Ranking
FAQ
Advanced Search
Subscribed Threads
Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Closed Thread
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode
View Public Profile Send a private message to lillian Find More Posts by lillian
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History

Sep 18, 2015 Old
View Public Profile Send a private message to lillian Find More Posts by lillian
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History
lillian's Avatar
Custom Belt
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,029
Sep 18, 2015 Old
Originally Posted by T0ribush View Post
Marriage shouldn't be a right, it sounds more like a privilege.

Also fools that want to get married, thinking the world is going to change with your prenups and documented love, hahaha.

If you aren't religious I seriously think you shouldn't even be thinking of getting married.

Can someone explain why Marriage is THE thing, that HAS to happen?

w-what?

Are you serious?

Religion and Marriage no longer have anything to do with each other. I'm not going to explain to you why people have been getting married for thousands of years.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[4:37 PM] ponf: y'all might think i'm not wild enough to send dick pics over toribash
[4:37 PM] ponf: you'd be wrong
uwu i wuv you uwu
View Public Profile Send a private message to ImmortalPig Find More Posts by ImmortalPig
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History

Sep 18, 2015 Old
View Public Profile Send a private message to ImmortalPig Find More Posts by ImmortalPig
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History
ub3r ImmortalPig's Avatar
Yellow Belt
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,947
Sep 18, 2015 Old
Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
she got arrested because she broke the law. im not fully sure on american law however i know recently america finally got marriage equality, if you dont agree with this then its fine but whats not fine is denying a 'government' service that is open to everyone because you have the 'power' to do so.
she wasnt arrested for being christian, she was arrested for using Christianity as an excuse to deny service to someone and generally be a tosser.

to say shes a strict christian shes had about 3 husbands which im not really caught up on this but im guessing this is also frowned upon

tbh you are a few hundred years behind lol.

I don't know of any denomination that thinks divorce is a sin (the catholics aren't fond of it, but they don't think you will burn in hell for eternity), but I know of plenty that think homosexuality is (hint: any that follow the bible, which funnily enough doesn't include catholics, which are pretty much the only denomination that is 'ok' with homosexuality (they aren't really ok with it though)).

Also America always had marriage equality (lol), what did change is the definition of marriage. Not sure if intentional wordplay or blunder, but hopefully you will understand the difference.

Originally Posted by meow View Post
w-what?

Are you serious?

Religion and Marriage no longer have anything to do with each other. I'm not going to explain to you why people have been getting married for thousands of years.

lol what a strange argument to make, out of interested do you know the statistics for historical gay marriage?
Last edited by ImmortalPig; Sep 18, 2015 at 07:03 PM.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
View Public Profile Send a private message to deprav Find More Posts by deprav
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History

Sep 18, 2015 Old
View Public Profile Send a private message to deprav Find More Posts by deprav
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History
deprav's Avatar
Master Belt
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,165
Clan: fl0w
Sep 18, 2015 Old
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
To reiterate, what she did was not illegal, people spreading that misconception (to put it mildly) are pushing some agenda.

The infamous gayfriendly-illuminato agenda

ahhh pig :3

(Sorry Rai I made a joke, gief infraction)
Last edited by deprav; Sep 18, 2015 at 07:27 PM.
View Public Profile Send a private message to Kyure Find More Posts by Kyure
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History

Sep 18, 2015 Old
View Public Profile Send a private message to Kyure Find More Posts by Kyure
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History
what's your favorite minion meme  
Brown Belt
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,074
Clan: I am
Sep 18, 2015 Old
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
lol what a strange argument to make, out of interested do you know the statistics for historical gay marriage?

That is not what he is referring to. He is referring to how marriage has been around for such a long time, and stating that marriage is not even important anymore is a stupid thing to say. There are both legal reasons and traditional reasons as to why people want to get married. For two men to not have the same rights as a man and a woman is unjust, and violated the fourteenth amendment.

