Muppets dump Chick-fil-a

[Farnhamia]

Atheists get married all the time. You can have a marriage without the gods, but not without the law.

WAS, not any more. You Can have a non-religious Marriage.

Matrimony, in the Christian Western tradition, is a religious institution, because it is believed a sacrament instituted by Christ, who once said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's. And, anyways, if it's not a religious institution, it's not a governmental institution; it would be a civil institution.

Civil as in "government." Here's an experiment you can do at home. Ask your pastor or priest or pundit if you can get married without a state-issued marriage license.

[Revolutopia]

Atheists get married all the time. You can have a marriage without the gods, but not without the law.

WAS, not any more. You Can have a non-religious Marriage.

Matrimony, in the Christian Western tradition, is a religious institution, because it is believed a sacrament instituted by Christ, who once said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's. And, anyways, if it's not a religious institution, it's not a governmental institution; it would be a civil institution.

Marriage existed long before Jesus was twinkle in Mary's eye, and has long had civil foundations. Additionally, in the American system it is a fully governmental institution. Finally, even if it was only religious banning same sex marriage is anti religious freedom, saying how churches like the Unitarians believe in same sex marriage.

[Arkinesia]

Is this a country where you're free as long as you don't own a business?

This is heavy, you just don't get it. The US seems to be more a place where you're free as long as you're rich.

It was a rhetorical question.

Chick-fil-A has the same right to free speech as any American organization, company, or person has. Black Forrest implied they should be denied that right.

[Abatael]

Matrimony, in the Christian Western tradition, is a religious institution, because it is believed a sacrament instituted by Christ, who once said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's. And, anyways, if it's not a religious institution, it's not a governmental institution; it would be a civil institution.

Civil as in "government." Here's an experiment you can do at home. Ask your pastor or priest or pundit if you can get married without a state-issued marriage license.

Marriage is part of society, all societies. But the civil law can only have jurisdiction over, as the name says, what is civil. If you believe marriage is divine, then it is not the place of the state to ultimately decide. So for example, in Catholic canon law, if a couple is married before a priest, and with 2 witnesses (only to testifty to the ceremony), their marriage is valid. It doesn't matter if there are licenses, government documents, et caetera to either approve, or negate the marriage; it is, religiously, valid.

[Lialoth]

Matrimony, in the Christian Western tradition, is a religious institution, because it is believed a sacrament instituted by Christ, who once said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's. And, anyways, if it's not a religious institution, it's not a governmental institution; it would be a civil institution.

Yur wrong. Marriage is thoroughly run by the government in western societies. Also, some churches (And other religious groups) WANT to perform same-sex marriages.


So not only are you against gay rights and against sexual equality... You're also against RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Do you just not like equality & freedom?

[Adafdfadfasdf]

Atheists get married all the time. You can have a marriage without the gods, but not without the law.

WAS, not any more. You Can have a non-religious Marriage.

1. Matrimony, in the Christian Western tradition, is a religious institution, because it is believed a sacrament instituted by Christ, who once said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's.

2. And, anyways, if it's not a religious institution, it's not a governmental institution; it would be a civil institution.

1. So, you're arguing nobody got married before Jesus came along?

2. Do you even know what you're talking about?

[Revolutopia]

Civil as in "government." Here's an experiment you can do at home. Ask your pastor or priest or pundit if you can get married without a state-issued marriage license.

Marriage is part of society, all societies. But the civil law can only have jurisdiction over, as the name says, what is civil. If you believe marriage is divine, then it is not the place of the state to ultimately decide. So for example, in Catholic canon law, if a couple is married before a priest, and with 2 witnesses (only to testifty to the ceremony), their marriage is valid. It doesn't matter if there are licenses, government documents, et caetera to either approve, or negate the marriage; it is, religiously, valid.

Catholic Canon law means shit in the real world, instead the issue of marriage is determined by the state.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental institution.

Atheists get married all the time. You can have a marriage without the gods, but not without the law.

