Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?

No, you would fit right in with the in-bred back water retards and be proud of it.

How's you sister by the way billy bob? She give ya enough puntang?

 

So, hypocrite then? Got it.

 

Traditional Families=Child abuse, spousal abuse, cheating, mental abuse, etc.
To equate being gay to stealing murder and rape is the most bigoted and hateful thing I have heard.

The nonsense of hating the sin, not the sinner is just that, nonsense and a lie.

Most people in the world do NOT subscribe to the bibles concept of sin--get over it. If you don't want to be gay then don't be, but for those that are gay, they should have the same legal rights as anyone. Marriage is a civil and legal right in America.

Take your hatred bigotry and ignorance to church with you and keep it there.

 

Um, yes, they have to sign the marriage certificate. But, no, they do not have to be "bonded" by the government. I've officiated two marriage ceremonies. My signature on the marriage certificate was the only thing required of me. I've also been married twice, both times by a minister who was not "bonded by the government." Texas doesn't care where your credentials come from. If you consider yourself a minister, that's pretty much all it takes. They have no interest in policing religions and determining for them who counts as a minister and who does not.

The ONLY time I've seen a clerk even raise an eyebrow is when they saw the "officient" section of the certificate filled out in crayon. The marriage had been performed by the groom's 6 year old son. The clerk said she wouldn't accept it, the couple called the state comptroller, and the comptroller set the clerk straight.

There is the place called the Universal Life Church. Their only tenant is the golden rule, that's it. All you have to do to be ordained as a minister is to ask and they'll send you an email saying, "You're a minister now." (I'm paraphrasing, of course). Even these ordinations are valid in Texas. And, like I said, even a 6 year old can officiate a wedding if their religion says that they consider him a minister.

In Texas, the religions get to decide who qualifies as a minister, not the state.

 

Utter bull.

http://www.bridalguide.com/planning/engagement/marriage-license-guide#TX

And here's what Texas specifically requires.

There's even a three day waiting period in Texas. Just in case you want to back out.

 

Next time you call "utter bull" on someone, read what they said. Or read your links. Because there's no way you read both. Your links are talking about the requirements that the COUPLE needs to meet for their license. We were talking about the requirements for OFFICIATING a marriage.

Notice how it only mentions the word "officiant" twice (once to say that you will have to give your wedding certificate to him/her before the ceremony and once to say that he/she has to sign it), and doesn't say anything about the requirements for being an officiant? That means it is completely irrelevant to our conversation. We are talking about the officiant, not the couple.

None of this has anything to do with what we were talking about. Those are the requirements that the COUPLE must meet. Those are not the requirements for being an OFFICIANT.

I know. I've been married here twice and I've officiated two weddings here.

None of that addresses what I said at all. Nice straw man though. We are talking about what the law requires (if anything) to qualify a minister as an officiant.

The approval comes from your religion, not from the state.

Section 2.202 of the Texas Family Title Code says that a religious officiant is

There is nothing in the Title Code about the state authorizing an officiant as an officiant.

There is no licensing for religious officiants by the state. All Texas cares about is this: does your religion say you can perform the marriage? That's it. There is no "bonding" no registration no approval process, etc. If you religious body says you can marry people, you can marry people.

 

You are mistaken, the govt has nothing to do with deciding who is a minister. It DOES deal with who can make LEGALLY binding marriages. Go check with your minister.In the meantime here is a summary of the marriage law in TEXAS:
Who can perform marriages in texas.

"Ordained Christian ministers and priests; Jewish rabbis and persons who are officers of religious organizations and who are duly authorized by the organization to conduct marriage ceremonies may perform marriages. --- Ministers must complete the marriage license and return it to the county clerk who issued it within 30 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the county clerk."

You will notice that STATE laws says who may perform marriages that that the marriage license MUST be filed with the state!

Marriage in America IS secular, although religious leaders may also perform a religious ceremony, the BINDING legal document is by the GOVT, not any religion.

 

I'm confused. What exactly is the point of disagreement? From where I sit, it looks like you both agree that 1) the state decides who is legally married, and 2) the state doesn't decide who can or can't be an officiant.

