Religious Liberty?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: CryHavoc

To my mind, the first thing to ensure is that people who are responsible for granting licenses for marriage, are not prohibitive in their religious beliefs. If an individual has beliefs which prevent them from dispensing their duties with total impartiality, then they should not be permitted to take the job, or occupy it for any longer than it takes to find a replacement. Government employees who currently occupy positions of power in these matters, and who hold prohibitive religious beliefs, should be re-tasked in roles where their religious beliefs are unlikely to ever be touched upon, by affairs with which they deal.

That is not to say that persons who hold religious beliefs in general may not take these jobs.

I agree with Truebit's thought on this matter.

A person has the right to worship and believe the way they want. But if it is going to interfere with their work, they shouldn't take the job to begin with.

If they have a current job that may change at some point that would bother their conscience in any way, they should quit the job, if not allowed to avoid whatever it is that offends that conscience.

I'll give you an example. I have family that are Jehovah's Witnesses. I knew a couple that used to be clerks at Safeway. While they don't believe in smoking, viewing it as morally wrong as it defiles the body, if a person bought a pack of ciggerates, they were just doing their job, they didn't mind selling them. BUT if one owned a store you would not find ciggerates available for sale.

They also don't believe in killing, viewing it as a very serious offense. Thus you will not find any JWs in the police force, in the USA because police carry guns as a policy. They DON'T join the force and then try to enforce their views on others. They simply avoid it. Also they believe that lying and dishonesty is wrong, thus in most other countries as well you will not find a JW police officer because of the corruption that is the very core of most police forces world-wide.

Well those are a couple of examples, I thought of off hand.

Look, if your religious views consider something as offensive, then don't take the job to begin with. And again, if the job requirements change to offend your religious views at a later date, then leave the job, don't force your views on other people.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Yes. Certainly. The thing about man + woman marriage is that there's this thing called "pregnancy".

And if they can't get pregnant? What if a man is impotent? Seedless? Worse still what if they don't have penis?

You do realize that some such people adopt children? Including gay couples?

a reply to: AMPTAH

But why do you only mention a Same-Sex couple scenario. heterosexual couples wouldn't do the same? or haven't done the same, or don't do the same now?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: AMPTAH

Yes. Certainly. The thing about man + woman marriage is that there's this thing called "pregnancy".

And if they can't get pregnant? What if a man is impotent? Seedless? Worse still what if they don't have penis?

You do realize that some such people adopt children? Including gay couples?

But, the situations you mention are "exceptional" cases. A few people might have these issues. Each special case may be dealt with differently, requiring medical reports, adoption papers, etc..But, the gay marriage situation is much more general, and covers a wide range of situations. The world has 50% men and 50% women, only small fraction of the exceptional cases. The vast majority of marriages will be healthy functional men and women. These people have no special exceptional condition, just lots of ambiguity in the definition of marriage to play the game anyway they want.

Gee. A Muslim extremist could bring another Muslim extremist into the US by simply marring the guy. No sex required. The door is now wide open. There's a new reality for "the brotherhood". Gay marriage is a game changer. Do you know how difficult it would be for a Muslim man to find a Muslim girl to marry for a sham? Strict rules apply in their culture, girl must be virgin, etc,...but man marry man, without sex required, that's an easy passage for terrorists. No need to climb over the Mexican wall. Walk straight in as the spouse of the man on the inside. If gay marriage required sex, then that would block the Muslim, who wouldn't want to be seen to be gay. But, sexless marriages, once that word gets out, the flood begins.

a reply to: AMPTAH

You love to evade our questions and answers.

Well it seems that you are stuck with your beliefs. So I don't see any reason for me to discuss this with you further. Perhaps others will continue.

Regards.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: AMPTAH

You love to evade our questions and answers.

Well it seems that you are stuck with your beliefs. So I don't see any reason for me to discuss this with you further. Perhaps others will continue.

Regards.