So again, she broke the law, therefor being in the wrong. There is no discussion to be had here.
View Public Profile Send a private message to Zelda Find More Posts by Zelda
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History

Sep 18, 2015 Old
View Public Profile Send a private message to Zelda Find More Posts by Zelda
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History
 
4th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,958
Sep 18, 2015 Old
Originally Posted by Kyure View Post
There is no discussion to be had here.

You said exactly the same thing a page of discussion posts ago. I wouldn't be surprised if you said the same thing another page later tomorrow. There is clearly a discussion to be had. Whether or not you are able to come to your own conclusion to the topic yourself is irrelevant. You have not yet presented your conclusion to us in an irrefragable way and until someone does then such conclusions are open to be discussed. There is almost always a discussion to be had, the only question is whether it is worth having. Whether people are enjoying this thread enough for it to be worth continuing discussion of it is not up to you.

If anyone disagrees with me then feel free to say so via PM, but for now, can we all hold up on the posts claiming that the discussion is over.
Good morning sweet princess
View Public Profile Send a private message to hawkesnightmare Find More Posts by hawkesnightmare
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History

Sep 18, 2015 Old
View Public Profile Send a private message to hawkesnightmare Find More Posts by hawkesnightmare
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History
WHERE'S MY DRINK?! hawkesnightmare's Avatar
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,637
Sep 18, 2015 Old
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
This is a perversion of the truth, the 14th amendment requires due process, the 1st protects religious practice. While it was decided IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE that the state should processes gay marriage licenses, but it was also decided that Davis was protected by the 1st amendment. To reiterate, what she did was not illegal, people spreading that misconception (to put it mildly) are pushing some agenda.

You have obviously never actually read the first amendment. There are two clauses in the first amendment. The free exercise clause, and the establishment clause. The free exercise clause is what allows you to say "President Obama sucks dicks for money." The establishment clause prohibits the government from creating or enforcing any law that favors any one religion. And this is the meat of the argument here. Kim Davis is a public servant. Her actions while on the job are the actions of the government. That is why she got in trouble for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Government employees are not the government, this was not part of any discourse I've read. The government as an entity cannot deny gay marriage, but employees individually can on religious grounds and are protected under the first amendment. Check out Hobby Lobby v. Kathleen Sebelius, another case dealing with the other side of the coin.

Nice try, but no cigar. Hobby Lobby is a Christian company, and the employees are not public servants. The rules are different for private companies and their employees. And I guess you didn't even read the case, because it came out in Hobby Lobby's favor, not Sebelius'.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
If businesses are allowed to refine their terms, then wouldn't they be allowed to deny service to left-foot-firsters?

They can if they want. But there is no law against it on a government scale. And businesses won't put in a rule like that because it would severely hurt business if it was enforced.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Under federal law there's the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Americans with Disabilities Act, and *some* states may add gays to the list of protected people, but I've literally NEVER heard of any act that disallows refusing to serve left-foot-firsters.

Right, because that would be ridiculous. But private businesses can if they want, unless there is another law somewhere that blocks ridiculous rules like that.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
There was no such law (and if there was then it would have had to have been screened as per Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993), it was a long process, this was a landmark case, it was not cut and dry at all.

The constitution is law. I'll tell you why at the end.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
No, people dying is not the same as people not being married. Sorry but I'm not ever going to concede that one lol.

I never said that the resulting consequences were equal. But the legality (or lack thereof) of the rejection is.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
It is though, a job that someone previously was doing is no longer performable due to a federal ruling.

dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
This is certainly not unjust and it is not prejudicial either. The SCOTUS did not target religion when interpreting the 14th amendment.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
According to the previously mentioned RFRA (which was just shown to be an invalid argument) the gov't cannot enforce burden on religious practice (which this undoubtedly is) without the law serving a compelling interest and using the least restrictive method for implementation (which clearly would be not forcing people to do it).