 

Texas does not make that decision for religious groups. The religious groups decide who is qualified.

I already am a minister. Once again, I've officiated two weddings.

You deliberately skipped the part of the Title Code I quoted. Read the rest of the Title Code. I've provided it for you above.

Yes, all of the people you mentioned qualify. So does ANYONE ELSE that ANY RELIGIOUS BODY decides is qualified to perform marriages.

How can you pretend that the portion of the Title Code I quoted doesn't exist?

I've performed two weddings and I've been in two weddings with a minister that does not fit the qualifications that you claim are necessary. My friend had a wedding performed by a 6 year old.

Which I never argued with. The license must be filed with the state. The marriage license, not his ordination.

And, in Texas, it can be officiated by anyone that any religious body decides is appropriate.

Do you need me to quote the Title Code again or will you go back and read it?

 

That's what I'm saying. If that is what he's saying, then we agree.

 

You strike me as someone who has not read the science on homosexuality. Did you choose to be straight? Did you say to yourself one day hey I think I like boobs? No you did not. And it is the same for gay people. Your side is losing the war of public opinion, and you are going down in the history books as bigoted hatemongers. I would think more homophobes would take that into consideration, even if they are privately against it. Alas, since they deny evidence, I guess I would be expecting too much.

Are you trying to use the same old bigoted tactic of equating homosexuality with something else the way many religious right-wing fanatics do, when they say if we allow gay marriage, we should allow polygamy and allow people to marry their dogs...? Nice pathetic attempt at an argument. Try to do better next time.

 

You are delving into MUCH idiocy yourself. How is it that you REALLY believe/think homosexuality is some... "lifestyle"?

Now, you may disagree with homosexuality and/or have some aversion to homosexual people; I wish you didn't, but that is VERY different from you literally lying about the fact that homosexual people don't 'choose' to be homosexual. If you find some exception, then state your case about that, otherwise... don't try to PAD your ridiculous assertion by claiming/implying that "homosexuality" is some "lifestyle". That's just STUPID, and no one should take that kind of foolishness seriously; it's a waste of reasonable people's time. Perhaps a few closed-minded bigots might find value in such a distortion of truth, but not those people who read about and think about this issue objectively.

 

I'll agree with you and take it one step further: NO governing body, be it federal, state, or local, should be in the business of regulating marriage. As you correctly state, it is none of the government's business who is married to whom. That said, given the current state of the laws in the various and several states, we ought remember that the Constitution does guaranteed equal protection under the law, and in my view, prohibiting certain individuals from participating in the civic franchise on arbitrary criteria such as gender clearly violates both the spirit and the letter of the law. YMMV.

 

Since marriage in America is a legal and binding contract, which gives specific GOVERNMENT rights, it is both regulated and controlled by the state. Since many states have bigoted, and illegal rules on govt, it should be the feds right to supersede state laws and make gay marriage legal in every state.

 

Marriage is a lifestyle choice, anyone, male/female, female/female, male/male should be allowed to chose that lifestyle. The only reason to prevent them is ignorance, bigotry, hate and prejudice.

 

Yeah I agree marriage is, but sexual orientation is not. And I agree with your reasons for people preventing it.

 

(emphasis added)
'Should' isn't the same thing as 'is'.

It's a matter of jurisdiction. The regulation of marriage isn't a power reserved to the federal government, which places it in the hands of the states. While states can't ignore the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th, showing an actual violation of those is a high hurdle.

There simply is no 'right' of the federal government to supersede state laws on matters where it has no jurisdiction.

 

The supreme court and the constitution hold jurisdiction over the entire U.S.

 

Homosexual so called marriage is a travesty. It makes me want to spew.

 

Why do you think that?

 

Sex was and always should, be between a man and woman, period. Anything else is an absurd travesty! Stop this PC nonsense!

 

And why is that?

 

Males and females are physically desgined for this purporse. It is so blatantly obvious why do you continually doubt it!

 

So are you saying homosexuality is an unnatural perversion?

 

That's a rather empty statement, though. The Court - if it were wise - would be guided by the Constitution and the division of powers it establishes.