It boils down to this:
Marriage is a religious sacrament
Therefore can only be given by a called and ordained servant of God, also known as a priest pastor or similar individual
Same-Sex marriage and normal marriage are given by the state(country)
This means the state is violating the separation of church and state idea as the state cannot be a called or ordained servant of God as the state cannot attend seminary
I am against state sponsored marriages in general. Just call it a civil union and give the benefits to everybody.
Does this answer your question? Or were you just trying to start a fight? I will fight and flame war you if that is really what you want!
COME AT ME BRO!
friendlycommissar wrote: One way to think about this issue is to think about rape. If a man has sex with a woman and she does not consent, then that is rape. An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.
This is the kind of confusion that happens when you reify legal categories. Giving consent is a social/linguistic act, and for the sake of sanity, large human societies tacked unto it a legal definition in order to more easily judge its infractions.
No, this kind of confusion is what happens when you try to justify human behavior by citing examples of animal behavior. The point that is being made is that treating human sexuality and animal sexuality as identical and comparable ignores the vast social complexities revolving around human sexuality that have no equivalent in the non-language using world of animals.
Asherian Command wrote: For my ethics and philosophy (No google, I don't mean SYPHILIUS) books I have gotten and read over. I can say that the only defense for someone minus the religious argument of course is the superiority idea and we don't see it in nature.
Yet.... We can see this completely proven false, we aren't superior to animals in terms of muscles, cleverness, speed.
We are vastly superior to the entirety of the animal kingdom in regards to encephalization, the cognitive treatment of visual percepts and linguistic functions.
.
Hahaha. I laugh at this. We have a thing for this. It is called specisim. It is this idea that the human race is oh so superior to the animal kingdom. Lets face it one on one we are screwed against an animal. We only have our minds and aposable thumbs. Dexterity, Brain size doesn't really matter. A bigger brain is a terrible argument.
Males have bigger brains. Does that make them smarter? nope.
Yet.... We can see this completely proven false, we aren't superior to animals in terms of muscles, cleverness, speed. I know animals that could literally rip my head off, and chase me down and maim me. Or the gorilla that waits patiently and then tears my limbs off and uses me as a bat or something else. Yet we beat animals in intelligence. Yeah. Lets think about that. Lets see what humanity has contributed to earth. Pollution, war, famines, destruction, murder, climate change, extinction. If anything animals are far better than humans in every degree. So that shoots down superiority.
Actually, we have quite a lot going for us. Our manual dexterity is leagues above any other animal in existence. The way we can manipulate objects and the agility we can manipulate them with is incredibly unique. As for the impact that humanity has had on the planet, you could argue that any species that would develop to a level of sentience similar to our own would be capable of the same.
Now onto what is natural... On homoeroticism.
Because through out human history at least 15% of the human population has been gay or homosexual. I think its natures way of weeding out genetics.
Try 3%. And a 'nature's way of weeding out genetics' does not make sense, since these traits are being passed down anyway. There are hypothesis out there that suggest that homosexuality in family lines/units can actually present certain advantages, such as stronger avuncular qualities in homosexual men, as well as the suggestion that the same trait that produces homosexuality in males is also linked to increased fecundity in females.
]Yes because Manual Dexterity is so useful. Versus a giant muscle monster..... How long does it take for an animal to be able to kick ass from birth? 7 months? What about a human baby? 2 years? Maybe? Maybe 8?
It is they don't reproduce. Nature is literally making it so these people don't reproduce.
No it isn't. I am not religious at all, yet I can go to my local courthouse and get married without ever involving religion in any way.
Therefore can only be given by a called and ordained servant of God, also known as a priest pastor or similar individual
According to your religion's rules. These rules have nothing to do with the legal version of marriage that is being debated here.
This means the state is violating the separation of church and state idea as the state cannot be a called or ordained servant of God as the state cannot attend seminary
According to my religion taxation can only be done by a called and ordained servant of god, also known as me. This means that the state is violating the separation of church and state idea as the state cannot be a called or ordained servant of god as the state cannot attend seminary. Therefore abolish the IRS.
I am against state sponsored marriages in general. Just call it a civil union and give the benefits to everybody.
Why should we change the name just because your religion invented some rules about it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote: Which is still a problematic explanation, since the gay's genes don't gain any advantage in increasing another individual's likelyhood of reproduction.
Sure they do, because that other individual also carries copies of the gay person's genes. Helping your immediate family produce offspring is almost as good as producing your own directly.
Also, your argument assumes that there's a single black and white gene that flips between gay and not-gay. Instead, perhaps the gene is a probability thing: if you have it you have a 10% chance of being gay. 90% of the carriers of the gene will produce offspring as usual, while 10% will not but will improve the chances of survival and continued reproduction for the other 90%.
I really think it's a communication thing- people meaning different things by "marriage". If it is simply implying a sharing of property / joining of estates, that is different than "two flesh becoming one".
The state only cares about / is involved with the former, which is why I think civil unions is such a good idea (for all people). However, calling it marriage also works, imo, it just has a different meaning when people use it in the context of the state.
I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state. On that same note, a religious organization should be protected from having to rent their space to someone they don't think meets the criteria for marriage in their religion. In some places, this would be as simple as not doing pre-marriage counseling (required in some churches!). In others, a person being of another religion (a Christian wishing to be married in a mosque). In others, activity that the religious group doesn't wish to condone (a couple already living together pre-marriage, or a homosexual couple, for example).
It will be different for each religious organization, but freedom of religion (at least in the US) means they have the right to that choice. Speaking of it generally, does Islam generally permit gay marriage? I'm guessing not, although the place of women in some Islamic groups may not make it the best example (although the same could be said of some Christian and secular groups, too!).
This has been a useful, thought provoking thread for me, so thanks to those who thoughtfully stated their opinions and reasons for them here.
Well, no, speciesism is discrimination based on the specie criteria. Claiming that one specie surpasses all others in regards to some capacities or criteria isn't refering to the specie criteria, but to the capacity criteria.
We only have our minds and aposable thumbs. Dexterity, Brain size don't really matter. A bigger brain is a terrible argument.
Of course brain size matters. Certain cognitive structures necessitates larger or longer strings of neurons to function. Heck, you couldn't fit a single pyramidal neuron in the entire body of most insects. Other animals have us beaten on the sense-organ side, like the very cool mantis shrimp, who'se eyes are biological marvels, but we have the entire animal beaten when it comes to the visual brain side. We dedicate more processing power to figuring out the tri-dimensional aspects of our visual world than most animals have.
Males have bigger brains. Does that make them smarter? nope.
''Smart'' is a useless term, here. There are simply too many cognitive functions to the human mind to hope to exhaustively list them. In the grand scheme of things, perhaps that human male have a few more functions than human females, or perhaps they dedicate more brain mass to certain ones. It won't be possible to say until we can compare human cognition on the gender criteria, and phenomenally, we can feel that whatever differences, if they exists, are probably of little consequences.
It is they don't reproduce. Nature is literally making it so these people don't reproduce.
But ''Nature'' isn't doing anything to them, because there cannot be a natural selection of genes that do not reproduce themselves. It's as if homosexuality is an emergent phenomenon to mammalian genetics.
Asherian Command wrote: Lets face it one on one we are screwed against an animal. We only have our minds and aposable thumbs.
That's hardly a fair test. The only way an animal wins is if it catches us on our own, unarmed, with our pants down, and know to attack. Most animals naturally fear humans, and with good reason: the ones that didn't died a long time ago (or were domesticated). Humans are sneaky and can use this to scare away much bigger animals. Also humans don't operate alone, we are social, living and hunting in groups (probably quite large groups naturally).
Success isn't about one on one fights, it's about survival of the species. large predators lose to humans, no contest. Even primitive people will just hunt, bait, trap, spear and generally kill them. I feel this can be summed up by the following score:
RiTides wrote: The state only cares about / is involved with the former, which is why I think civil unions is such a good idea (for all people). However, calling it marriage also works, imo, it just has a different meaning when people use it in the context of the state.
There are a number of technical legal issues that make the civil unions option unfeasible. Either the civil unions law would have to unequivocably state that civil union is synonymous with marriage in every possible way and that the two terms are legally interchangeable, in which case why are you even bothering with it, or the term would be less clearly defined and thus be open to all sort of stupid challenges. Like imagine someone claiming their spouse couldn't get a no fault divorce because their state's no fault divorce law only allows for the dissolution of marriages, and says nothing about civil unions. You can see how that would be stupid. That's the kind of thing you'd have with civil unions define as anything but a synonym for marriage.
Plus, the anti-gay marriage activists shot themselves in the foot when they pushed for a lot of bills that prohibited gay marriage or anything that would extend the rights associated with marriage to gays, because that took the civil unions option off the table entirely and forced a lot of advocates for civil unions to become advocates for gay marriage, and thus pretty much killed the political will behind the civil unions idea. It also demonstrated that a lot of the outrage over the use of the term marriage was just a smokescreen.
Peregrine wrote: Sure they do, because that other individual also carries copies of the gay person's genes. Helping your immediate family produce offspring is almost as good as producing your own directly.
Yes, but there's no selection pressure on the gay gene, then. If this was the case, the homosexual population would slowly decrease across ages, not maintain itself, no? Given your other response, with the odds of remaining heterosexual, I guess if the gene also marked for other advantages, that would explain the selection pressure.
Also, is the whole gene vs. exposure of fœtus to hormones debate done?
friendlycommissar wrote: There are a number of technical legal issues that make the civil unions option unfeasible. Either the civil unions law would have to unequivocably state that civil union is synonymous with marriage in every possible way and that the two terms are legally interchangeable, in which case why are you even bothering with it, or the term would be less clearly defined and thus be open to all sort of stupid challenges. Like imagine someone claiming their spouse couldn't get a no fault divorce because their state's no fault divorce law only allows for the dissolution of marriages, and says nothing about civil unions. You can see how that would be stupid. That's the kind of thing you'd have with civil unions define as anything but a synonym for marriage.
Plus, the anti-gay marriage activists shot themselves in the foot when they pushed for a lot of bills that prohibited gay marriage or anything that would extend the rights associated with marriage to gays, because that took the civil unions option off the table entirely and forced a lot of advocates for civil unions to become advocates for gay marriage, and thus pretty much killed the political will behind the civil unions idea. It also demonstrated that a lot of the outrage over the use of the term marriage was just a smokescreen.
Of course, the other question that needs to be asked is - Why is it the people entering non-religious unions who have to call it something else, rather than the church coming up with a different name for their ceremony to distinguish it from the non-religious state-overseen version?
Actually, my wife and I just had that same conversation . It is a fair point, I think!
Also not really necessary, since I think the main realization is just that people mean different things by the term (and not just regarding same sex unions). But if a distinction were needed, that'd be an easy way to go about it.
friendlycommissar wrote: One way to think about this issue is to think about rape. If a man has sex with a woman and she does not consent, then that is rape. An animal cannot consent, does that mean that all sex between animals is rape? Or does it mean that human sexual behavior is fundamentally different than animal sexual behavior? I think the latter.
This is the kind of confusion that happens when you reify legal categories. Giving consent is a social/linguistic act, and for the sake of sanity, large human societies tacked unto it a legal definition in order to more easily judge its infractions.
