Karl`s PC Help Forums

OOOOOOOOklahoma where the atheists...
marymary100 - 16-3-2015 at 17:46

can't get married confused2


Quote:

Oklahoma has seen fit to restrict marriage to people of faith.

A bill that would restrict the right to marry to people of faith and require all marriage licenses to be approved by a member of clergy was approved by the Oklahoma state House on Tuuesday.

House Bill 1125, which would effectively ban all secular marriages in the state, was passed by a Republican majority and will now go to the state Senate for consideration.


John_Little - 16-3-2015 at 18:41

Blimey. IS in America.


Nimuae - 16-3-2015 at 23:34

Wait till the 'Human Rights' people hear about this !


LSemmens - 16-3-2015 at 23:34

As the article does go on to say that marriage had its origins in religion, and, as such should not be a state mandated thing. I do not necessarily see this as a bad thing. Modern marriage has become more of a"convenience" than a religious experience/requirement and, as also stated, is a contract at law. Maybe the lawyers should be given the mandate for legal "unions" (marriage, if you like).


Nimuae - 17-3-2015 at 07:30

Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
Maybe the lawyers should be given the mandate for legal "unions" (marriage, if you like).


Do we not have that already with 'civil partnerships', Leigh?waveysmiley


LSemmens - 17-3-2015 at 09:35

Eggzacerly! Except that the lawyers do not perform the civil unions.


Badgergirl - 17-3-2015 at 12:27

Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
As the article does go on to say that marriage had its origins in religion, and, as such should not be a state mandated thing. I do not necessarily see this as a bad thing. Modern marriage has become more of a"convenience" than a religious experience/requirement and, as also stated, is a contract at law. Maybe the lawyers should be given the mandate for legal "unions" (marriage, if you like).


I'd rather leave the decision of why people wish to marry up to the people about to marry...
Given that there are so MANY different religions, therefore so many different religious reasons to marry.
Who's "clergy" in particular ought to have the final say?


marymary100 - 31-3-2015 at 21:12

And in other news...


The Arkansas House has approved a religious freedom measure that mirrors the one signed into law last week in Indiana that opponents there say opens the door to discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Monday that he'd sign the measure.

Fourteen other states are considering similar proposals this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.


LSemmens - 1-4-2015 at 00:34

Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl


I'd rather leave the decision of why people wish to marry up to the people about to marry...
Given that there are so MANY different religions, therefore so many different religious reasons to marry.
Who's "clergy" in particular ought to have the final say?
That is my point! If the state are "forcing" marriage into the "church" then, perhaps, they should also allow the "church" the right of refusal to marry some people. I can just imagine a homosexual couple asking the local Imam to marry them.... I thought not.


marymary100 - 1-4-2015 at 06:11

Or, remove all "marriages" from all religious organisations and make the only legal ones the State registry ones which would still allow for religious "blessings". :)


Nimuae - 1-4-2015 at 06:39

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Or, remove all "marriages" from all religious organisations and make the only legal ones the State registry ones which would still allow for religious "blessings". :)


That makes more sense!


Katzy - 1-4-2015 at 11:03

Doesn't the Christian doobery go something like "Marriage is given, that husband and wife may comfort and help each other, living faithfully together in need and in plenty, in sorrow and enjoy. It is given, that with delight and tenderness they may know each other in love, and, through the joy of their bodily union, may strengthen the union of their hearts and lives. It is given as the foundation of family life in which children may be born and nurtured in accordance with Godís will, to his praise and glory."?

That last phrase somewhat precludes gay marriages, doesn't it?

I can understand why some are against it, myself.


John_Little - 1-4-2015 at 11:38

The problem is that the whole concept of "marriage" is confused. When the debate about gay marriage started, the Church claimed that it had a monopoly on marriage and the use of the word. But where did that leave marriages in Register officers conducted by secular officials?

Perhaps its all an argument for disestablishmentarianism.


marymary100 - 1-4-2015 at 16:28

And by that definition Katsy there would be no point in barren people marrying...


Katzy - 1-4-2015 at 21:02

True enough.

I can think of certain advantages in everyone becoming gay, myself.

The human race would certainly shrink... :D


John_Little - 2-4-2015 at 07:36

Along with orifices at both ends, like watching someone suck a lemon.


LSemmens - 2-4-2015 at 23:32

Marriage has become a state thing, you cannot marry, in this country, at least, without being a registered marriage celebrant. If the homosexual lobby want to "marry" that is their prerogative, but they can leave the church out of it.