I don't know what beliefs I'm supposed to be stuck with. I haven't said what my beliefs are. I've pointed out all sorts of problems with the concept of an ill defined "gay marriage", and for some reason you think all my comments are about beliefs. But, they are about civil law. Marriage no longer has any clear definition in civil context. There hasn't been any serious rational thought about the changes to marriage that is taking place. It's all emotional.

a reply to: AMPTAH

There are no changes though, Marriage is Marriage, people are confusing Religious Ceremonies with Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage has always existed, and it has been Legal since the 14th Amendment has been created. the
Religious Ceremony is only part of Marriage if the Couples want it to be, not everyone is the same Religion so "Religion" has no rule over everyone, and people can't use that as an excuse to discriminate. they tried that with Interracial Couples, and Same-Sex couples, but Religion is a Personal Belief and has no jurisdiction to rule over other People

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: AMPTAH

There are no changes though, Marriage is Marriage, people are confusing Religious Ceremonies with Marriage,

We're not talking about religious marriage. But, about how do you verify the marriage is a marriage? Say you are an immigration officer. Your job is to determine whether the two men sitting before you, claiming to be married, are actually in a genuine marriage, and not just a marriage of convenience, to get one man into the US. How do you test them, to determine if the marriage is genuine?

Ah yes, Religious Freedom.

Here is a great example of how the Radical Christian Establishment support "Religious Freedom".



That's right. Convert all incoming over to Christianity and make them give up their own Religion. In other words, you have the Freedom to be Christian or get out. How's that for Religious Freedom folks.

a reply to: AMPTAH

We're not talking about religious marriage. But, about how do you verify the marriage is a marriage? Say you are an immigration officer. Your job is to determine whether the two men sitting before you, claiming to be married, are actually in a genuine marriage, and not just a marriage of convenience, to get one man into the US. How do you test them, to determine if the marriage is genuine?

Are you serious? Seriously this is becoming borderline trolling. Anybody can defraud the system, not just the gay people. I guess you are fine with a Consummation Patrol watching you do the "consummating".

originally posted by: AMPTAH

We're not talking about religious marriage. But, about how do you verify the marriage is a marriage? Say you are an immigration officer. Your job is to determine whether the two men sitting before you, claiming to be married, are actually in a genuine marriage, and not just a marriage of convenience, to get one man into the US. How do you test them, to determine if the marriage is genuine?

Simple. I would test them like any other couples who claim that they are married.

How would you test them?

originally posted by: AMPTAH
But, how can you have any opinion about gay marriage if you know nothing about it?

I don't have an opinion about "gay marriage". I have an opinion, AND a firm commitment to, FREEDOM and EQUALITY under the law.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Can two male platonic college roommates simply go down to the county clerk's office and get a marriage license that enables them to then get tax breaks?

Same can happen with 2 people of opposite gender. ALL of your scenarios can happen regardless of gender of participants.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
The thing about man + woman marriage is that there's this thing called "pregnancy".

Children are not required in marriage.

Having a child is a long term commitment. And if a couple has a kid together, that is a strong signal that the marriage is genuine, and not a sham.

But lack of children does not mean a marriage is a sham. I have no children after 23 years. Not everyone can have children...

What then is marriage?

Anything we wish it to be.

Yes. Exactly. YOU define your marriage and I define mine.

There is no test to verify a genuine marriage, because anything goes.

What you see as a "genuine marriage", does not apply to everyone. I am nearly 100% certain that you wouldn't define my marriage as "genuine". But it doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect you or your marriage in any way. So, you don't need to bother yourself with it. Just live your life how YOU see fit and others will do the same. I don't understand the danger.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
But, the situations you mention are "exceptional" cases.

Like this?

A Muslim extremist could bring another Muslim extremist into the US by simply marring the guy.

That could happen with an opposite-sex couple, too. There's no greater chance that will happen based on the gender of the people involved.

If gay marriage required sex, then that would block the Muslim, who wouldn't want to be seen to be gay. But, sexless marriages, once that word gets out, the flood begins.