No, this kind of confusion is what happens when you try to justify human behavior by citing examples of animal behavior. The point that is being made is that treating human sexuality and animal sexuality as identical and comparable ignores the vast social complexities revolving around human sexuality that have no equivalent in the non-language using world of animals.
But all humans are animals which would mean that all human behavior is a type of animal behavior.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Personally I believe for some people homosexuality was a choice and for others it's not, like I've read articles about people who claim they chose to be homosexual.
Well, it is not. Marriage as you know it now can be traced back to the early years of the Roman Empire, where it was a simple legal institution designed to rule over the sharing of property and the production of legitimate heirs for the ruling nobility. It was the exclusive right of patricians, the only ones with a property to look after. - In fact, marriages had no legal value when the husband was of plebeian descent (Plebeian "marriage" was pure and simple cohabitation of a man and a woman under the same roof, with no legal strings attached). It only became a religious sacrament after Empire and Church became one and the same thing.
As Yuri Gagarin would put it, I don't see any God up, or rather, down there.
Peregrine wrote: Sure they do, because that other individual also carries copies of the gay person's genes. Helping your immediate family produce offspring is almost as good as producing your own directly.
Yes, but there's no selection pressure on the gay gene, then. If this was the case, the homosexual population would slowly decrease across ages, not maintain itself, no? Given your other response, with the odds of remaining heterosexual, I guess if the gene also marked for other advantages, that would explain the selection pressure.
If there are two siblings, one male and one female, and they both have inherited a gene that in males makes them more androphilic, while promoting fecundity in the females, the female sibling is more likely to have a relatively large amount of children carrying the same genes providing that disposition.
Also, is the whole gene vs. exposure of fœtus to hormones debate done?
I've always been of the assumption that it's probably a combination of both factors. Afterall, sexuality is almost never black and white, and most people are strongly leaning somewhere between purely straight and purely gay.
Cos religion had dibs on us longer that science has.
If we use Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) book as point zero for science, this means we have had around 155 years to try to change people's way of thinking. That's 155 compared to when mankind first started worshiping "gods". My wife isn't religious, but she still feels compelled to acknowledge Magpies when she see's them. I'm not religious, but my dog died last week and I'm still having him cremated so he can "come" home and be with us. It's so deep in our psyche even us unbelievers can't let go.
Wolfstan wrote: Cos religion had dibs on us longer that science has.
The scientific method was already a couple centuries old when Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species". Other than that, you're right, religion has been around a lot longer than science has.
But law and power are as old as religion, perhaps even more. We probably said "Do this because I command you to" before "Do this because the gods want you to".
Wolfstan wrote: Cos religion had dibs on us longer that science has.
The scientific method was already a couple centuries old when Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species". Other than that, you're right, religion has been around a lot longer than science has.
But law and power are as old as religion, perhaps even more. We probably said "Do this because I command you to" before "Do this because the gods want you to".
Yeah I know there were arguments against religion already, but just used a more prominent "zero" date Even allowing for a few hundred years difference, it's still a pin prick of time compared to religion, in it's various forms.
...ok this is very odd. I thought I'd posted in a post about religion in general!?! I know it error-ed with a permissions message and I refreshed and reposted... but just realised this is a different thread!?!
Wolfstan wrote: Cos religion had dibs on us longer that science has.
The scientific method was already a couple centuries old when Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species". Other than that, you're right, religion has been around a lot longer than science has.
But law and power are as old as religion, perhaps even more. We probably said "Do this because I command you to" before "Do this because the gods want you to".
Yeah I know there were arguments against religion already, but just used a more prominent "zero" date Even allowing for a few hundred years difference, it's still a pin prick of time compared to religion, in it's various forms.
Religion and Science didn't used to have beef, and "Origin" wasn't written as a piece against religion.
...ok this is very odd. I thought I'd posted in a post about religion in general!?! I know it error-ed with a permissions message and I refreshed and reposted... but just realised this is a different thread!?!
Yeah, the other thread seems to have been devoured by the warp. Too bad, I would have loved to watch Peregrine's one-man torch-and-pitchfork mob some more.
Wolfstan wrote: Yeah I know there were arguments against religion already, but just used a more prominent "zero" date Even allowing for a few hundred years difference, it's still a pin prick of time compared to religion, in it's various forms.
There have probably been arguments against religion for as long as there has been religion. Forget "a few hundred", try thousands of years, just for the ones that were recorded in permanent form. You're setting a "zero date" that has no relevance to anything.
Wolfstan wrote: Yeah I know there were arguments against religion already, but just used a more prominent "zero" date Even allowing for a few hundred years difference, it's still a pin prick of time compared to religion, in it's various forms.
There have probably been arguments against religion for as long as there has been religion. Forget "a few hundred", try thousands of years, just for the ones that were recorded in permanent form. You're setting a "zero date" that has no relevance to anything.
Ok how stupid of me to use a "zero" date. We'll go with your "1000's". That is still a tiny time scale compared to when humans first started believe in a deity or deities. That's hell'va long time for a something to get a grip on our minds.
Sorry for veering off topic, but I don't really think this deserves a new topic.
You know one thing I hate? Making characters in movies/books/tv gay for no actual reason.
This has been bothering me since Harry Potter, and it's being agitated by How to Train Your Dragon 2. Since I can't have actually seen HtTYD2, I'll just try to explain with Harry Potter.
What is the point of making Dumbledor gay? What does it add to his character? If he was straight, he'd be a powerful wizard, a great mentor to Harry, and a headmaster loved by everyone. He's gay, and his character is a powerful wizard, a great mentor to Harry, and a Headmaster loved by everyone... him being gay doesn't do anything to change that, and it's basically a pointless, unneeded characterization.
You know who would have been better as the gay Harry Potter character? Neville. Think about it; his parents were murdered, he's lived with an Aunt (I don't remember there ever being mention of an uncle; no father figure), he's nervous as all hell because he doesn't know his place in the world, and he idolizes people who barely know he exists. Out of the entire cast of characters, Neville is the one who grows the most in the books, to what we see by the seventh. If you made him gay, it's one more hurdle he has to pass in his growth of a character, and it still makes perfect sense with his character.
One thing that just pisses me off about a lot of the entertainment industry, had to get that off my chest.....
Because they don't want to have an all-straight cast, they want to appeal to everyone, but they don't want to bother with writing a complicated character. If it makes no difference whether the character is gay or straight, then they lose nothing by making the character gay.
Slarg232 wrote: Sorry for veering off topic, but I don't really think this deserves a new topic.
You know one thing I hate? Making characters in movies/books/tv gay for no actual reason.
This has been bothering me since Harry Potter, and it's being agitated by How to Train Your Dragon 2. Since I can't have actually seen HtTYD2,
It makes perfect sense in HtTYD2. That character is totally gay. You see it even more in the cartoon series. There is nothing wrong with it, but to does flesh out the character more. While there is no reason to explicitly make it an issue in the series, there is no reason to hide it either.
I personally did not figure dumbledor to be gay from the films (not read the books). However, even if you saw him out with his partner in the local town that does not detract from thr character. Indeed, he is an extremely positive role model and so makes a very good character to make gay for that very reason, to show gay people can be great people too... just like everyone else.
Slarg232 wrote: Sorry for veering off topic, but I don't really think this deserves a new topic.
You know one thing I hate? Making characters in movies/books/tv gay for no actual reason.
This has been bothering me since Harry Potter, and it's being agitated by How to Train Your Dragon 2. Since I can't have actually seen HtTYD2, I'll just try to explain with Harry Potter.
What is the point of making Dumbledor gay? What does it add to his character? If he was straight, he'd be a powerful wizard, a great mentor to Harry, and a headmaster loved by everyone. He's gay, and his character is a powerful wizard, a great mentor to Harry, and a Headmaster loved by everyone... him being gay doesn't do anything to change that, and it's basically a pointless, unneeded characterization.
You know who would have been better as the gay Harry Potter character? Neville. Think about it; his parents were murdered, he's lived with an Aunt (I don't remember there ever being mention of an uncle; no father figure), he's nervous as all hell because he doesn't know his place in the world, and he idolizes people who barely know he exists. Out of the entire cast of characters, Neville is the one who grows the most in the books, to what we see by the seventh. If you made him gay, it's one more hurdle he has to pass in his growth of a character, and it still makes perfect sense with his character.
One thing that just pisses me off about a lot of the entertainment industry, had to get that off my chest.....
The problem is you're assuming straight (and probably white, male) is a neutral default state when it isn't. You don't need a reason to make a character gay or female or asian or whatever. It's fine for any character to be those things and for it to not be relevant at all, just like it's fine for characters to be straight white dudes when nothing in their story arc has anything to do with being straight, white or a dude.
Slarg232 wrote: What is the point of making Dumbledor gay? What does it add to his character? If he was straight, he'd be a powerful wizard, a great mentor to Harry, and a headmaster loved by everyone. He's gay, and his character is a powerful wizard, a great mentor to Harry, and a Headmaster loved by everyone... him being gay doesn't do anything to change that, and it's basically a pointless, unneeded characterization.
What is the point of making Dumbledore's eyes blue? What does it add to his character? If he was brown-eyed, he'd be a powerful wizard, a great mentor to Harry, and a headmaster loved by everyone. He's blue-eyed, and his character is a powerful wizard, a great mentor to Harry, and a Headmaster loved by everyone... him being blue-eyed doesn't do anything to change that, and it's basically a pointless, unneeded characterization.
Does that explain it? Some people are gay. It isn't important or meaningful that they are gay, it doesn't explain anything about them, it doesn't present a challenge to be overcome, it doesn't mean anything. They're just gay. Just like in real life.
The problem is you're assuming straight (and probably white, male) is a neutral default state when it isn't. You don't need a reason to make a character gay or female or asian or whatever. It's fine for any character to be those things and for it to not be relevant at all, just like it's fine for characters to be straight white dudes when nothing in their story arc has anything to do with being straight, white or a dude.
This right here.... As a, IMHO, great example was Michael Clark Duncan's portrayal of Kingpin in the Daredevil movie. Say what you will about the rest of the movie, but that part was well played by the actor. And while I had misgivings about him playing the part because, well, Kingpin had to that point always been an extremely obese/large white guy.
The thing that bothers me about the "requirement" to have the gay friend is when a channel creates a "new" hit sitcom they "force" the issue of whatever else the makeup of the group there is that one guy/gal who is gay or acts very much like they are. I get they want to "reach" the biggest possible audience, but at this point, sitcoms are all the same.
I am fine with making characters gay for no reason. Its just their sexual orientation its not that big of a deal what their orientation is. Some people are defined by their sexuality, but most are not defined by that. Dumbldore was gay but so what? A bunch of characters have been gay. But who cares about sexuality?
Slarg232 wrote: Sorry for veering off topic, but I don't really think this deserves a new topic.
You know one thing I hate? Making characters in movies/books/tv gay for no actual reason.
This has been bothering me since Harry Potter, and it's being agitated by How to Train Your Dragon 2. Since I can't have actually seen HtTYD2,
It makes perfect sense in HtTYD2. That character is totally gay. You see it even more in the cartoon series. There is nothing wrong with it, but to does flesh out the character more. While there is no reason to explicitly make it an issue in the series, there is no reason to hide it either.