I would argue that the government can burden Davis with compelling interest because of the simple utilitarianism of it. She is one person who is offended. She is denying potentially dozens of couples. If this is not the case, then your second statement can be considered. The county clerk office issues marriage licenses. This they MUST do. They need to find a way for the office to issue marriage licenses without Davis needing to affix her signature to the documents. Which they did. The problem is now solved.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
That's like saying "breaking someone's arm causes no harm because they can either: go to a hospital, find a work around such as using their other arm, maybe just become a riverdancer instead". Harm is harm, and being forced out of your job is definitely harm.

Davis was not forced out of her job. She was arrested and jailed for five days for breaking the law, and then returned to her job, with new procedures in place. There was no harm that came of Kim Davis not being at work for five days.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
I gave him the benefit of the doubt and allowed a legal ruling to be called a "law". But just to be clear, it absolutely was not and is not against the law.

Go ahead and try and point me to which law. The 14th amendment? The constitution is a framework in the first place...

As I said above, the constitution is law. Article VI of the constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land."
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
View Public Profile Send a private message to ImmortalPig Find More Posts by ImmortalPig
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History

Sep 19, 2015 Old
View Public Profile Send a private message to ImmortalPig Find More Posts by ImmortalPig
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History
ub3r ImmortalPig's Avatar
Yellow Belt
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,947
Sep 19, 2015 Old
Originally Posted by deprav View Post
The infamous gayfriendly-illuminato agenda

ahhh pig :3

(Sorry Rai I made a joke, gief infraction)

<biases intensify>

No fun allowed in this sub any more, did you really get infracted? :^)
Originally Posted by Kyure View Post
That is not what he is referring to. He is referring to how marriage has been around for such a long time, and stating that marriage is not even important anymore is a stupid thing to say. There are both legal reasons and traditional reasons as to why people want to get married. For two men to not have the same rights as a man and a woman is unjust, and violated the fourteenth amendment.

Lol what are you even talking about, firstly two men have ALWAYS had the same marriage rights as a man and a woman, what kind of ridiculous thinking is this?

Gay marriage DID NOT exist historically, hence an argument from tradition is complete and utter nonsense.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
You have obviously never actually read the first amendment. There are two clauses in the first amendment. The free exercise clause, and the establishment clause. The free exercise clause is what allows you to say "President Obama sucks dicks for money." The establishment clause prohibits the government from creating or enforcing any law that favors any one religion. And this is the meat of the argument here. Kim Davis is a public servant. Her actions while on the job are the actions of the government. That is why she got in trouble for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Establishment of a law that disadvantages a religion would require the consideration of the RFRA, and due processes would have to be taken as in this case.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Not sure how this could be any clearer.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
Nice try, but no cigar. Hobby Lobby is a Christian company, and the employees are not public servants. The rules are different for private companies and their employees. And I guess you didn't even read the case, because it came out in Hobby Lobby's favor, not Sebelius'.

I have read the case, as you know the relevant information is that corporations are not covered by freedom of religion, where as people are.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
They can if they want. But there is no law against it on a government scale. And businesses won't put in a rule like that because it would severely hurt business if it was enforced.

Ok? But they can if they want.

By the way, how could you possibly know that in all situations it would hurt businesses? Come on mate, no need to make blanket statements like that, unless you have the literal foresight to back it up.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
Right, because that would be ridiculous. But private businesses can if they want, unless there is another law somewhere that blocks ridiculous rules like that.

Ok? Ridiculous as it may be, it was you who made that argument, not me...

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
I never said that the resulting consequences were equal. But the legality (or lack thereof) of the rejection is.

You think not issuing a marriage license legally equivalent to willingly letting someone die because of their race??

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
This is certainly not unjust and it is not prejudicial either. The SCOTUS did not target religion when interpreting the 14th amendment.

Just to be clear, we are talking about Christians in a Christian country being barred from being public servants for a Christian government and issuing licenses for a ritual that is a Christian import.