Which is why I support government getting out of marriage. Leave it up to the religious institutions.

[Gauthier]

Atheists get married all the time. You can have a marriage without the gods, but not without the law.

Which is why I support government getting out of marriage. Leave it up to the religious institutions.

And make all those tax breaks and medical decisions an exclusively religious benefit riiight?

[Abatael]

Matrimony, in the Christian Western tradition, is a religious institution, because it is believed a sacrament instituted by Christ, who once said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's. And, anyways, if it's not a religious institution, it's not a governmental institution; it would be a civil institution.

Yur wrong. Marriage is thoroughly run by the government in western societies. Also, some churches (And other religious groups) WANT to perform same-sex marriages.


So not only are you against gay rights and against sexual equality... You're also against RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Do you just not like equality & freedom?

I believe I said in Christian, Western tradition, and never spoke about same-sex marriage, but only about the type of institution marriage is.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Matrimony, in the Christian Western tradition, is a religious institution, because it is believed a sacrament instituted by Christ, who once said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's. And, anyways, if it's not a religious institution, it's not a governmental institution; it would be a civil institution.

Yur wrong. Marriage is thoroughly run by the government in western societies. Also, some churches (And other religious groups) WANT to perform same-sex marriages.


So not only are you against gay rights and against sexual equality... You're also against RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Do you just not like equality & freedom?

Abatael is (as am I) a Social Darwinist. Hierarchy and the survival of the fittest is not necessarily a bad thing.

As for freedom, that can be debated.

[Frisivisia]

I wouldn't eat there if their food wasn't so fucking good.

[Lialoth]

Which is why I support government getting out of marriage. Leave it up to the religious institutions.

That's the LAST thing we want to do! Remove all the legal benefits/etc from married couples AND hand over the institution of marriage to fanatics? No, no, NO, NO, NO

Christians didn't 'invent' marriage, the ancient jewish people didn't 'invent' marriage. Why should we hand marriage over to the religious, give them complete control of it?

[The Black Forrest]

So businesses deserve more rights?

Why should any citizen's organization be subject to a suppression of rights that the citizen himself holds?

Is this a country where you're free as long as you don't own a business?

Ok expand on that?

Suppression by what rights?

So to work you are supposed to relinquish your rights to those of the business?

[Unchecked Expansion]

Yur wrong. Marriage is thoroughly run by the government in western societies. Also, some churches (And other religious groups) WANT to perform same-sex marriages.


So not only are you against gay rights and against sexual equality... You're also against RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Do you just not like equality & freedom?

Abatael is (as am I) a Social Darwinist.

I don't think you understand Darwin

[Abatael]

Marriage is part of society, all societies. But the civil law can only have jurisdiction over, as the name says, what is civil. If you believe marriage is divine, then it is not the place of the state to ultimately decide. So for example, in Catholic canon law, if a couple is married before a priest, and with 2 witnesses (only to testify to the ceremony), their marriage is valid. It doesn't matter if there are licenses, government documents, et caetera to either approve, or negate the marriage; it is, religiously, valid.

Catholic Canon law means shit in the real world, instead the issue of marriage is determined by the state.

He wanted me to ask my priest if I can get married without a state-issued marriage license, and I can get religiously valid marriage, which is what I car about, if I am going to be married.

1. Matrimony, in the Christian Western tradition, is a religious institution, because it is believed a sacrament instituted by Christ, who once said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's.

2. And, anyways, if it's not a religious institution, it's not a governmental institution; it would be a civil institution.

1. So, you're arguing nobody got married before Jesus came along?

2. Do you even know what you're talking about?

1. No.
2. Yes. It would be, technically, a civil institution.

[Gauthier]

Yur wrong. Marriage is thoroughly run by the government in western societies. Also, some churches (And other religious groups) WANT to perform same-sex marriages.


So not only are you against gay rights and against sexual equality... You're also against RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Do you just not like equality & freedom?

Abatael is (as am I) a Social Darwinist. Hierarchy and the survival of the fittest is not necessarily a bad thing.

As for freedom, that can be debated.

"If you're rich, you're the pinnacle of the species and if you're poor, you deserve to die and remove your genes from the ecosystem." Niiiiice.

[Farnhamia]

Civil as in "government." Here's an experiment you can do at home. Ask your pastor or priest or pundit if you can get married without a state-issued marriage license.

Marriage is part of society, all societies. But the civil law can only have jurisdiction over, as the name says, what is civil. If you believe marriage is divine, then it is not the place of the state to ultimately decide. So for example, in Catholic canon law, if a couple is married before a priest, and with 2 witnesses (only to testifty to the ceremony), their marriage is valid. It doesn't matter if there are licenses, government documents, et caetera to either approve, or negate the marriage; it is, religiously, valid.

I would be surprised to find a priest willing to marry someone without them having first gotten a state-issued marriage license. That couple could not apply for any of the benefits that being married in the eyes of the state confers. Things like survivor's benefits from Social Security, being able to make medical decisions for their spouse, inheriting property, custody of children. You ask your priest.

[Farnhamia]

Abatael is (as am I) a Social Darwinist.

I don't think you understand Darwin

Or Social Darwinism.

[Cromarty]

Abatael is (as am I) a Social Darwinist.

Is that that idea that's been debunked time and time again?

I think that is.

[Abatael]

Marriage is part of society, all societies. But the civil law can only have jurisdiction over, as the name says, what is civil. If you believe marriage is divine, then it is not the place of the state to ultimately decide. So for example, in Catholic canon law, if a couple is married before a priest, and with 2 witnesses (only to testify to the ceremony), their marriage is valid. It doesn't matter if there are licenses, government documents, et caetera to either approve, or negate the marriage; it is, religiously, valid.

I would be surprised to find a priest willing to marry someone without them having first gotten a state-issued marriage license. That couple could not apply for any of the benefits that being married in the eyes of the state confers. Things like survivor's benefits from Social Security, being able to make medical decisions for their spouse, inheriting property, custody of children. You ask your priest.

I'm sure I could find one. I'm sure you could find one, if you looked hard enough. I'm sure anyone could.

[Arkinesia]

Why should any citizen's organization be subject to a suppression of rights that the citizen himself holds?

Is this a country where you're free as long as you don't own a business?

Ok expand on that?

Suppression by what rights?

So to work you are supposed to relinquish your rights to those of the business?

I don't get the joke.

What does this have to do with Chick-fil-A? Cut the shit and make your point.

[Cromarty]

I would be surprised to find a priest willing to marry someone without them having first gotten a state-issued marriage license. That couple could not apply for any of the benefits that being married in the eyes of the state confers. Things like survivor's benefits from Social Security, being able to make medical decisions for their spouse, inheriting property, custody of children. You ask your priest.

I'm sure I could find one. I'm sure you could find one, if you looked hard enough. I'm sure anyone could.

Wouldn't be a real marriage though.

[Greed and Death]

Marriage is part of society, all societies. But the civil law can only have jurisdiction over, as the name says, what is civil. If you believe marriage is divine, then it is not the place of the state to ultimately decide. So for example, in Catholic canon law, if a couple is married before a priest, and with 2 witnesses (only to testifty to the ceremony), their marriage is valid. It doesn't matter if there are licenses, government documents, et caetera to either approve, or negate the marriage; it is, religiously, valid.

I would be surprised to find a priest willing to marry someone without them having first gotten a state-issued marriage license. That couple could not apply for any of the benefits that being married in the eyes of the state confers. Things like survivor's benefits from Social Security, being able to make medical decisions for their spouse, inheriting property, custody of children. You ask your priest.

Farn I would be more than happy to use my church of Universal life ordination to marry you to whoever you damn well please.

[Abatael]

I'm sure I could find one. I'm sure you could find one, if you looked hard enough. I'm sure anyone could.

Wouldn't be a real marriage though.

Legally it won't be valid. Religiously, however, it would be valid, and that is what I care about the most, when I get married.