Dunno, I've only watched the first movie, it just seems out of the blue to me (And everyone else I've talked to about it.)
And as for Dumbledor being gay, it's not that Rowling made a character, Dumbledor or otherwise gay that urks me or causes me to say "WTH....", it's that there was no record of it in the books, never was mentioned, never was touched upon..... until after the seventh book was already out and Rowling said "Yup..... Dumbledor's gay". If it were actually touched on in the books it would have been fine. The way it was handled seems like she just said "Oh crap, one of the characters should be gay, let's throw a dart at the wall and see who it lands on".
Slarg232 wrote: And as for Dumbledor being gay, it's not that Rowling made a character, Dumbledor or otherwise gay that urks me or causes me to say "WTH....", it's that there was no record of it in the books, never was mentioned, never was touched upon..... until after the seventh book was already out and Rowling said "Yup..... Dumbledor's gay". If it were actually touched on in the books it would have been fine. The way it was handled seems like she just said "Oh crap, one of the characters should be gay, let's throw a dart at the wall and see who it lands on".
Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, you're right, She totally did not set it up, and it really does seem like a last second Hail Mary to make up for the fact that she didn't include any gay characters in the story.
The problem is you're assuming straight (and probably white, male) is a neutral default state when it isn't. You don't need a reason to make a character gay or female or asian or whatever. It's fine for any character to be those things and for it to not be relevant at all, just like it's fine for characters to be straight white dudes when nothing in their story arc has anything to do with being straight, white or a dude.
This right here.... As a, IMHO, great example was Michael Clark Duncan's portrayal of Kingpin in the Daredevil movie. Say what you will about the rest of the movie, but that part was well played by the actor. And while I had misgivings about him playing the part because, well, Kingpin had to that point always been an extremely obese/large white guy.
The thing that bothers me about the "requirement" to have the gay friend is when a channel creates a "new" hit sitcom they "force" the issue of whatever else the makeup of the group there is that one guy/gal who is gay or acts very much like they are. I get they want to "reach" the biggest possible audience, but at this point, sitcoms are all the same.
Sorry, I haven't seen the Daredevil movie so I can't comment on it. But I think it's actually really important to have people in media who kinda represent you without it being the defining part of their identity. Sometimes it's good, but it should be okay to have stories where it's just incidental and doesn't matter, too.
I think it used to be a trope in stories that gay characters had to be tragic - their stories had to end badly, they could never just find happiness and live happily ever after. But the example that comes to mind for me right now is women in stories. In a lot of stories you have the female characters struggling against institutionalised or personalised sexism and eventually overcoming it. On its own, that's sort of cool. It's nice to see a story like that and go, yeah, that speaks to me. But when all stories are like that, when you can't just have a female character who is awesome and doesn't ever have to deal with it, you're sort of just transmitting the same cultural threat that appears every day. You should be able to have a female character who overcomes sexism, but you shouldn't have to. And gay characters should be the same way. If Dumbledore is too busy being awesome to find a great guy to settle down with then that's a good and worthy story too.
That said, if the complaint is changed to more - there's no way to even tell in the story that any character at all was gay, then yeah, maybe that's reasonable. Most people at least had a boyfriend or girlfriend at some point!
Asherian Command wrote: I am fine with making characters gay for no reason. Its just their sexual orientation its not that big of a deal what their orientation is. Some people are defined by their sexuality, but most are not defined by that. Dumbldore was gay but so what? A bunch of characters have been gay. But who cares about sexuality?
Just my two cents.
I quoted this to say, I don't want my statement above to suggest I have issues with characters' sexuality on TV or in the movies. I actually don't care that much. I actually hate that sitcoms have become so much a "formula" as much as a "hey, I've got an idea for a show! Let's take a group of people and do X, Y, Z throughout the course of 4 or 5 seasons" It just seems that the producers and powers that be hear that idea and say, "we like it, but where's the gay dude? Our show won't be successful unless we have a gay dude"
I'm rather pissed at Fox because 2 of their recent sitcoms DIDN'T follow that formula, and at least one has already been canned (Brooklyn 99 and Enlisted)
I think it used to be a trope in stories that gay characters had to be tragic - their stories had to end badly, they could never just find happiness and live happily ever after.
That said, if the complaint is changed to more - there's no way to even tell in the story that any character at all was gay, then yeah, maybe that's reasonable. Most people at least had a boyfriend or girlfriend at some point!
Example: Take How to train your dragon...
You live in a village of 200ish people. People roughly 'your age' might be around 20 total. Half male, Half female.
Ok, You are gay. you grew up, you are different, no one really persecutes you, but you basically have 9 people who are even possible available as a mate, and none of them are Gay.
As a character, you are destined for a life of solitude and will be 'different'. You also may lean towards aspects of the society which may not conform to gender roles. That character is going to end up very different from the norm and have issues without the crux of sexuality being rammed down a viewer's throat. And those 'experiences' helped define and make the character who he is.
So can you see why such a character might be a solitary character, or might take more of an active interest in raising the kids than the male counterparts, or the default 'male in charge' when the men go off to war, or even take a special interest in a kid who is suffering through 'growing up different' or having a 'best friend' who is raising his kid alone and providing a support 'wife-like' role for them? We don't need to know where he crams his banana, but it can make a character multi-dimensioned and relate-able.
I would imagine the dilemma with representing gay characters in the media is that unless they are involved in a scene that has a love interest then nobody would know. Now to me that is the right thing as in real life this is how it is. I don't care about someone's sexuality, it's the person that matters. The problem is that due to the fact that there still is so much prejudice out there homosexuality has to be made to stand out, otherwise you have the danger that "ignoring" it becomes an acceptable way of denying it.
Co'tor Shas wrote: ...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.
Thanks
Does not provide biological offsprings to society.
Being married does not provide biological offspring to society either.
That aside, if the goal of being married is to produce offspring, are you going to prevent people getting married because they dont want or cant have children? Are you going to dissolve marriage if kids dont plop out after a set length of time?
Co'tor Shas wrote: ...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.
Thanks
Does not provide biological offsprings to society.
You'd need to provide a case for why that's a bad thing, but that aside, gay people can and do have kids (just not usually with their partner) and straight people don't have to have kids, or even be able to have kids, to get married.
Slarg232 wrote: And as for Dumbledor being gay, it's not that Rowling made a character, Dumbledor or otherwise gay that urks me or causes me to say "WTH....", it's that there was no record of it in the books, never was mentioned, never was touched upon..... until after the seventh book was already out and Rowling said "Yup..... Dumbledor's gay". If it were actually touched on in the books it would have been fine. The way it was handled seems like she just said "Oh crap, one of the characters should be gay, let's throw a dart at the wall and see who it lands on".
Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, you're right, She totally did not set it up, and it really does seem like a last second Hail Mary to make up for the fact that she didn't include any gay characters in the story.
In my opinion, that's the real problem with this. Either write gay characters in, or leave them out, don't just decide after you've written all your books that one of the characters has to be gay.
Co'tor Shas wrote: ...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.
Thanks
Does not provide biological offsprings to society.
I know it's been said already, but they can still reproduce, they can certainly adopt children (something which is really quite useful), and plenty of straight couples don't reproduce anyway.
Slarg232 wrote: And as for Dumbledor being gay, it's not that Rowling made a character, Dumbledor or otherwise gay that urks me or causes me to say "WTH....", it's that there was no record of it in the books, never was mentioned, never was touched upon..... until after the seventh book was already out and Rowling said "Yup..... Dumbledor's gay". If it were actually touched on in the books it would have been fine. The way it was handled seems like she just said "Oh crap, one of the characters should be gay, let's throw a dart at the wall and see who it lands on".
That's one way to look at it.
The other would be to consider that being gay was just one aspect of his character that she considered when writing him into the story, and she didn't feel any great need to draw attention to it by having him dancing around in paisley shirts and complaining about the curtains.
It would have been far more annoying if she had written in a gay character who subscribed to all the standard Hollywood stereotypes. The very fact that it's not blindingly obvious that he's gay the moment you see him is a good thing.
Slarg232 wrote: What is the point of making Dumbledor gay? What does it add to his character?
I think the story behind it is that the Director of the films wanted to have Dumbledor reminiscing about an old flame (lost love) to round out his character or a scene, and J K Rowling didn't approve, and after some toing-and-froing she stated that he was gay.
Since he isn't actually gay in the stories, you could argue that he isn't gay. Marshall Mcluhan would argue that interpretation is the dominion of the reader, regardless of the author's intentions. Perhaps she thought of him as gay, but in the end his character ends up being rather asexual. It's possible that she just said he was gay to get the director of her case. Or maybe she felt that fiction needed to have more positive gay characters, who are heroic and respected and not stereotypical. OR maybe it was just shock value for publicity.
In any case, just because he is gay doesn't mean he wears leather pants at the weekend and goes cruising on Grinder. Maybe he just enjoys the platonic company of another man, and the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe. Not all gay people are into gimp suits and sodomy.
Smacks wrote: Maybe he just enjoys the platonic company of another man, and the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe.
Neither of those things have any necessary relationship to being gay.
Hence the word 'maybe' indicating that it may be the case, but isn't necessarily. I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here. If you are saying that platonic love can't also be romantic then you are wrong, and if you're saying some of Robert Mapplethorpe's photography isn't classed has homoerotic then you are also wrong.
Smacks wrote: If you are saying that platonic love can't also be romantic then you are wrong, and if you're saying some of Robert Mapplethorpe's photography isn't classed has homoerotic then you are also wrong.
I am saying platonic love has nothing to do with homosexuality. I am also saying that Robert Mapplethorpe has taken non-homoerotic pictures and that non-gay people can enjoy either kind.
Manchu wrote: I am saying platonic love has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Well clearly it does. If being gay was just about sex, then why are gay people asking for the right to get married? Clearly they feel their love transcends just sex. Some gay people would also like to marry in religious ceremonies before God, that sounds to me like the very definition of 'divine eros'.
Manchu wrote: I am also saying that Robert Mapplethorpe has taken non-homoerotic pictures and that non-gay people can enjoy either kind.
Manchu wrote: I am saying platonic love has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Well clearly it does. If being gay was just about sex, then why are gay people asking for the right to get married? Clearly they feel their love transcends just sex. Some gay people would also like to marry in religious ceremonies before God, that sounds to me like the very definition of 'divine eros'.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are words that describe with which gender one prefers to have sexual relations. Beyond that point, any comment about being gay (or straight) is a stereotype.
Manchu wrote: Homosexuality and heterosexuality are words that describe with which gender one prefers to have sexual relations. Beyond that point, any comment about being gay (or straight) is a stereotype.
If this is a question of semantics. Some sources (like the Wikipedia article) define homosexuality as including romantic attraction, not just explicitly sexual attraction. In either case, engaging in sex is not a perquisite, and gay identity cannot be all encompassed by some clinical definition of homosexuality.
Manchu wrote: I dispute the existence of "the gay (or straight) identity," which seems to me purely ideological, oppressive, and more trouble than its worth.
Well you are entitled to your 'opinion', but I'm sure it won't stop millions of people from self identifying as gay.
Manchu wrote: I dispute the existence of "the gay (or straight) identity," which seems to me purely ideological, oppressive, and more trouble than its worth.