Yeah sure, no way that could be interpreted as unjust.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
I would argue that the government can burden Davis with compelling interest because of the simple utilitarianism of it. She is one person who is offended. She is denying potentially dozens of couples. If this is not the case, then your second statement can be considered. The county clerk office issues marriage licenses. This they MUST do. They need to find a way for the office to issue marriage licenses without Davis needing to affix her signature to the documents. Which they did. The problem is now solved.

Yes, the problem is solved, that was never part of the debate.

But this is part of a wider problem where a local majority overwhelm a national majority. We are not talking about less than 2% of the population overruling more than 70% of the population.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
Davis was not forced out of her job. She was arrested and jailed for five days for breaking the law, and then returned to her job, with new procedures in place. There was no harm that came of Kim Davis not being at work for five days.

Being put in prison for 5 days is no harm?

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
As I said above, the constitution is law. Article VI of the constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land."

Lol.

"A law" is not the same as "the law". "A law" is a rule, "the law" is a framework. This is a non-trivial difference.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
View Public Profile Send a private message to Kyure Find More Posts by Kyure
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History

Sep 19, 2015 Old
View Public Profile Send a private message to Kyure Find More Posts by Kyure
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History
what's your favorite minion meme  
Brown Belt
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,074
Clan: I am
Sep 19, 2015 Old
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Lol what are you even talking about, firstly two men have ALWAYS had the same marriage rights as a man and a woman, what kind of ridiculous thinking is this?

Gay marriage DID NOT exist historically, hence an argument from tradition is complete and utter nonsense.

Okay firstly... how the fuck have two men always had the same marriage rights as a man and a woman. Are you retarded?

Secondly, gay marriage has existed historically, and was an extremely common thing in Ancient roman ties, although it was later banned in Ancient Rome. Later on however it wasn't banned per-say, but heavily criticized.

But seriously, trying to say gay men have always had the same marriage rights as a man and a woman. Jesus, you need to get your head checked.
View Public Profile Send a private message to ImmortalPig Find More Posts by ImmortalPig
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History

Sep 19, 2015 Old
View Public Profile Send a private message to ImmortalPig Find More Posts by ImmortalPig
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History
ub3r ImmortalPig's Avatar
Yellow Belt
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,947
Sep 19, 2015 Old
Originally Posted by Kyure View Post
Okay firstly... how the fuck have two men always had the same marriage rights as a man and a woman. Are you retarded?

Lol, how have they not?

Salvador Dali, Elton John, Freddie Mercury, many gay men have been married before............
Originally Posted by Kyure View Post
Secondly, gay marriage has existed historically, and was an extremely common thing in Ancient roman ties

No, this isn't true at all, it was exceedingly rare and almost always simply an excuse for pederasty. Even at the time it was not universally accepted.

Your statement is the equivalent of saying "in the 20th century it was extremely common to marry objects" just because there exists people who married trucks, buildings, etc.

Originally Posted by Kyure View Post
But seriously, trying to say gay men have always had the same marriage rights as a man and a woman. Jesus, you need to get your head checked.

It's true though.

But nice to see you choose to flame instead of saying where you think the inequality lies. That is a very productive course of action to take...
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
View Public Profile Send a private message to Kyure Find More Posts by Kyure
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History

Sep 19, 2015 Old
View Public Profile Send a private message to Kyure Find More Posts by Kyure
Active Inventory Deactivated Inventory Trade History
what's your favorite minion meme  
Brown Belt
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,074
Clan: I am
Sep 19, 2015 Old
Are you fucking stupid? Freddie Mercury came out as gay on his death bed. He married a woman, not a man.

And actually yes, there was plenty of gay marriages between actual lovers. Nero married two men. You pull these accusations out of your ass without knowing any sort information on the subject.

A man and a man could not get married before the supreme court ruling. I am having trouble telling whether or not you are just completely ignorant, or trolling.
Closed Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »