Azriel_The_One

@MichaelParisi @fiercepatricks Actually hasn't. Otherwise the state would force same sex wedding places it would ordinarily verboten.

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks Sorry. Marriage has been passed off to the state a long time ago!

Can an educated person explain to me how a Gay marriage directly affects your Straight marriage? ( negatively) WITHOUT mentioning religion

@americandaddy65 @fiercepatricks

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks the law is the LAW for a reason - especially for dumbasses like you

@turpen_beth @fiercepatricks It does.

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks No one is defining your ^sacrements^. I don't give a damn about them. View marriage any way you choose, but religion doesn't own a WORD. BYE NOW.

@EdwardFrancisJ4 @fiercepatricks Youre gonna have to cite some case law to make that stick

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks They do, but it is Unconstitutional. Completely out of marriage means it has no legal standing whatever.

@Sbeveunmo @fiercepatricks Prove it

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks At no point does anything divine happen nor is divinity required to explain it.

@MrFlickRocks @turpen_beth @fiercepatricks Because marriage is a religious act the state has no business defining and neither do you.

@Azriel_The_One @turpen_beth @fiercepatricks The word is MARRIAGE, not civil union. The secular contract known as marriage has been called that for centuries. Not every marriage is or has been religious in nature, so the word applies to both domains. Why does this bother you?

@jesseO5 @fiercepatricks Which brings me back to my point that the OPs question is a category error. Marriage is a religious act. The moment religion is removed, its a civil union. I've been quiet clear that I have legal basis to oppose such civil union. So where's your argument?

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks It isn't about the church. It is about the civil union.

@fllgator1 @fiercepatricks You dont have to be in a church to marry and be a religious act. Who said otherwise, I wonder?

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks Atheists can get married It’s not a religious act You can get married without setting foot in a church

@bamf695 @fiercepatricks But did I say Christian Marriage is such, or did I say marriage generally, was a religious act? And when asked, I spoke from my personal milieu.

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks We trace acts of marriage back 4000 years ago. Far before Christianity. Marriage is just another thing Christian’s took tried to claim as their own and then deny from others. theweek.com/articles/52874…

@MrFlickRocks @fiercepatricks You must be doing the dope to think that.

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks Sure it does. Strike three! You're out!

@Sbeveunmo @FatherVideo @fiercepatricks It very much is, but since you say otherwise, convince me.

@Azriel_The_One @FatherVideo @fiercepatricks Marriage is neither rooted in divine or natural law nor does definition give that. Choosing to use your own definition of marriage doesn’t make this work since thats your definition.

@Eventzon @fiercepatricks Really? How so? If we can see a baker having to go the SCOTUS, is it that incredulous to believe that?

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks The argument that GLBT would force Catholic clerics to marry same sex couples has no evidence to support it. Arguments based on probabilities are valid. The basic argument of GLBT people has always been that to be treated as any other citizen with the same rights & privileges.

@Eventzon @fiercepatricks That doesnt negate the fact the OP is a category error. Moreover, why is that relevant?

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks The fundamental claim always includes accepting the carve out for bona fide religious institutions. Carve outs permitting discriminations otherwise outlawed in other domains of life. Even marriage: racist churches can refuse to marry a Black man & White woman.

@ToxicDontMindMe @fiercepatricks Citation needed

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks There’s cultures across the world and even back in ancient times that practiced marriage that had nothing to do with religion.

@seantob86 @fiercepatricks I did. Its called a category error. Sucks to be you. Read next time. Better yet, drop your pretenses.

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks Considering you couldn’t answer the op honestly I doubt anything I say would be accepted. So I ain’t doing your research for you👍🏻

@TamaraLBennett1 @turpen_beth @fiercepatricks The state doesnt have that power. The only thing state can do is confirm benefits foe people who engage in it. It has no power to define what it is.

@Azriel_The_One @turpen_beth @fiercepatricks it's a legal union only. it can become anything more SOLELY due to the person's feelings/beliefs/ceremony.

@AltaniBookNerd @fiercepatricks Its called social media. If you didnt want a response. You are now muted and ignored.

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks What made you think I wanted you to reply?

@anoonagoose @fiercepatricks Again,thats not at issue here- the problem is that I exposed the proposition as a category error

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks The earliest evidence of marriage dates back to around 2300 B.C. in Mesopotamia, where the marriages were done for more practical economic reasons. Dowries and such were common practice, but not alway done for religious reasons.

@anoonagoose @fiercepatricks That's not at issue here.

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks Peoples also had marriage or marriage like unions pre-colonization, and while they’re marriages could be traced to religion, they also seemed to be for the benefits of unions and larger communities and families.

@anoonagoose @fiercepatricks Not much for evidence. More opinions than citations but I'll wait for you.

@Azriel_The_One @fiercepatricks theweek.com/articles/52874… That’s the most recently updated article I can find right now, but a quick google search will also pull up several articles relaying the same findings.