Well you are entitled to your 'opinion', but I'm sure it won't stop millions of people from self identifying as gay.
I think that there's a world of difference between someone self-identifying as gay from a "gay identity"
Sorry I am hyper hammered and Iam sure I'll be banned but let me be honest. This is worth being banned. If I can risk being excoummunicated from church for stopping this bs iun my church I can risk it here and not care.
As I have said to my kids my beautiful daughter who is bright and worthy of god and loves all not like me:
OK as a dad of someone who might be gay, and who can count several of his children's friends who are gay.
1. There is no difference in how you treat them or how you expect them to act. Period. Act with honor. treat my children well or I will kill you as they are the only thing left to me now.
2. To those who oppose them. feth you. I'll meet you in an open field on any morning. Bring steel. I will. Call me. I'll be ther you fether. I'll enjoy it. I've lived long enough.
3. I am a Christian. Jesus would wouldn't cotton to you sorry feths so feth off. Jesus was about peace and loving those who were abused by society. Those who hate gays hey fethers who do you think jesus would be sheltering? You? feth you no the poor the oppressed and yes gays. You need to seriously rethink your mindset and if you're against Jesus again feth you.
4. I welcome gays to Christ's familuy. Act with honor. Stand against evil and protect your family. Remember Jesus's words. Love others like you would love yourselves. Don't be a dick and lift upn your kids so they will live life better than you.
5. There ar ethose, like myself who care, who will give all to raise you up. We'll take out the world so you can fly.
Exalted Fraz. I couldn't have said it better (though I no longer espouse to necessarily be a Christian, two tours in Iraq having altered me in ways that are still becoming apparent).
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think that there's a world of difference between someone self-identifying as gay from a "gay identity"
If you would be kind enough to elaborate and define what you think the difference is for us, that would make them much easier to discuss. However...
My original hypothetical example is:
Dumbledore considers himself gay, because he has romantic feelings towards other men. He also (perhaps coincidentally) enjoys the homoerotic photography of Robert Mapplethorpe.
I disagree:
That he must engage in sex with other men to qualify as homosexual, and that the words 'homosexual' and 'gay' are completely interchangeable and void of any subtle difference in meaning.
If that is disagreeable to you then please say so, however I'm not going to enter into a semantic argument based on what is likely equivocation of the word 'identity'.
Frazzled wrote: Jesus would wouldn't cotton to you sorry feths so feth off.
The simple answer is there isn't a non-religious argument against it. As in essence marriage is religious sacrament like baptism, confirmation or the funeral service.
And as such there can be no argument made in favour of it. Anymore than on religious grounds one can argue in favour of eating shellfish, pork, or women wearing trousers.
Of course one might then object on the grounds of equality - which appears to be what is going on - in which case why are heterosexual civil partnerships forbidden?
But now I am really eating bacon sandwiches outside the synagogue door... and exposing the hypocrisy of the 'equality' agenda.
Wilytank wrote: On a somewhat similar matter, could someone explain to me why there were ever laws against sodomy or other sexual acts?
"Eww, gross."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
marielle wrote: As in essence marriage is religious sacrament like baptism, confirmation or the funeral service.
It really isn't. And funerals aren't religious either.
in which case why are heterosexual civil partnerships forbidden?
Because they aren't? Unless you're talking about cases where "civil partnership" is just a lesser version of marriage, and the only reason you'd ever have a civil partnership is because you're not allowed to have a marriage? But in that case it's a nonsense argument, like whining that you're forbidden to be paid $10 because you have to be paid $20 instead.
Wilytank wrote: On a somewhat similar matter, could someone explain to me why there were ever laws against sodomy or other sexual acts?
"Eww, gross."
IN essence yes. Suck it I say. life is gross. Do gays not hate? Do they not love? Do they not hope and dream like any one else? Do they not bleed? Do they not seek revenge? They ar ehuman. Humans are gross, Deal or feth off.
Let me see, two people who can care for each other and manage to not have the prejudice of looking for that person only in the opposite sex.
Some issues with procreation but there are many opportunities for adoption in the world.
Argument against: I suppose we can look in many old books to do with religious texts or some old laws laid down when women would be fined for wearing a skirt and riding a bike.
The only time I find anything to do with gay people strange is when enough people make them feel uncomfortable they have to retreat into "gay culture" to have a place to belong. It is like forcing a "culture" that really does not need to be there.
It is sad when they cannot be just another citizen and not be questioned on their choices.
Frazzled wrote: IN essence yes. Suck it I say. life is gross. Do gays not hate? Do they not love? Do they not hope and dream like any one else? Do they not bleed? Do they not seek revenge? They ar ehuman. Humans are gross, Deal or feth off.
Leave them be.
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with any of that. The laws in question were utterly wrong, and it's a very good thing that they've been thrown out in most countries. I was just saying that the reason for those laws was nothing more than "eww gross, I don't like it". There was never any reason besides a desire to impose personal opinions on everyone else.
The only time I find anything to do with gay people strange is when enough people make them feel uncomfortable they have to retreat into "gay culture" to have a place to belong. It is like forcing a "culture" that really does not need to be there.
It is sad when they cannot be just another citizen and not be questioned on their choices.
My friend who is gay says gay culture is the worst. You are forced into certain types of "Archetypes" Like the bears, effeminate that kinda stuff. It can get even more marginalizing in their culture, being forced to conform, with certain archetypes looking down on others. If yu are Bi-sexual it is even worse. My lesbian friend said it is really bad, with many lesbians forcing conformity(Social Progressive, Activist, Liberal) onto other lesbians, or else you are not a lesbian
It is obvious that someone can consider themselves [gay/straight] without having actually engaged in [homosexual/heterosexual] sex acts. It should be equally obvious that a person can engage in sex acts that do not correspond to what they consider to be their orientation. It is (comparatively) easy to categorize a given sex act as homo- or heterosexual (this conversation seems to assume normative gender categories) but much harder to characterize orientation. The former deals with organs while the latter deals with people. Speaking of orientation as "either X or Y" reduces the complex reality of an entirely personal characteristic to a label, which ends up obscuring the person. This is also true of fictional characters. Instead of talking about Dumbledore, we end up talking about Dumbdore's gayness.
It really isn't. And funerals aren't religious either.
Yes, marriage is a sacrament. Not everyone recognizes that, but it doesn't make it less of a sacrament to Catholics.
I think his issue is that people are saying 'marriage is a sacrament' instead of 'in some religions, marriage is a sacrament', which I think, to peregrine, makes it seem like people are saying 'it's only a sacrament, and nothing else to anybody else'. So its more crossed-communications than anything.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think that there's a world of difference between someone self-identifying as gay from a "gay identity"
If you would be kind enough to elaborate and define what you think the difference is for us, that would make them much easier to discuss. However...
A decent enough example off the top of my head:
I self identify as a rugby player. Most people wouldnt know this unless I either tell them, or am wearing rugby kit of some sort (whether it's a simple t-shirt, practice/supporter jersey, or the full team kit getting ready for a match)
When I'm actually wearing my kit/participating in Rugby activities, there are certain characteristics that I quite obviously share with those who are also participating in the same activity. It's basically, there are certain common denominators that could be attributed to any particular group of people (NASCAR fans have mullets, Italians love food, Irish are drunks, etc) that are easily distinguishable to outsiders from that group.
In this way, there isn't so much a "if, then" type situation for gay people. Certainly many gay men like to be well dressed; but there are plenty of straight men who are as well. Many gay men may like/love interior design, but there are also plenty of straight men who do as well, etc. etc.
Well, we (Catholics) are not saying "marriage is only a sacrament to us" either; i.e., as Peregrine would say, that it is our opinion that marriage is sacramental. It's no more of a matter of opinion than photosynthesis (although it is also not the same kind of fact as photosynthesis). For us, the state cannot determine what is and is not marriage. I mean, I for one am all for the state recognizing a marriage between any two consenting adults (questions of affinity aside). But as I understand it, that's not the definition of sacramental marriage.
Manchu wrote: I am saying platonic love has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Well clearly it does. If being gay was just about sex, then why are gay people asking for the right to get married? Clearly they feel their love transcends just sex. Some gay people would also like to marry in religious ceremonies before God, that sounds to me like the very definition of 'divine eros'.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are words that describe with which gender one prefers to have sexual relations. Beyond that point, any comment about being gay (or straight) is a stereotype.
I would've said it is about what gender someone falls in love with.
This debate is just so... over. After going through a page of this, I started to feel like I was turning up to a battlefield a day late to bayonet the wounded. Anyone else get that feeling?
And sebster, the idea of religious marriages being a recent idea is pretty hilarious. There are lots of non-religious marriage ceremonies, sure, but to say religious ones are a recent idea... Lol. Both have been around a long time is much fairer to say, I think.
I'm used to people failing to read my comments and giving responses to what they're pretending I'd say, but this would have to be the first time that someone has failed to read their own comment.
Here's what you said;
"As many have noted, marriage is a religious idea in and of itself."
To which I responded;
"It really isn't. Plenty of friends of mine had non-religious ceremonies, and they're not any less married than I am. And religious people I know don't consider those people who got non-religious ceremonies any less married."
Now, if you'll read your comment and mine you'll learn that you were claiming marriage was purely religious, that is to say, that a marriage that isn't religious isn't a marriage at all. I corrected this, by explaining that there's a whole lot of marriages out there that had no religious trappings at all, and no-one, neither the state nor the general population, ever considered those marriages as anything other that full marriages.
Get it now? I mean do you see how your original claim was actually pretty silly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: As regards the tax issue, there is a reasonable argument that everyone should be taxed as an individual. If you decide to shack up with your brother, cousin, a friend or a marriage partner, it should not affect your tax status at all. Why should you get a tax break?
The other part of the tax breaks is that otherwise the system provides a disincentive towards marriage. If a couple live together but remain 'single' then the partner who stays home with the kids will likely be able to claim welfare for her zero income, or at the very least rental assistance (and legality of it will in many cases be grey, and even where it is black and white illegal it's very difficult to detect). But if the couple legally recognize their marriage then the stay at home partner will no longer be able to claim benefits.
Having people choose not to marry because of the negative financial hit is not desirable, and one practical way of avoiding that is to give tax benefits to marriage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dereksatkinson wrote: I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral. That isn't to single it out either. I find voyeurism and sadomasochism to be abnormal and deviant as well. That is how i'd categorize it. Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral? no.. What would make me a bigot is whether or not i'd discriminate base on that which I most certainly do not advocate.
No, it makes you a moralistic prude, who wants to deny basic legal systems from other people based on nothing more than the fact that you don't like it.
I quite agree that the term bigot isn't an exacting definition, but given the overlap between moralistic prudes and bigots, its probably a good enough for most of these conversations.
Why should income be taxed in the 1st place? Why not have all taxes be consumption based?
Because there is no means of administering consumption taxes without making them flat taxes. And attempting a purely flat tax system is a shambolic nonsense that, where attempted, led to bankruptcy at a truly remarkable speed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Morality is subjective was what I got from what he was saying.
In my experience, when someone is attempting to argue that morality is subjective to defend the views of some other party, they are attempting some kind of tolerant world view. If someone was to say "I don't agree with his opinion, but I think he has a right to hold and express his point of view", then they'd be arguing from a position of tolerance.
On the other hand, when someone is attempting to invoke subjective morality to defend their own point of view, then all they're really doing is attempting to avoid actually defending their position. People attempting this are ultimately saying something along the lines of "You should stop challenging my position and poking logical or factual holes in it because that's intolerant." Which is, you know, pretty obviously weak as piss.
The only time I find anything to do with gay people strange is when enough people make them feel uncomfortable they have to retreat into "gay culture" to have a place to belong. It is like forcing a "culture" that really does not need to be there.
It is sad when they cannot be just another citizen and not be questioned on their choices.
My friend who is gay says gay culture is the worst. You are forced into certain types of "Archetypes" Like the bears, effeminate that kinda stuff. It can get even more marginalizing in their culture, being forced to conform, with certain archetypes looking down on others. If yu are Bi-sexual it is even worse. My lesbian friend said it is really bad, with many lesbians forcing conformity(Social Progressive, Activist, Liberal) onto other lesbians, or else you are not a lesbian
You'll find groups do that every where. I've developed an effective counter strategy.
"blah blah blah"
Frazzled: Belch. Scratch belly. Walk away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I self identify as a rugby player. Most people wouldnt know this unless I either tell them, or am wearing rugby kit of some sort (whether it's a simple t-shirt, practice/supporter jersey, or the full team kit getting ready for a match).
Oh we'd notice. Your lack of teeth and inability to not drink massive amounts of beer gives you away.
Unless of course you're in Canada in which case we'd think you're a hockey player, or anywhere else in which case we'll think you're Australian.
dereksatkinson wrote: I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral. That isn't to single it out either. I find voyeurism and sadomasochism to be abnormal and deviant as well. That is how i'd categorize it. Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral? no.. What would make me a bigot is whether or not i'd discriminate base on that which I most certainly do not advocate.
No, it makes you a moralistic prude, who wants to deny basic legal systems from other people based on nothing more than the fact that you don't like it.
2 points..
A prude conforms significantly in excess of normal prevailing standards. Only 3.5% of the US population do not engage in this kind of relations. 96.5% is beyond the normal prevailing standards? 60% of the US public currently finds homosexuality to be immoral. By comparison, 63% find the death penalty moral (where i am a minority). So you might be able to argue that i'm morally prudish when it comes to the death penalty, but with regards to homosexuality, i'm most certainly not.
As for the part i highlighted.. If you had taken my comments in context, you would realize that I am not opposed to gay marriage. If homosexuals want to get married, great. It doesn't matter if I believe what they are doing is immoral. Regardless of how I feel, the state should not be regulating marriage in any way shape or form. 2 consenting individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, should be allowed to share rights and assets without interference. The government's job is to keep records, authenticate validity and settle disputes with regards to the terms of the contract. If the government can grant the right to marriage then they can take that right away. What happens in a couple years when we have a new attorney general?
The biggest problem I see with the way gay rights are being trumpeted is that there is way too much of an effort towards having homosexuality "accepted". It's the wrong battle to fight and one which you will never see won. Too many people have beliefs that are opposed to it. The only battle that needs to be fought is one where there are no strawmen. On a civil rights basis, marriage should not be controlled by the state. You win that victory and there is some real progress.
To which I ask.. Why is that a bad thing? Why should married couples get preferential treatment?
Short answer is, they shouldnt really. But the deal is that there are certain products that people buy that become more palatable to purchase when done as a couple.
To which I ask.. Why is that a bad thing? Why should married couples get preferential treatment?
Short answer is, they shouldnt really. But the deal is that there are certain products that people buy that become more palatable to purchase when done as a couple.
There are many benefits and products that are provided at a discount to married couples. Sometimes this is just the result of marketing, but quite often it results from the fact that married people behave differently.
Marital status has a proven statistical impact on behavior, and married people statistically often act more responsibly. Insurance is one product that takes marital status into account and offers a discount because you are less of a risk for them if you are married. Health insurance provides a discount on family plans over individual plans, and if there is no certification of marriage then anybody can claim that they are married and get that discount. Even mundane things like gym-memberships are affected by that.
On a larger scale are such things as visiting sick relatives, and making decisions for them when they can no longer speak to themselves. If there is no standard certification of marriage anymore, then letting the "spouse" decide will simply become a liability for the hospital and they will take the path of least risk and cut the spouse out of the decision making process.
I know the hip libertarian answer will be "just get a living-will and advanced directives", but that can be an added expense that you don't have with marriage licenses and the forms are usually not valid out-of-state. So unless you pay $$$ to a lawyer to have a custom LW/AD made out you still run the risk of falling ill on vacation and not having any proof that you are married. A marriage license is honored in every state.
Issuing a marriage license costs a state pennies to spend on paper and filing. It doesn't cost them anything to hire a clerk that already exists and it doesn't cost them anything on a judge that already has a job anyway. Marriage licenses are probably one of the few areas where the state makes a couple of bucks. People like to advocate that we get rid of a single solitary piece of paper and replace it with a hand-out to private industry by requiring people who want to get married to get a lawyer to draft individual contracts to cover everything marriage and family law currently covers and risk a highly fragmented legal status with no uniformity of any kind that can have very damaging impact on families and corporations for no other reason than "Government is bad, mkay".
Are there areas of family law that need fixing? Hell yes. Is it going to destroy the United States to say "two legal adults can marry" instead of "two legal adults (one man and one woman) can marry"? Feth no.
I swear, this country is going to be destroyed by the two camps of "the government is useless, burn it to the ground" and "we need more government, build more more more".
d-usa wrote: I swear, this country is going to be destroyed by the two camps of "the government is useless, burn it to the ground" and "we need more government, build more more more".
There is a big difference between limited government and no government.
One of the other flaws I see in your reasoning is the assumption that your documents in State A wont be recognized in state B. While there are differences in laws, most legal documents are easily transferable. When it comes to property ownership, rights of a guardian or a will and testament, it's a non-issue. When you move from state to state you are required to update your driver's license, insurance and a load of other information. When you have something like a marriage certificate, those types of things are not requested almost ever. The only time i've had my marriage certificate be produced after the wedding was when I was living out of state. I placed a call to the county clerk, they mailed me a certified copy and I mailed them a check for $10. BFD.. Considering how rare of an occurrence it is for people to move from state to state, how rarely you need to produce the documents AND how easy it is to produce those documents, I hardly see why it's necessary to bring it up. Let alone be a valid defense of government regulation of marriage.
There are basically 2 sides to this debate.. Yes to gay marriage and No to gay marriage. In my mind, neither option is actually a defense of liberty.
One of the other flaws I see in your reasoning is the assumption that your documents in State A wont be recognized in state B. While there are differences in laws, most legal documents are easily transferable. When it comes to property ownership, rights of a guardian or a will and testament, it's a non-issue. When you move from state to state you are required to update your driver's license, insurance and a load of other information. When you have something like a marriage certificate, those types of things are not requested almost ever. The only time i've had my marriage certificate be produced after the wedding was when I was living out of state. I placed a call to the county clerk, they mailed me a certified copy and I mailed them a check for $10. BFD.. Considering how rare of an occurrence it is for people to move from state to state, how rarely you need to produce the documents AND how easy it is to produce those documents, I hardly see why it's necessary to bring it up. Let alone be a valid defense of government regulation of marriage.
Not always... I was in the military for 10 years, and never once updated my license. Sure, my insurance I changed to my current address, but that's not the same thing at all.
And Power of Attorney really is a specialized state by state thing. The states are required to recognize a military POA, but when I had to do one a couple months ago, I had to have it redone with "correct" information. Sure, many states will "easily" allow you to move your legal documentation over to their system, but you're gonna have to pay for it.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not always... I was in the military for 10 years, and never once updated my license. Sure, my insurance I changed to my current address, but that's not the same thing at all.
Because you were living on base? Normally, you have to update your information if you move state to state. If you were pulled over and your driver's license was from the State of Texas and your insurance had a different address in the state of Oregon, you'd be getting a ticket.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And Power of Attorney really is a specialized state by state thing. The states are required to recognize a military POA, but when I had to do one a couple months ago, I had to have it redone with "correct" information. Sure, many states will "easily" allow you to move your legal documentation over to their system, but you're gonna have to pay for it.
So your objection to my stance is a potential $10 fee for providing proof of documentation you would very rarely need? How many power of attorney forms does the average person need to do in their lifetimes? how many times do you need to show a marriage cert? It's ludicrous that this is a sticking point.
So your objection to my stance is a potential $10 fee for providing proof of documentation you would very rarely need? How many power of attorney forms does the average person need to do in their lifetimes?
If you want it to do the same thing as a marriage certificate? You need to do as many as it takes to cover you 24/7 your entire life together in every state you will ever physically be located in even if you are just driving through it.
I might never need it, but if I have an Oklahoma DPOA and I'm visiting my parents in Illinois and driving through Missouri I would need three DPOAs to cover the possibility of getting sick or getting into an accident in all three of those states. Four if I want to visit my brother who lives just across the state line in Indiana.
Or, you know, one single marriage certificate.
Edit: instead of complaining that people don't really need X number of DPOAs or pay an attorney to draft one single giant form that could cover every possible state, why don't you tell us what the benefit would be of no longer having a marriage certificate issued by the states.
If the right and left are mostly the same then how come they have different economic philosophies (trickle down and Keynesian economics) and are in so much disagreement with each other? Every time I bring this up no one ever challenges me on it.
If the right and left are mostly the same then how come they have different economic philosophies (trickle down and Keynesian economics) and are in so much disagreement with each other? Every time I bring this up no one ever challenges me on it.
some would say that left and right are the same because they believe in a state. the same people would normally go on to say that a state is then the cause of lack-of-liberty.
most of these people should go and live in liberia or somalia and enjoy the freedom afforded by a lack of state.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not always... I was in the military for 10 years, and never once updated my license. Sure, my insurance I changed to my current address, but that's not the same thing at all.
Because you were living on base? Normally, you have to update your information if you move state to state. If you were pulled over and your driver's license was from the State of Texas and your insurance had a different address in the state of Oregon, you'd be getting a ticket.
Nope, it's a federal law that allows me to retain my "Home of Record" and thus, my home state drivers' license. Most police, if they are near the military towns are used to this. I recently got pulled over in Utah (where there is little to no military presence) and the cop asked about the variations (the license was one state, my registration had one address and my insurance showed another address in the same state as registration, lol), but ultimately did not give me a ticket since I was in the right (well, except the reason I got pulled over in the first place).
It really is a simple as, "it's a military thing". Even military spouses do not have to change their drivers licenses and whatnot when they move. The only thing they'd have to change is any form of professional license (ie. Real Estate, Insurance Producers, etc)
dereksatkinson wrote: A prude conforms significantly in excess of normal prevailing standards.
Or, instead of nitpicking the definition, you could use the more common one: "a person who is easily shocked or offended by things that do not shock or offend other people". Which pretty clearly applies to you, you're offended by homosexuality even though other people aren't. And yes, 60% of the US agrees with you, but the US is way behind on this.
The biggest problem I see with the way gay rights are being trumpeted is that there is way too much of an effort towards having homosexuality "accepted". It's the wrong battle to fight and one which you will never see won.
Oh, it's a battle that should be fought and will be won, because the opposition to homosexuality is based on stupid reasons. What you're saying here is the equivalent of insisting that racists should be left alone with their racist beliefs as long as they aren't passing laws to enforce their racism. And that's just wrong, tolerance of private beliefs has its limits.
PS: I'm still waiting to see your explanation for how homosexuality is immoral, without resorting to "because Jesus said so".
I think much of it is held over from old world values.
The primary concern governing marriage for thousands of years has been to produce as many male heirs as possible. This preserves the family lineage and holdings. A gay male heir is less likely to produce offspring so in many cases would be almost the same as having them born a female. Being unable to bear children was generally regarded as being highly shameful as it meant that the married couple was unable to fulfill their duty in preserving the family line and continue the succession of property and land. (This occurs almost all cultures at that time with the exception of rare matrilineal societies).
While a gay male or female could potentially produce offspring, it would likely be at a far lower rate as the act would be done out of obligation, and time they spent with their gay lovers was time that it wasn't spent in partnership that would otherwise produce offspring.
Also in most medieval cultures the sate and religion were basically one body, kings were ordained by the religion and so the sate was headed by a religious figure. The King of England was both head of state but also head of the church of England. Laws were largely based on religious principals and even though we are in modern states most of our legal systems are based on older law and has roots in Abrahamic laws. So marriage law was based upon a combination of religious tradition and law for governing land ownership.
During the medieval period and even late into the early modern age landownership and succession was paramount concern in marital status. If you did not own land you had no rights or value. This only began to change when modern nations were created around 200 years ago where everyone now has rights. Marriage primarily for love is also a concept that is relatively new, in the old world it was a secondary concern that came after the concerns of lineage and land rights. In terms of history and culture our modern society has evolved in a very short period of time still and many of our customs still hold over from the old world ideals.
Now that all men are in effect equal and class division has been removed the concept of landholdings and marriage aren't as important as they once were, people are typically marrying for love and children are not such a high priority, however many still view marriage as shaped by the traditional model of one man and one woman as that is how both religion and the state have defined it for thousands of years as it was intended to produce a maximum of legit offspring.
Society is very slow to adapt and it usually takes several generations before changes fully take root. We're still feeling ripple effects from the civil rights era and that was decades ago. Something that radically redefines what families are perceived to be, that's going to take a while to settle in as well.
So your objection to my stance is a potential $10 fee for providing proof of documentation you would very rarely need? How many power of attorney forms does the average person need to do in their lifetimes?
If you want it to do the same thing as a marriage certificate? You need to do as many as it takes to cover you 24/7 your entire life together in every state you will ever physically be located in even if you are just driving through it.
I might never need it, but if I have an Oklahoma DPOA and I'm visiting my parents in Illinois and driving through Missouri I would need three DPOAs to cover the possibility of getting sick or getting into an accident in all three of those states. Four if I want to visit my brother who lives just across the state line in Indiana.
Or, you know, one single marriage certificate.
Edit: instead of complaining that people don't really need X number of DPOAs or pay an attorney to draft one single giant form that could cover every possible state, why don't you tell us what the benefit would be of no longer having a marriage certificate issued by the states.
You don't need a birth certificate for every state you travel through. If you go to the hospital (and actually pay your bills) you need insurance and a driver's license. So much of what you wrote is just made up and doesn't really address my points.
So your objection to my stance is a potential $10 fee for providing proof of documentation you would very rarely need? How many power of attorney forms does the average person need to do in their lifetimes?
If you want it to do the same thing as a marriage certificate? You need to do as many as it takes to cover you 24/7 your entire life together in every state you will ever physically be located in even if you are just driving through it.
I might never need it, but if I have an Oklahoma DPOA and I'm visiting my parents in Illinois and driving through Missouri I would need three DPOAs to cover the possibility of getting sick or getting into an accident in all three of those states. Four if I want to visit my brother who lives just across the state line in Indiana.
Or, you know, one single marriage certificate.
Edit: instead of complaining that people don't really need X number of DPOAs or pay an attorney to draft one single giant form that could cover every possible state, why don't you tell us what the benefit would be of no longer having a marriage certificate issued by the states.
You don't need a birth certificate for every state you travel through. If you go to the hospital (and actually pay your bills) you need insurance and a driver's license. So much of what you wrote is just made up and doesn't really address my points.
Birth Certificates have nothing to do with it, and paying your hospital bills have nothing to do with it. Both are 100% completely irrelevant when it comes to making medical decisions for your "spouse" after getting rid of any state sanctioned proof that you are in fact married. What I wrote is also not made up. It actually is a 100% factual example of what happens when you get rid of marriage and it is just one example of the problems it would create. I know this because this is the field both I and my wife work in, and we assisted my in-laws in filing all these papers because they don't want to actually be married but want to be able to make medical decisions for each other.
Absent any form of state recognized marriage, if you and your spouse travel or visit any state you will be required to have DPOAs for every single state if you want to be able to make decisions for your spouse in case there is an accident or sudden illness that lands you in the hospital.
So a trip starting in Oklahoma and ending in Indiana crossing Illinois and Missouri will require us to have 8 separate DPOAs for each other so that we can make medical decisions in case something happens. And that is the solution put forth by the "we don't need no government to tell us we are married" folks. They will flat out tell you that there is nothing in a marriage certificate that you couldn't accomplish with some Power of Attorneys and contracts.
It's also three posts in a row from you saying "state sanctioned marriage is stupid" and "you don't know what you are talking about" and not a single post answering "what is so wrong about a state issued marriage license that we need to get rid of it and replace it with a highly fragmented system of private contracts and power or attorneys".
Peregrine wrote: Or, instead of nitpicking the definition, you could use the more common one: "a person who is easily shocked or offended by things that do not shock or offend other people". Which pretty clearly applies to you, you're offended by homosexuality even though other people aren't. And yes, 60% of the US agrees with you, but the US is way behind on this.
Oh, it's a battle that should be fought and will be won, because the opposition to homosexuality is based on stupid reasons. What you're saying here is the equivalent of insisting that racists should be left alone with their racist beliefs as long as they aren't passing laws to enforce their racism. And that's just wrong, tolerance of private beliefs has its limits.
PS: I'm still waiting to see your explanation for how homosexuality is immoral, without resorting to "because Jesus said so".
Again.. I've never once brought religion into this discussion. You need to learn the difference between descriptive and normative morality. I've been very clear which side of the fence i'm on.
The most cogent secular arguments I've heard are that gay marriage reflects a normalization of deviancy, depresses the birthrate especially among upper classes, leads to the creation of gay ghettos in the arts like theater where straight men need not apply, and that the entire push is a smokescreen to further immasculate and vilify traditional white straight men.
Of those I agree with one, but don't think it is convincing enough to continue to withhold marriage rights from the gays.
Silverthorne wrote: The most cogent secular arguments I've heard are that gay marriage reflects a normalization of deviancy, depresses the birthrate especially among upper classes, leads to the creation of gay ghettos in the arts like theater where straight men need not apply, and that the entire push is a smokescreen to further immasculate and vilify traditional white straight men.
Of those I agree with one, but don't think it is convincing enough to continue to withhold marriage rights from the gays.
Meh...
At the end of the day... What business does anyone have in objecting SSM????
I proffer that No Fault Divorces is the true enemy of the "The Institution of Marriage".... Not gay marriage.
whembly wrote: I proffer that No Fault Divorces is the true enemy of the "The Institution of Marriage".... Not gay marriage.
I have a difficult time fathoming the mindset that would want to eliminate "no fault divorce". It's the very pinnacle of government intrusion into a private union.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying you, Whembly have argued in favor of it.
whembly wrote: I proffer that No Fault Divorces is the true enemy of the "The Institution of Marriage".... Not gay marriage.
I have a difficult time fathoming the mindset that would want to eliminate "no fault divorce". It's the very pinnacle of government intrusion into a private union.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying you, Whembly have argued in favor of it.
Lol... I'm actually very conflicted. There's no real solution to be honest, other than that the current laws are truly more favorable towards the children. Which it's where it should be....
On the flip side through... If your spouse cheated on you... You should'nt get fething half of everything. feth no... And if you wanted full custody... Your spouse infidelity should absolutely be a factor in the divorce.(it's not tho)
That's why I applauded that one dude buying the apartment next to his ex's. Then putting a huge statue of the middle finger in his back yard, with lights and all. Such that whenever his ex looks out the backyard, she'll see that statue flicking her off.
That's why I applauded that one dude buying the apartment next to his ex's. Then putting a huge statue of the middle finger in his back yard, with lights and all. Such that whenever his ex looks out the backyard, she'll see that statue flicking her off.
whembly wrote: That's why I applauded that one dude buying the apartment next to his ex's. Then putting a huge statue of the middle finger in his back yard, with lights and all. Such that whenever his ex looks out the backyard, she'll see that statue flicking her off.
Yeah... it's always nice to see someone taking the high road...
whembly wrote: That's why I applauded that one dude buying the apartment next to his ex's. Then putting a huge statue of the middle finger in his back yard, with lights and all. Such that whenever his ex looks out the backyard, she'll see that statue flicking her off.
Yeah... it's always nice to see someone taking the high road...
A prude conforms significantly in excess of normal prevailing standards.
Not just someone who conforms personally, but wants others to conform to those standards as well. Which is exactly what you are doing.
As for the part i highlighted.. If you had taken my comments in context, you would realize that I am not opposed to gay marriage. If homosexuals want to get married, great. It doesn't matter if I believe what they are doing is immoral. Regardless of how I feel, the state should not be regulating marriage in any way shape or form.
As long as marriage has some kind of legal significance, then your position can’t exist. And marriage needs to have some kind of legal significance, unless you want the social network to treat a single mother renting a room off a doctor the exact same as it treats a mother who just married and moved in with a doctor.
If the government can grant the right to marriage then they can take that right away. What happens in a couple years when we have a new attorney general?
Nothing. People and especially politicians don’t go running back in to re-fight a battle they just lost, where the numbers for their position are only getting weaker.
The biggest problem I see with the way gay rights are being trumpeted is that there is way too much of an effort towards having homosexuality "accepted". It's the wrong battle to fight and one which you will never see won. Too many people have beliefs that are opposed to it.
You’re trying to make perfect the enemy of the good. That is, by setting up a false position in which success is only when every single person accepts homosexuality, you’re ignoring all the good that comes out of any increase in acceptance. Life for homosexual people is much, much better than it was a generation ago. It’s much, much better than it was a decade ago. That is real, terrific progress. And every further step taken towards increasing acceptance is good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dereksatkinson wrote: There are basically 2 sides to this debate.. Yes to gay marriage and No to gay marriage. In my mind, neither option is actually a defense of liberty.
There are other issues in society than liberty.
In this case the issue is equal treatment before the law. Gay marriage means more people are treated equally regardless of sexual orientation, while opposition to gay marriage seeks to deny that equal treatment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Lol... I'm actually very conflicted. There's no real solution to be honest, other than that the current laws are truly more favorable towards the children. Which it's where it should be....
