisen as a result of clergy or ship captains being invested with the authority to officiate at wedding ceremonies", and yet you believe we "want to CHANGE how other people can get married. [We] want to alter how other people ENJOY getting married" - and there is no evidence of that happening. And then you "thank" mindis for pointing out that what you believe is happening is not. That's just wierd.




DUO, I don't think you know what you are saying you vaccilate significantly one post to the next.  I don't think you can understand what another poster is saying either.  You are sort of like a mindless attack dog. 


I am not going to waste time trying to figure you out. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2012 - 4:14PM #83
Do_unto_others
Posts: 9,020

I have never vacillated once. You fail to comprehend or accept that no one is forcing anyone to do anything. You keep saying that clergy are being forced to marry people against their tenets and it simply is not true. You insist that their privilege of peforrming only the marriages that they wish to in accordance to their faith tenets is being taken away/"changed" when it isn't. These are observables, provables.


If you can't figure that out, then that's your problem, not mine.


 


Buh-bye.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2012 - 4:22PM #84
Erey
Posts: 18,940

Jan 18, 2012 -- 4:14PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


I have never vacillated once. You fail to comprehend or accept that no one is forcing anyone to do anything. You keep saying that clergy are being forced to marry people against their tenets and it simply is not true. You insist that their privilege of peforrming only the marriages that they wish to in accordance to their faith tenets is being taken away/"changed" when it isn't. These are observables, provables.


If you can't figure that out, then that's your problem, not mine.


 


Buh-bye.





AGAIN!!!!!  AS I SAID BEFORE -   I NEVER CLAIMED (PROVE THAT I DID)  THAT CLERGY ARE FORCED TO MARRY PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR WILL or that people want clergy to be forced to do such a thing.


What I am against is this idea that clergy can no longer officiate legal weddings. 



Please stop lying, you are too old for that

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2012 - 7:37PM #85
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jan 18, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Erey wrote:


What I am against is this idea that clergy can no longer officiate legal weddings.



The clergy have forfeited that privilege by not making it abundantly clear that the religious portion of the ceremony has nothing to do with with making a marriage legal. The result is that millions of people today confuse a legal marriage (which is always a civil marriage) with a religiously sanctioned marriage and become distraught whenever it is proposed to legalize a type of marriage contrary to their religion.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2012 - 8:00PM #86
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Okay, dudes and dudettes


Enlighten me. A couple married in a religious ceremony as I have experienced all my life is not married according to civil law?


I did note that the State of Georgia did require that I produce a civil marriage license to marry obtained before the ceremony itself. Georgia wouldn't accept a Catholic marriage certificate. I just figured that was occasioned by evans who don't believe Christians of non-born-again faiths are not Christians. Georgia insisted I change my name on Social Security from my maiden name to my married name. I was married in a state and church sanctioned ceremony in New York State in 1961. Social Security had no problem withmy using my maiden name.


Is there some new law across fifty states about those who wish to marry in a religious ceremony with a cleric as chief witness?


 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2012 - 8:09PM #87
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jan 18, 2012 -- 8:00PM, jane2 wrote:


Okay, dudes and dudettes


Enlighten me. A couple married in a religious ceremony as I have experienced all my life is not married according to civil law?


 


Not unless the civil requirements (marriage license, etc.) are fulfilled, which they always are. It's fulfilling those that creates a legal marriage - the state doesn't care if you're married in the sight of God. From the state's point of view, the religious ceremony is just so much icing on the cake. Indeed, you could have the fanciest, most elaborate wedding ceremony on earth, with Jesus Christ himself officiating and angels singing in the choir, but unless the civil requirements were fulfilled, you would not be legally married.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2012 - 9:15PM #88
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Jan 18, 2012 -- 8:09PM, Ken wrote:


Jan 18, 2012 -- 8:00PM, jane2 wrote:


Okay, dudes and dudettes


Enlighten me. A couple married in a religious ceremony as I have experienced all my life is not married according to civil law?


 


Not unless the civil requirements (marriage license, etc.) are fulfilled, which they always are. It's fulfilling those that creates a legal marriage - the state doesn't care if you're married in the sight of God. From the state's point of view, the religious ceremony is just so much icing on the cake. Indeed, you could have the fanciest, most elaborate wedding ceremony on earth, with Jesus Christ himself officiating and angels singing in the choir, but unless the civil requirements were fulfilled, you would not be legally married.




Thanks, Ken. Pretty much what I've always thought.


Love your closing description....................




 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2012 - 9:43PM #89
Erey
Posts: 18,940

Jan 18, 2012 -- 7:37PM, Ken wrote:


Jan 18, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Erey wrote:


What I am against is this idea that clergy can no longer officiate legal weddings.



The clergy have forfeited that privilege by not making it abundantly clear that the religious portion of the ceremony has nothing to do with with making a marriage legal. The result is that millions of people today confuse a legal marriage (which is always a civil marriage) with a religiously sanctioned marriage and become distraught whenever it is proposed to legalize a type of marriage contrary to their religion.




I am sorry Ken, I don't see your point.  You are now declaring that clergy have forfeited the right to perform legal marriage ceremonies BECAUSE they did not underline and highlight that the religious part was not the legal part???????? 


Hello what must you think that people are unaware that they can choose a marriage by a JOP or by a ships captain (actually many people don't know about the captains)? 


This is clutching at straws, very odd.  I am becoming conviced through this and through other posts on this thread that the issue has nothing to do with gay marriage but is instead only about sticking it to the religious community, giving them the big middle finger. 


which is fine if you want to do that but it would be rather sad to somehow even loosely attach that compulsion to marriage equality. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2012 - 9:58PM #90
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jan 18, 2012 -- 9:43PM, Erey wrote:


Jan 18, 2012 -- 7:37PM, Ken wrote:


Jan 18, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Erey wrote:


What I am against is this idea that clergy can no longer officiate legal weddings.



The clergy have forfeited that privilege by not making it abundantly clear that the religious portion of the ceremony has nothing to do with with making a marriage legal. The result is that millions of people today confuse a legal marriage (which is always a civil marriage) with a religiously sanctioned marriage and become distraught whenever it is proposed to legalize a type of marriage contrary to their religion.




I am sorry Ken, I don't see your point.  You are now declaring that clergy have forfeited the right to perform legal marriage ceremonies BECAUSE they did not underline and highlight that the religious part was not the legal part????????


Yes.


Jan 18, 2012 -- 9:43PM, Erey wrote:

This is clutching at straws, very odd.  I am becoming conviced through this and through other posts on this thread that the issue has nothing to do with gay marriage but is instead only about sticking it to the religious community, giving them the big middle finger.



It's about sticking it to the religious community because they've been such consummate shits about gay marriage.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook