shape
carat
color
clarity

Opposition to same sex marriage ruling

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
liaerfbv|1435773946|3897457 said:
I believe in freedom of state to operate without church interference. If I'm a bigot because I do not tolerant interference in my life based on someone else's religion, well I guess I'm guilty.

In the same way... in all fairness, same goes for others' "lack of religious beliefs"...

Edited for grammatical error...
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
4,223
diamondseeker2006|1435774192|3897461 said:
liaerfbv|1435773946|3897457 said:
I believe in freedom of state to operate without church interference. If I'm a bigot because I do not tolerant interference in my life based on someone else's religion, well I guess I'm guilty.

I am afraid I do not get your point. The church does not control anything related to the state. People with varying viewpoints have the right to express them when voting.
This sounds very naïve. Surely you don't believe that religious views have NO relation to politics? Laws?

Off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 laws that are only laws because of religion. And I'm not even from your country :lol:
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
telephone89|1435774616|3897469 said:
diamondseeker2006|1435774192|3897461 said:
liaerfbv|1435773946|3897457 said:
I believe in freedom of state to operate without church interference. If I'm a bigot because I do not tolerant interference in my life based on someone else's religion, well I guess I'm guilty.

I am afraid I do not get your point. The church does not control anything related to the state. People with varying viewpoints have the right to express them when voting.
This sounds very naïve. Surely you don't believe that religious views have NO relation to politics? Laws?

Off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 laws that are only laws because of religion. And I'm not even from your country :lol:

I think what DS means (and please correct me, if I'm wrong, DS) is that the churches do not have any direct control. The control is in the hands of our elected officials -- and whatever agendas they may have. Laws may have been made, but none directly by the church. Those who elected the "law-makers" at the time obviously had an impact (they voted), but no churches actually made any of those laws. :))
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
telephone89|1435774616|3897469 said:
diamondseeker2006|1435774192|3897461 said:
liaerfbv|1435773946|3897457 said:
I believe in freedom of state to operate without church interference. If I'm a bigot because I do not tolerant interference in my life based on someone else's religion, well I guess I'm guilty.

I am afraid I do not get your point. The church does not control anything related to the state. People with varying viewpoints have the right to express them when voting.
This sounds very naïve. Surely you don't believe that religious views have NO relation to politics? Laws?

Off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 laws that are only laws because of religion. And I'm not even from your country :lol:

We live in a democracy and usually the people are able to vote on laws. People have different viewpoints based on MANY things and vote for what they think is best. That goes for non-religious and religious people. The church does NOT get a vote! The PEOPLE have the right to vote for whatever they believe in. The majority wins and sometimes I am glad and sometimes I am disappointed, but I still believe in the right of the people and their representatives to make the laws as long as we are faithful to the Constitution of the US.
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
4,223
msop04|1435774988|3897475 said:
telephone89|1435774616|3897469 said:
diamondseeker2006|1435774192|3897461 said:
liaerfbv|1435773946|3897457 said:
I believe in freedom of state to operate without church interference. If I'm a bigot because I do not tolerant interference in my life based on someone else's religion, well I guess I'm guilty.

I am afraid I do not get your point. The church does not control anything related to the state. People with varying viewpoints have the right to express them when voting.
This sounds very naïve. Surely you don't believe that religious views have NO relation to politics? Laws?

Off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 laws that are only laws because of religion. And I'm not even from your country :lol:

I think what DS means (and please correct me, if I'm wrong, DS) is that the churches do not have any direct control. The control is in the hands of our elected officials -- and whatever agendas they may have. Laws may have been made, but none directly by the church. Those who elected the "law-makers" at the time obviously had an impact (they voted), but no churches actually made any of those laws. :))
Its easy to say that the CHURCH made no laws. The church is, well, a church. Like saying McDonalds has never made any laws. Technically, sure, McDonalds the entity has made no laws. However that's kind of skirting the issue that the church, aka the religion they preach, aka the people who believe this religon, have made laws. Laws that have no other legal basis except for religion, aka the church.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
msop04|1435774988|3897475 said:
telephone89|1435774616|3897469 said:
diamondseeker2006|1435774192|3897461 said:
liaerfbv|1435773946|3897457 said:
I believe in freedom of state to operate without church interference. If I'm a bigot because I do not tolerant interference in my life based on someone else's religion, well I guess I'm guilty.

I am afraid I do not get your point. The church does not control anything related to the state. People with varying viewpoints have the right to express them when voting.
This sounds very naïve. Surely you don't believe that religious views have NO relation to politics? Laws?

Off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 laws that are only laws because of religion. And I'm not even from your country :lol:

I think what DS means (and please correct me, if I'm wrong, DS) is that the churches do not have any direct control. The control is in the hands of our elected officials -- and whatever agendas they may have. Laws may have been made, but none directly by the church. Those who elected the "law-makers" at the time obviously had an impact (they voted), but no churches actually made any of those laws. :))

Yes, thanks, I was working on a reply and didn't see your post until I posted!
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
4,223
I will concede that the church doesnt actually MAKE laws.

But it does influence. So I still stand by my statement, that saying the church has NO control is untrue.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
telephone89|1435775231|3897481 said:
Its easy to say that the CHURCH made no laws. The church is, well, a church. Like saying McDonalds has never made any laws. Technically, sure, McDonalds the entity has made no laws. However that's kind of skirting the issue that the church, aka the religion they preach, aka the people who believe this religon, have made laws. Laws that have no other legal basis except for religion, aka the church.

So in effect, you are saying that no ones beliefs are valid but your own.

Edited for your last post...

Everyone has influences on which they base their decisions. The church may be an influence on some, and secular humanism may be the influence for others, and coming from other cultures may influence others, etc., etc.
 

smitcompton

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
3,254
Hi All,


Since the discussion has turned to "the pharmacist", I would like to put in my views. My pharmacist is the best part of the health care system. If he has a question about my meds, he calls me first, and then my Dr.. I can call him any time and ask him questions about my drugs. One a yr he calls me to go over my meds with me and make sure i am taking them properly.

He has made a mistake once, and it turned out this was really a better alternative. so I'm not sure it was an error. I got my Dr. to change the medication to what the pharmacist said.

I've used the same pharmacist for 25 yrs, and when I tell my Drs what this guy does, they are amazed. And I have used the heavy narcotics as well , where he needs a special script.

You will have opposition to the new ruling for a good number of years, just like the civil rights movement for black americans, women rights and one of the more simple ones as in acceptance of women who have a child without benefit of marriage. It will take time.

Annette
 

liaerfbv

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
1,348
diamondseeker2006|1435775447|3897488 said:
telephone89|1435775231|3897481 said:
Its easy to say that the CHURCH made no laws. The church is, well, a church. Like saying McDonalds has never made any laws. Technically, sure, McDonalds the entity has made no laws. However that's kind of skirting the issue that the church, aka the religion they preach, aka the people who believe this religon, have made laws. Laws that have no other legal basis except for religion, aka the church.

So in effect, you are saying that no ones beliefs are valid but your own.

If your religious beliefs threaten to restrict my civil liberties, yes.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,224
diamondseeker2006|1435775447|3897488 said:
So in effect, you are saying that no ones beliefs are valid but your own.

It's not about my beliefs are valid and yours aren't.
It's about doing harm.

Beliefs that results in voting to deny rights to others does harm so such beliefs are wrong and must/will eventually be dropped.

I'm not stupid, this will not happen 100% or even happen in our generation.
Slavery was abolished long ago but thinking of blacks as inferior lives on today.

Marriage equality harms nobody.
Denying it does.
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
smitcompton|1435775687|3897492 said:
Hi All,


Since the discussion has turned to "the pharmacist", I would like to put in my views. My pharmacist is the best part of the health care system. If he has a question about my meds, he calls me first, and then my Dr.. I can call him any time and ask him questions about my drugs. One a yr he calls me to go over my meds with me and make sure i am taking them properly.

He has made a mistake once, and it turned out this was really a better alternative. so I'm not sure it was an error. I got my Dr. to change the medication to what the pharmacist said.

I've used the same pharmacist for 25 yrs, and when I tell my Drs what this guy does, they are amazed. And I have used the heavy narcotics as well , where he needs a special script.

You will have opposition to the new ruling for a good number of years, just like the civil rights movement for black americans, women rights and one of the more simple ones as in acceptance of women who have a child without benefit of marriage. It will take time.

Annette

Sounds like you've got a good pharmacist! Thanks for posting, Annette. :))
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
8,995
diamondseeker2006|1435774192|3897461 said:
The church does not control anything related to the state. People with varying viewpoints have the right to express them when voting.

Church and religion tend to become one entity in these types of conversations. Dogma has made its way into government. The president is sworn in with a bible. We have a plethora of powerful white christian men in the highest seats of government whose religious beliefs lead them to support legislation that denies human rights. Presidential candidates who are not christian are where exactly? How many times have we heard from government leaders that we are a christian nation -- which violates the Constitution and is opposite the intent of the founding fathers. Here is an excerpt from an attorney who expressed her views yesterday on FB. She says it more eloquently than I could hope to:

"Rights are not and should not be up for a popular vote or up to the states to determine. Rights are absolute and cannot be dependent upon anything other than the fact that the person is a human being and is a citizen of the US. If those two conditions are met, YOUR belief system about what is MORALLY or spiritually right or wrong does not matter and should not. You should be glad that is the case, because it would be just as easy for another religion to take over and curtail your rights as a Christian (something that has happened throughout history).

In fact, one religious party believing they know the truth for all humans is how terrible oppression starts - that is how Naziism started, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Klu Klux Klan, Al-Qaeda and now ISIS - the most destructive, hateful, murderous periods of human history have arisen directly out of one religious group (ironically, most of these examples were lead by Christians) believing their religion and religious beliefs were THE truth, and therefore they had the right to take away the rights (and lives) of those who lived or believed differently than them."
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
liaerfbv|1435775963|3897500 said:
diamondseeker2006|1435775447|3897488 said:
telephone89|1435775231|3897481 said:
Its easy to say that the CHURCH made no laws. The church is, well, a church. Like saying McDonalds has never made any laws. Technically, sure, McDonalds the entity has made no laws. However that's kind of skirting the issue that the church, aka the religion they preach, aka the people who believe this religon, have made laws. Laws that have no other legal basis except for religion, aka the church.

So in effect, you are saying that no ones beliefs are valid but your own.

If your religious beliefs threaten to restrict my civil liberties, yes.

This discussion is pointless unless you can give an example of how someone's religious beliefs are restricting your civil liberties.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,224
diamondseeker2006|1435776120|3897506 said:
This discussion is pointless unless you can give an example of how someone's religious beliefs are restricting your civil liberties.



Uhm, Hello!:
Anyone home?

Elephant in the room ... gay marriage bans.

screen_shot_2015-07-01_at_11.png
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
kenny|1435776012|3897502 said:
diamondseeker2006|1435775447|3897488 said:
So in effect, you are saying that no ones beliefs are valid but your own.

It's not about my beliefs are valid and yours aren't.
It's about doing harm.

Beliefs that results in voting to deny rights to others does harm so such beliefs are wrong and must/will eventually be dropped.

I'm not stupid, this will not happen 100% or even happen in our generation.
Slavery was abolished long ago but thinking of blacks as inferior lives on today.

Marriage equality harms nobody.
Denying it does.

Actually, DS makes a good point, Kenny. Does marriage inequality do actual harm?? Not really. Is it right? Not to me. I'm glad this law passed. It doesn't affect me whatsoever, and I believe everyone should be able to legally marry the person they want, regardless of sexual preference.

What if a person is in love with an animal (or a car or whatever you can think of) and wants to marry it and use it as a tax deduction? They may think it's harmful to them that they aren't able to legally do so. Well, that's beastiality, you say, "just plain weird" or even cruel and devious, and not at all like what we're discussing. It's not what the majority believe as traditional or even "normal", but to that person, it's very real. It may seem crazy to bring up something like that, but it's the same principle. :|
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
telephone89|1435775413|3897485 said:
I will concede that the church doesnt actually MAKE laws.

But it does influence. So I still stand by my statement, that saying the church has NO control is untrue.

Influence, yes. Control, no.

(by DS) Everyone has influences on which they base their decisions. The church may be an influence on some, and secular humanism may be the influence for others, and coming from other cultures may influence others, etc., etc.

Everything has influence... we're people. We the people are the voters and we the people elect the law-makers. The most popular beliefs and influences typically win out -- that is not to say that these cannot or will not change as our society changes.
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
4,223
msop04|1435776593|3897508 said:
Actually, DS makes a good point, Kenny. Does marriage inequality do actual harm?? Not really. Is it right? Not to me. I'm glad this law passed. It doesn't affect me whatsoever, and I believe everyone should be able to legally marry the person they want, regardless of sexual preference.

What if a person is in love with an animal (or a car or whatever you can think of) and wants to marry it and use it as a tax deduction? They may think it's harmful to them that they aren't able to legally do so. Well, that's beastiality, you say, "just plain weird" or even cruel and devious, and not at all like what we're discussing. It's not what the majority believe as traditional or even "normal", but to that person, it's very real. It may seem crazy to bring up something like that, but it's the same principle. :|
Omfg, this comes up every time gay marriage is brought up, its a bit insane.

This is not the same principle. Two adults can consent. A child, a dog, a toaster, whatever - CANNOT CONSENT. Just as one adult cannot be forced to marry another adult (regardless of sex), because there is no CONSENT.

jfc, I dont understand why people think that now that gay marriage is legal there is going to be beastiality and pedophilia running rampant (religious comments not inserted so this thread doesnt get taken down).
 

liaerfbv

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
1,348
kenny|1435776186|3897507 said:
diamondseeker2006|1435776120|3897506 said:
liaerfbv|1435775963|3897500 said:
diamondseeker2006|1435775447|3897488 said:
telephone89|1435775231|3897481 said:
Its easy to say that the CHURCH made no laws. The church is, well, a church. Like saying McDonalds has never made any laws. Technically, sure, McDonalds the entity has made no laws. However that's kind of skirting the issue that the church, aka the religion they preach, aka the people who believe this religon, have made laws. Laws that have no other legal basis except for religion, aka the church.

So in effect, you are saying that no ones beliefs are valid but your own.

If your religious beliefs threaten to restrict my civil liberties, yes.

This discussion is pointless unless you can give an example of how someone's religious beliefs are restricting your civil liberties.

Uhm, Hello!: Elephant in the room ... gay marriage bans.

unnecessary abortion restrictions
access to contraception
gay/trans rights
access to alcohol/pornography
etc.

That's just off the top of my head. It's never ending.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
Matata|1435776117|3897505 said:
diamondseeker2006|1435774192|3897461 said:
The church does not control anything related to the state. People with varying viewpoints have the right to express them when voting.

Church and religion tend to become one entity in these types of conversations. Dogma has made its way into government. The president is sworn in with a bible. We have a plethora of powerful white christian men in the highest seats of government whose religious beliefs lead them to support legislation that denies human rights. Presidential candidates who are not christian are where exactly? How many times have we heard from government leaders that we are a christian nation -- which violates the Constitution and is opposite the intent of the founding fathers. Here is an excerpt from an attorney who expressed her views yesterday on FB. She says it more eloquently than I could hope to:

"Rights are not and should not be up for a popular vote or up to the states to determine. Rights are absolute and cannot be dependent upon anything other than the fact that the person is a human being and is a citizen of the US. If those two conditions are met, YOUR belief system about what is MORALLY or spiritually right or wrong does not matter and should not. You should be glad that is the case, because it would be just as easy for another religion to take over and curtail your rights as a Christian (something that has happened throughout history).

In fact, one religious party believing they know the truth for all humans is how terrible oppression starts - that is how Naziism started, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Klu Klux Klan, Al-Qaeda and now ISIS - the most destructive, hateful, murderous periods of human history have arisen directly out of one religious group (ironically, most of these examples were lead by Christians) believing their religion and religious beliefs were THE truth, and therefore they had the right to take away the rights (and lives) of those who lived or believed differently than them."

If people do not have the right to vote for their leaders, then where does that leave us? Just do away with the legislative and executive branches and be ruled by the Supreme Court? I think the founders of this nation thought we need all three to prevent abuse of power of the others.

I believe in human rights just like anyone else, for the record. But regardless of what anyone says, we all make some judgments based on moral values. Everyone draws a line somewhere. Some may be for legalized polygamy and some may be against it. Right now it is illegal, but I am not sure why based on the civil right to love whom one chooses. I am wondering if that will be the next law change in regard to marriage. Age of consent for sex is another moral decision. Is it okay for an 18 year old to have sex with a consenting 15 year old? What about a 12 year old? Everyone makes moral judgments regardless of what they base their views on.

I am sure none of us supports violent radical extremists from any religious, ethnic, or political origin. That surely is something on which we can all agree.
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
4,223
I think the law should be the law. Not that it mirrors my belief, but that it keeps any religious aspect out. I don't like all of our laws, but I do abide by them.

I found this on FB and really enjoyed reading it. One of my good friends is a christian and 'liked it', so I read it. This is the sort of perspective I really respect in regards to religion vs gay marriage, and I actually enjoy reading and seeing the other side. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to respect it, and understand that almost all religions pick and choose what they want to follow.
https://www.facebook.com/richiebranson/posts/970423566322606
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,224
msop04|1435776593|3897508 said:
Does marriage inequality do actual harm?? Not really.

I assume you're joking.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,224
diamondseeker2006|1435777652|3897517 said:
I believe in human rights just like anyone else, for the record.

No you don't.
You oppose marriage equality for gays.
 

liaerfbv

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
1,348
telephone89|1435777807|3897519 said:
I think the law should be the law. Not that it mirrors my belief, but that it keeps any religious aspect out. I don't like all of our laws, but I do abide by them.

I found this on FB and really enjoyed reading it. One of my good friends is a christian and 'liked it', so I read it. This is the sort of perspective I really respect in regards to religion vs gay marriage, and I actually enjoy reading and seeing the other side. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to respect it, and understand that almost all religions pick and choose what they want to follow.
https://www.facebook.com/richiebranson/posts/970423566322606


I also read this and thought it was very well said.
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
telephone89|1435777265|3897513 said:
msop04|1435776593|3897508 said:
Actually, DS makes a good point, Kenny. Does marriage inequality do actual harm?? Not really. Is it right? Not to me. I'm glad this law passed. It doesn't affect me whatsoever, and I believe everyone should be able to legally marry the person they want, regardless of sexual preference.

What if a person is in love with an animal (or a car or whatever you can think of) and wants to marry it and use it as a tax deduction? They may think it's harmful to them that they aren't able to legally do so. Well, that's beastiality, you say, "just plain weird" or even cruel and devious, and not at all like what we're discussing. It's not what the majority believe as traditional or even "normal", but to that person, it's very real. It may seem crazy to bring up something like that, but it's the same principle. :|
Omfg, this comes up every time gay marriage is brought up, its a bit insane.

This is not the same principle. Two adults can consent. A child, a dog, a toaster, whatever - CANNOT CONSENT. Just as one adult cannot be forced to marry another adult (regardless of sex), because there is no CONSENT.

jfc, I dont understand why people think that now that gay marriage is legal there is going to be beastiality and pedophilia running rampant (religious comments not inserted so this thread doesnt get taken down).

This is not even close to what I was going for... I was simply pointing out that "harm" is in the mind of the beholder. That's all. No one was actually being harmed by the old ban on same sex marriages. LOL
 

lyra

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
5,249
Wow. I don't dare say anything in this thread. I'm just glad I was born in Canada. :wall:
 

liaerfbv

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
1,348
But msop04, there was harm because a group of our citizens were being denied basic civil rights, not to mention the benefits of spouses under state and federal laws. Homestead rights, marital deduction inheritance under the federal tax code, spousal rollovers for IRA inheritance, tenants by the entireties creditor protection... I mean I could go on and on. Not to mention basically being made to feel like a second class citizen.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
8,995
msop04|1435778123|3897524 said:
No one was actually being harmed by the old ban on same sex marriages. LOL
Here are some things same-sex couples were not privy to. Maybe you don't see them as harmful because you had the luxury of taking them for granted.

Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
kenny|1435777990|3897521 said:
diamondseeker2006|1435777652|3897517 said:
I believe in human rights just like anyone else, for the record.

No you don't.
You oppose marriage equality for gays.

Now, I'm assuming you're joking?? :|
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
kenny|1435776186|3897507 said:
diamondseeker2006|1435776120|3897506 said:
This discussion is pointless unless you can give an example of how someone's religious beliefs are restricting your civil liberties.



Uhm, Hello!:
Anyone home?

Elephant in the room ... gay marriage bans.

Newsflash, Kenny!!! Gay marriage bans were overturned last week!!!!! :lol:
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top