On the flip side through... If your spouse cheated on you... You should'nt get fething half of everything. feth no... And if you wanted full custody... Your spouse infidelity should absolutely be a factor in the divorce.(it's not tho)
I don't know. I mean, the division of assets isn't about who needs to be punished for indiscretions. Consider a couple who are both hardworking professionals, who built up a very successful business together, and then he got caught sleeping around. Should he lose his half of the business?
And even if he should, do we want to go back to the old days of private eyes being hired to get evidence of cheating (including setting up honey traps), just to drag all that evidence in to a court room?
I mean, I get what you're saying about how divorce laws currently work out, I've got problems with people getting half of the assets a person held before they entered the marriage, but I don't think there's much value to be found in returning to moral punishments handed down by the courts.
Are you ever going to address the substance of any arguments, or are you just going to nitpick about whether "offended" is the proper description of your attitude? So far all I've seen out of you is arguing over dictionary definitions, not answering my question about how exactly homosexuality is immoral.
Again.. I've never once brought religion into this discussion.
That's the point. You claim to have a non-religious reason for why homosexuality is immoral. I want to know what that reason is.
That's why I applauded that one dude buying the apartment next to his ex's. Then putting a huge statue of the middle finger in his back yard, with lights and all. Such that whenever his ex looks out the backyard, she'll see that statue flicking her off.
Sorry, multi-quote went wonky on me, so I'll generally address this to dereksatkinson et al.:
Whatever happened to “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins”?
Two homosexuals marrying each other doesn't impact anyone's personal rights or freedoms. If you still want to have it forbidden, burden of proof how such behaviour negatively impacts society on the whole is on you. The majority's opinion does not suffice as an argument, unless you are so radical a democrat that you believe even matters of human rights are subject to popular vote.
The only two arguments against homosexual marriage rights I've ever encountered are "It's against God's word!" or "It's unnatural!" if you prefer the secular variant, and the somewhat connected "Kids of gay couples will be ridiculed to the point of trauma." So far, this thread has not produced any new ones.
All this talk about descriptive and normative morality is just a smoke screen, as is the uproar about calling it marriage. If you are Christian and believe that only unions made in church really count, that's fine, but we also call secular, muslim or hindu unions "marriages" even though they're clearly not "proper" from a purely religious POV, so what's the difference here?
In a thread that already excludes the religious argument in the title (and I don't even buy that, see Frazzled's post for my feelings on the matter), the only reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry which is left is that *you* don't like them, which is ok, but at least man up and stand by your opinion instead of trying to sugarcoat it.
Many, many years ago, when civilization had just began, governments were a new thing. So new in fact that in order to convince people to go along with the wishes of the tribal leaders the wise men in the various tribes played upon the fears and superstitions of their peoples by linking divine retribution with various nature based problems within the community and an individual that had committed some social transgression. Basically, they created religion and the scapegoat at the same time. Hence, religion was an integral part of governments through the earliest parts of human history and that legacy still carries into modern civilizations as in the principles upon which many of our modern societies are based upon originate from religious based governments.
Now why did the Rulers continue to use religion after they had established their right to rule???
Simple, to better control the masses.
Now early marriages were normally agreements between to families that often asked for blessings from the local priest/authority figure. The whole thing was fairly informal until the catholic church moved to deal with a problem of what was deemed to be to many false marriages. The legal premise would be that the people had sought out the church for its blessings on new marriages so the people had given them the power. Governments began to also record these "unions'/"marriages" through a system of judges and bureaucracy that where possibly the greatest legacy that the Catholic Church had given the governments There was also the church's victory in getting monogamy to be the rule in theses early times(600-900 ad)*Please note that I have glossed over early Israelite, Arabian and Roman traditions and other instances of Leaders claiming support of a divine power as the reason for why they should rule unquestioned. Again religion and government inexorably intermingled.
So, at this time both The church and the government were both sticking there nose in where it had not really been before.
Then about the time of the Renaissance, European religion and governments began to seperate and fracture/splinter. This lead to centuries of turmoil and oppression. It was this oppression that helped to motivate a fair number of religious dissidents to move to the New World when the opportunity arose. Annnnd... You guessed it, it was these religious individuals that formed the basis of our current country.
Now, when it actually came to the time for the US to become its own entity, The people sent representatives to hammer out the details and for possibly the first time in modern history, a government was founded by a mixture of learned, philosophers, historians, teachers, businessmen and Clergy. It was from this group of learned individuals that a document and its first 10 amendments were forged .
Note, the first one, the very first thing they put in the bill of rights was this:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, in modern times the supreme court has interpreted this as "Separation" of Church and State. This modern interpretation has caused many to forget the actual wording of "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
I know, this seems a bit of a stretch to people for whom spirituality is not daily part of their lives or don't believe in any god but these people are guaranteed the same rights under the constitution as the rest of us.
When you understand their constitutional rights and learn the history of just how intertwined government and religion have been, you can understand how they can believe the term marriage is in their purview. Basically there is enough evidence there for them to make the case.
Now my assertion against gay marriage is that by the argument under which the pro-gay marriage movement seeks to legalize such(That when you go back far enough, marriage was not a religious concept but a business agreement)...This same argument works against the governments right to make any laws concerning marriage, in that it originally was not under the governments purview.
There are other things that complicate the issue such as the Catholic church's long history of providing for the needy with religious based(tax exempt) services(food banks and medical care). Under current anti-discrimination laws, these charities would lose there protections and will likely fail if Gay marriage becomes US law....that is unless the Catholic church caves to secular pressure on a definite no-no in their holy book.
Personally, I believe that the word Marriage is so tainted and intertwined by its history with religion that it should fall under 1st amendment protection and that henceforth no government agency be allowed to issue a "Marriage License". That instead we all should have to get certificates/contracts of union where the government is concerned and that if any group wants to be "married" that they either find a church or found a church that will marry them. This way everyone gets the protections they should have under the government and the constitution.
Allod wrote: Two homosexuals marrying each other doesn't impact anyone's personal rights or freedoms. If you still want to have it forbidden, burden of proof how such behaviour negatively impacts society on the whole is on you. The majority's opinion does not suffice as an argument, unless you are so radical a democrat that you believe even matters of human rights are subject to popular vote.
I completely agree. Have stated so repeatedly.
Allod wrote: All this talk about descriptive and normative morality is just a smoke screen, as is the uproar about calling it marriage. If you are Christian and believe that only unions made in church really count, that's fine, but we also call secular, muslim or hindu unions "marriages" even though they're clearly not "proper" from a purely religious POV, so what's the difference here?
Who exactly is arguing that homosexuals couldn't call their union a marriage?
As for the difference between normative and descriptive morality, the use of the word "morality" takes on a pretty major difference in meaning depending on the context in which it is used. descriptive morality is pretty much emotionally detached, observable and pretty much an academic viewpoint. The problem here is that certain people can't tell the difference even when it's spelled out for them.
Allod wrote: the only reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry which is left is that *you* don't like them, which is ok, but at least man up and stand by your opinion instead of trying to sugarcoat it.
I never said we should deny the right to marry to homosexuals. I said that we shouldn't have the state involved in marriage at all. The state shouldn't have the right to deny a same sex marriage and it shouldn't have the right to recognize a marriage either. I have no problem with homosexuals getting married. I think i've said that about half a dozen times and you guys just keep missing it.
Personally, I believe that the word Marriage is so tainted and intertwined by its history with religion that it should fall under 1st amendment protection and that henceforth no government agency be allowed to issue a "Marriage License". That instead we all should have to get certificates/contracts of union where the government is concerned and that if any group wants to be "married" that they either find a church or found a church that will marry them. This way everyone gets the protections they should have under the government and the constitution.
I was positing that 'No Fault Divorces' is moredestructive to the tradition of Marriage than allowing SSM.
Define "traditional". As long as there has been marriage, there has been the ability to nullify it.
The traditional marriage in certain parts of Africa, Europe, Asia and south america have been polygamist. In modern Western society, polygamy is illegal.
Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society? Isn't that just as much of an injustice as same sex marriage being illegal?
<---- is extremely happy that No Fault divorce was an option as he and his ex were able to get the feth away from each other quickly and retain our own assets.
Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society? Isn't that just as much of an injustice as same sex marriage being illegal?
It creates a society where abuse is commonplace and often condoned (see Warren Jeffs and his Mormon pals). Because women become so highly valued as wives, and the number of wives often times is tied to status within the society, young boys are often neglected or forced out. It's also fairly common, because marriages being done so often, that girls are forced to marry too young (see also abuse). These issues (well, except for boys being banished/forced away) are also common among other religions where polygamy has been practiced (see the Middle East)
I was positing that 'No Fault Divorces' is moredestructive to the tradition of Marriage than allowing SSM.
Define "traditional". As long as there has been marriage, there has been the ability to nullify it.
True...
Just keep in mind that most argument against SSM is because it somehow destroys the tradition of marriage (poppycock).
If you want to talk about "saving" or "strengthening" the tradition of marriage, (2 spouses living together in a recognized state), then SSM should have no impact. Who the feth cares who marries whom? It's all about the mindset.
My point about the divorce industry is this...
In human behavior, incentives matters... let me explain.
A woman who knows she will get half... the house, the retirement, custody with child support and alimony... regardless if she's the breadwinner of the family and regardless how the marriage ended... will think that she has hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the long-term effects, such as: prospect of diminished career potential or future dating/relationship possibiities.
That's why you'd see various statistics stating that upwards to 70% of the divorces are initiated by women.
Simply stated, it's too easy to get a divorce.
I'm not really sure how to make it "harder" to get divorced in modern times as it's really hard to support the idea of the *government* making decisions based on your relationship... but, if it did happen, in whatever form, two things happens: 1) Reinstates that Marriage is very important and not to be taken lightly. 2) Encourages the spouse to work on their marriage, as opposed to pressing the easy relationshipnal nuke button.
That's why I don't give a feth about SSM... let 'me have it. It's the wrong battle to *fight*.
kronk wrote: <---- is extremely happy that No Fault divorce was an option as he and his ex were able to get the feth away from each other quickly and retain our own assets.
But it was an "equitable" split... right? You both agreed it was time...right?
It's much easy to do that when both sides agreed it's over and split things accordingly. Which is what happened to my divorce... all things being equal, I got out just fine. But she was close to wanting a court case for full-custody, more of the asset, and alimony.
I told her that I'd fight tooth & nail against that... but, my own attorney warned me that there's an "anti-male industrial complex" in the divorce courts, that it's likely that she'd win if she pushed for this. Luckily...she didn't.
dereksatkinson, I know what you have been saying, but the problem "we guys" have is what you have been quiet about so far: you always said that homosexuals should be able to marry, that's true, BUT always connected with the condition that it doesn't happen under the current state-sanctioned system, because you reject that entirely. You have left it totally ambiguous whether you approve of equal homosexual marriage rights under the system we happen to have. Maybe you could finally clarify this?
Secondly, I know what descriptive morality is. The issue here is that descriptive morality, just like legal positivism, is almost entirely useless as a base for considerations of right and wrong. Thus, it doesn't really help to illustrate your point, because what the majority deems "immoral" says nothing at all about you.
Finally, the "don't call it marriage" thing wasn't from you, but it cropped up somewhere in the first few pages of the thread.