To use your words, The situations you mention are "exceptional" cases.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
I've pointed out all sorts of problems with the concept of an ill defined "gay marriage",

And none of them are specific to same-sea marriage. They could all happen with straight couples. You have made NO point. I'm still waiting for that.

Marriage no longer has any clear definition in civil context. There hasn't been any serious rational thought about the changes to marriage that is taking place. It's all emotional.

Marriage has a definition in civil context. There haven't been ANY changes to the institution, it's just that more people can play now.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
How do you test them, to determine if the marriage is genuine?

Ask to see their certificate?

Have you always been this interested in other people's sex lives?

I've read somewhere that way back, when some people started claiming that people should be able to choose who they were marrying based on who they loved, there was similar kinds of warnings, it was such a horrible idea!! It would cause the death of society, blah, blah. heck, women were once criticized for being too affectionate toward their husbands!!!

we've come a long way from the original defination of what a marriage was defined as being....where love really had nothing to do with the arrangement. and well, most people wouldn't want to make today's marriages so traditionally pure I don't think! Especially women!

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

Are you serious? Seriously this is becoming borderline trolling. Anybody can defraud the system, not just the gay people. I guess you are fine with a Consummation Patrol watching you do the "consummating".

Yes. Anyone can defraud the system. But, what makes it difficult to defraud, is the social norms, morals, ethics, and religious beliefs of the people. When people have no religious beliefs, no morals, no ethics, and no norms of any kind, then defrauding becomes "routine".

For example, when the society demands a girl be a virgin before marriage, it becomes difficult for a girl to participate in a sham marriage, because when she wants to get married for real this time, she will then have on her record that she already had a husband. So, no one would believe that she is still a virgin. When the society no longer cares about virginity, then that increases the possibility of sham marriages. Still, if the social norms look on the first marriage as special, the girl will still want her first husband to be special. So, again these "thoughts" act to restrain the willingness to engage in "shams".

When the population has no morals, no ethics, are willing to exchange partners freely, practice having as many partners as they want, etc...then the marriage is not special, it's just a piece of paper that brings some "benefits", and part of the benefits is the "profit" obtained by selling that asset to others who need it. Then there are no restraining "thoughts" that would prevent people from engaging in shams.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
But, what makes it difficult to defraud, is the social norms, morals, ethics, and religious beliefs of the people. When people have no religious beliefs, no morals, no ethics, and no norms of any kind, then defrauding becomes "routine".

Gay people have morals, ethics, and religious beliefs. They are no more likely to defraud the system than anyone else. This shows your prejudice and bigotry towards them.

originally posted by: night912


Simple. I would test them like any other couples who claim that they are married.

How would you test them?

I don't know how to test them, because I don't know what gay marriage is. There is no definition anywhere to be found. There's no standard that can be used to create a set of test questions, to see if the two men are following the standard. There is no "tradition" that can be used to determine standards. And when I ask on ATS, the response is "Why do you care?" It seems to me the gays and lesbians don't want any standard, all they want is the "certificate" that gets them "the benefits". They don't want any standards that might then be used to deny them that married license. They want to be "free", all rights and no obligations. But, in doing so, they have destroyed the concept of marriage. It no longer means anything, but a piece of paper from a county clerk. So, anybody can be married, even two "monks" that abstain from sex. This has a tremendous impact on the society that I live in.

It used to be that foreigners had to wait a long time to immigrate here. But, getting married always pushed them up the waiting list, to the front of the line. Getting married was difficult, however, because a man had to find a woman, or visa versa, there was sex involved, children, all sorts of "barriers" that made it hard. Today, there are no barriers at all. So, no longer do you need an advanced education and mastery of skills to get into the country, you jump ahead of all those idiots, simply by getting another man to agree to a sham marriage for a reasonable fee. In a capitalist society, profit is king. Every asset and/or right a person has is "trade-able", and he or she is entitled to sell and profit from his good fortune.