I do get up in arms though when they then want to adopt. If they want kids, let them find a way to make them by themselves......


marymary100 - 2-4-2015 at 23:43

You'd rather leave children unadopted?

A couple I know adopted a pair of siblings last year. They got to meet them once after going through all the social work checks and training. They got one month to get their house ready then they got to take them home forever. The woman I know stayed working and her partner who earns less took the parental leave to get them settled.

The point is, a year later, they are a family unit. Children who would otherwise have had no family are now with forever parents and are happy.

IMO the sexual preferences of the couple is neither here nor there.


John_Little - 3-4-2015 at 08:21

I'm with Leigh, I'm afraid. I can't help but feel that those kids don't get a choice in the matter. I think they should at least be given the benefit of the doubt and lessen the odds of ill effects - from whatever source - by letting them be brought up in the most normal family possible.


marymary100 - 3-4-2015 at 09:50

These children were old enough to agree to the adoption. All blood relatives were dead. In that instance it was a no brainer.

Many gay couples use surrogates. That way the child is biologically connected to at least one parent but the children are raised in exactly the same conditions you are objecting to.

What is "normal" btw?


John_Little - 3-4-2015 at 10:53

Normal by my definition here is what most people do. Its certainly not "normal" for babies to be born other than to men and women as mother and father. Its not a moral judgement in itself. Nothing about god or anything. Its just that I believe life is hard enough already for some children and being different is not a good place to be when you want to fit in.

I didn't read the story and if these kids were happy to be in that situation that's fair enough with me. Its when kids are not given a choice that I don't feel right about it. I don't think its right to force principles upon children.

And children are not property that people have a right to own and do with as they wish.


marymary100 - 3-4-2015 at 13:41

A girl my daughter went to school with had a "normal" family except that the dad was an in-the-closet gay who wanted to have his affairs with his wife's acceptance. That didn't work either. He eventually moved out and married a boyfriend. The mother remarried too. The girl and her siblings then shared their time between two households.

There's all sorts of family combinations that pass for normal these days - one parent families, kinship care etc etc and while I take your point that life is hard enough without any additional burdens, I think that what matters is love - total love - for the child being raised.


LSemmens - 4-4-2015 at 00:18

Quote:
I think that what matters is love - total love - for the child being raised.
I think many pedophiles would agree with you there. Not that I know any, but I'd suggest that they think that they are "normal" and loving.......slippery slope time, methinks.


marymary100 - 4-4-2015 at 08:16

Sex is not love hth


John_Little - 4-4-2015 at 10:20

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
A girl my daughter went to school with had a "normal" family except that the dad was an in-the-closet gay who wanted to have his affairs with his wife's acceptance. That didn't work either. He eventually moved out and married a boyfriend. The mother remarried too. The girl and her siblings then shared their time between two households.

There's all sorts of family combinations that pass for normal these days - one parent families, kinship care etc etc and while I take your point that life is hard enough without any additional burdens, I think that what matters is love - total love - for the child being raised.


You could say that you know someone with a headache but that isn't "normal". People have headaches but thankfully, not normally. And that isn't meant to imply that being gay itself is like an affliction. Just that its not the regular state of affairs that you would expect. The fact that gays are a minority means they are unsual and different. They are obviously every bit as capable of love including loving children and I understand that they may like children of their own. But its not fair to give children to them that otherwise could reasonably expect to be brought up in a more conventional household.

And I know a couple of gay families with children and those children do have problems.


marymary100 - 4-4-2015 at 18:17

Is that your line in the sand then that stops everyone being everybody else?


John_Little - 5-4-2015 at 11:11

I've got nothing against Gays but I do feel that children have rights too.


marymary100 - 5-4-2015 at 11:29

Of course they do.


LSemmens - 6-4-2015 at 01:47

FWIW I am not particularly keen on single parents too. Does that mean take all kids of single parents, NO! There are many reasons why a mother, or father, is single. The best chance a kid has is if he (or she) is raised in a two parent (heterosexual) household with people who love one another. I disagree with supporting single women who choose to have kids just for the welfare support that they receive. It's a difficult area, because for one of those, there are 10 who deserve support (rubbery numbers here).

FYI: I was raised without a dad (he died when I was 3) and I turned out all right (I think). My kids seem to think so.........at least they'd better or else.....;)