Allod wrote: dereksatkinson, I know what you have been saying, but the problem "we guys" have is what you have been quiet about so far: you always said that homosexuals should be able to marry, that's true, BUT always connected with the condition that it doesn't happen under the current state-sanctioned system, because you reject that entirely. You have left it totally ambiguous whether you approve of equal homosexual marriage rights under the system we happen to have. Maybe you could finally clarify this?
I don't think i've been ambiguous at all. I don't think the state should be allowed to prevent anyone from marrying. I've been saying that since page 3.
dereksatkinson wrote: As for the part i highlighted.. If you had taken my comments in context, you would realize that I am not opposed to gay marriage.
d-usa wrote: Letting everybody marry would mean that they don't determine who you marry though.
It's called liberty..
d-usa wrote: To me, getting rid of "marriage" and using another term just feels like a "if we can't keep it for ourselves then nobody can have it" solution.
Not saying that denying marriage to gay couples would be the motivation for everybody that argues against marriage, but to me it would still feel like a win for the anti-gay marriage crowd.
That is NOT what I've argued. In principle, the state simply shouldn't care. If two brothers live in the same household and support eachother they should be able to file a joint tax return. They shouldn't have to, but the option should be on the table. From the government perspective, it shouldn't matter who you are plowing. What should matter is who lives in your household and who contributes to it functioning properly.
And yes... I realize it's not really an argument against same-sex marriage as much as it is an argument against regulation of marriage in and of itself. The biggest problem with this topic is the waters are muddied which is causing people to ask the wrong question. The REAL question is whether or not the way the government regulates this is right.
Allod wrote: dereksatkinson, I know what you have been saying, but the problem "we guys" have is what you have been quiet about so far: you always said that homosexuals should be able to marry, that's true, BUT always connected with the condition that it doesn't happen under the current state-sanctioned system, because you reject that entirely. You have left it totally ambiguous whether you approve of equal homosexual marriage rights under the system we happen to have. Maybe you could finally clarify this?
I don't think i've been ambiguous at all. I don't think the state should be allowed to prevent anyone from marrying. I've been saying that since page 3.
Except you keep repeating that you think ALL forms of marriage should be abolished..... His question was:
Under the current system that we have, should homosexual couples be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals?
The correct answer here is not "the government shouldn't be involved in marriage" because that's not the question at all.
It creates a society where abuse is commonplace and often condoned (see Warren Jeffs and his Mormon pals). Because women become so highly valued as wives, and the number of wives often times is tied to status within the society, young boys are often neglected or forced out. It's also fairly common, because marriages being done so often, that girls are forced to marry too young (see also abuse). These issues (well, except for boys being banished/forced away) are also common among other religions where polygamy has been practiced (see the Middle East)
By this argument being a single parent should be illegal as well.
There are good single parents out there, but the statistics pretty clearly show that kids from single parent homes suffer "abuses" that children from two-parent families don't.
@cincydooley: If you asked me whether I thought that blacks should be allowed to attend non-segregated public schools, and I answered that blacks should absolutely not be discriminated against, but I'm against public schools in principle, so the blacks and everybody else should only be educated by private institutions, what kind of message am I sending out?
It smacks of dialectic shenanigans. I asked a simple, closed question that he chose to deflect instead of answering with a simple yes or no. At the moment, it looks to me like he's either using dakka as a platform for honing his NLP argumentation skills 101, or he's one of the worst communicators I've ever met.
Allod wrote: If you asked me whether I thought that blacks should be allowed to attend non-segregated public schools, and I answered that blacks should absolutely not be discriminated against, but I'm against public schools in principle, so the blacks and everybody else should only be educated by private institutions, what kind of message am I sending out?
It smacks of dialectic shenanigans. I asked a simple, closed question that he chose to deflect instead of answering with a simple yes or no. At the moment, it looks to me like he's either using dakka as a platform for honing his NLP argumentation skills 101, or he's one of the worst communicators I've ever met.
No.. you are being dense. It doesn't matter who you are or your sexual orientation.
How is this concept that hard to grasp? It's like you have the reading comprehension of a 4th grader.
And with that.. i'm done
Except, that isn't how you were answering the questions. Your usual answer involved "Government marriage should be abolished" which is not the same thing as "government should not have the right to decide who can marry who"
No.. you are being dense. It doesn't matter who you are or your sexual orientation.
So, should homosexuals be able to enter a marriage, with a marriage license by the state, like everybody else, without abolishing state-sanctioned marriages? Jesus, it's a yes or no question, you don't have to come up with a new way to say "I'm against discrimination!" every time.
dereksatkinson wrote: Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society? Isn't that just as much of an injustice as same sex marriage being illegal?
I have no issue with polygamy so long as all parties are legally consenting adults.
dereksatkinson wrote: Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society? Isn't that just as much of an injustice as same sex marriage being illegal?
I have no issue with polygamy so long as all parties are legally consenting adults.
This. As long as there's consent, there shouldn't be a problem.
EDIT: Highlighted the important word. Theory and reality are two very different things.
Has he previously threatened physical violence? Was there an history of domestic abuse?
Criminal harassment doesn't turn on the threat of violence (that's assault), in some states being offensive for a significant period of time entails harassment.
How is this concept that hard to grasp? It's like you have the reading comprehension of a 4th grader.
And with that.. i'm done
Except, that isn't how you were answering the questions. Your usual answer involved "Government marriage should be abolished" which is not the same thing as "government should not have the right to decide who can marry who"
Well if he's saying government should no longer have the right to participate in marriage, it stands to reason that government would not have the right to decide who can marry who, because it has no right to decide anything.
dereksatkinson wrote: Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society? Isn't that just as much of an injustice as same sex marriage being illegal?
I have no issue with polygamy so long as all parties are legally consenting adults.
I have extreme issues with that. There is no man cave powerful enough to protect against TWO wives. Jeeze why don't you just curse him to solitary confinement while watching Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. HAve you no decency sir!
Manchu wrote: LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.
Seconded. Er what?
whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote: LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.
erm...wut? o.O
It was pointed out to right-wing Christians that arguing against SSM because it undermines the Christian principle of Marriage: they should also be completely against the idea of divorce as the Old Testament sets this out as a big no-no (And I think the new Testament affirms this as well iirc)
Manchu wrote: LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.
Seconded. Er what?
whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote: LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.
erm...wut? o.O
It was pointed out to right-wing Christians that arguing against SSM because it undermines the Christian principle of Marriage: they should also be completely against the idea of divorce as the Old Testament sets this out as a big no-no (And I think the new Testament affirms this as well iirc)
Responding to the OP, the only non-religious arguments against SSM that make any sense are based on vested financial interests, such as medical insurance providers, who stand to lose money if SSM is institutionalized.
The bizarre and frequent argument that SSM should not be allowed in order to ensure the propagation of the species can be dismissed out of hand in that it (a) ignores the fact that the human species has had absolutely no problem propagating itself despite the presence of homosexuality, (b) assume that propogation of the species is "good" or "bad".
The heartsring "what about the poor kids of gay parents...won't they be abused?" argument is just an excuse to justify the bigotry of those people who choose to abuse children for something as trivial as their parents bedroom habits, and raise their children to do the same.
I for one count myself honored to live in a time when religious authority, over this and other issues, is literally in death throes.
And inasmuch as I'm able to feel such things, I do feel a certain sense of pride that Generation X has produced a generation of young people that, while they have an overblown and artificial sense of self esteem, seem at large to not be bothered one bit by trivialities such as sexual orientation, whether a person believes in god or not, etc.
It was pointed out to right-wing Christians that arguing against SSM because it undermines the Christian principle of Marriage: they should also be completely against the idea of divorce as the Old Testament sets this out as a big no-no (And I think the new Testament affirms this as well iirc)
jasper76 wrote: Responding to the OP, the only non-religious arguments against SSM that make any sense are based on vested financial interests, such as medical insurance providers, who stand to lose money if SSM is institutionalized.
Care to elaborate on that some more? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, and maybe we're just seeing things differently, but Im not really seeing how companies like major medical insurance stand to "lose" money over SSMs. If anything, and going off of Red Cross blood donation questionaires, they could still be in a higher category than their straight counterparts (at least when looking at men), based on their sexual activities (something about things going in bums creating a higher risk for certain types of hepatitis and whatnot)
jasper76 wrote: Responding to the OP, the only non-religious arguments against SSM that make any sense are based on vested financial interests, such as medical insurance providers, who stand to lose money if SSM is institutionalized.
Care to elaborate on that some more? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, and maybe we're just seeing things differently, but Im not really seeing how companies like major medical insurance stand to "lose" money over SSMs. If anything, and going off of Red Cross blood donation questionaires, they could still be in a higher category than their straight counterparts (at least when looking at men), based on their sexual activities (something about things going in bums creating a higher risk for certain types of hepatitis and whatnot)
The only thing I mean by this is that medical insurance providers are inevitably going to be forced to extend coverage to homosexual spouses. That's a whole lot of new spouses to cover. I assume it will hit their profit margins, but I am no economist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing for any last-ditchers to consider is that in the US, there is a clear pattern of the military leading the path on many Civil Rights issues. There's a reason for this.
At some point in your life, you have to ask yourself whether someone who is willing to VOLUNTEER TO DIE for your country shouldn't have access to the same benefits that you yourself enjoy as a citizen. It is indecent and cruel to answer that question in the negative, and I am unapologetic in saying so.
jasper76 wrote: At some point in your life, you have to ask yourself whether someone who is willing to VOLUNTEER TO DIE for your country shouldn't have access to the same benefits that you yourself enjoy as a citizen. It is indecent and cruel to answer that question in the negative, and I am unapologetic in saying so.
I know how much my countrymen love jingoism, but
1.) Firefighters, Police Officers, and Crab Fisherman all volunteer, of their own free will, to do really dangerous jobs for fairly low pay.
2.) Citizens already enjoy a great many benefits not afforded to servicemen; the most obvious being the general ability to quit our jobs at will and access to the civil justice system.
I agree with equal rights for all but that's a weird metric to use, is what I'm saying.
jasper76 wrote: At some point in your life, you have to ask yourself whether someone who is willing to VOLUNTEER TO DIE for your country shouldn't have access to the same benefits that you yourself enjoy as a citizen. It is indecent and cruel to answer that question in the negative, and I am unapologetic in saying so.
I know how much my countrymen love jingoism, but
1.) Firefighters, Police Officers, and Crab Fisherman all volunteer, of their own free will, to do really dangerous jobs for fairly low pay.
2.) Citizens already enjoy a great many benefits not afforded to servicemen; the most obvious being the general ability to quit our jobs at will and access to the civil justice system.
I agree with equal rights for all but that's a weird metric to use, is what I'm saying.
Crab Fisherman are not relevant to the issue, precisely because they can quit their jobs. But people who are willing to trade in their citizenship benefits for military or civil service should have the same access to the same benefits as everyone else upon reentry into civilian life. It wasn't my intention to radiate jingoism; I am only mildly patriotic in truth. I think what I said could apply to any country.
jasper76 wrote: But people who are willing to trade in their citizenship benefits for military or civil service should have the same access to the same benefits as everyone else upon reentry into civilian life. It wasn't my intention to radiate jingoism; I am only mildly patriotic in truth. I think what I said could apply to any country.
Honestly man, in regards to this thread, I don't see why those who are in military or civil service should have to wait until they "reenter civilian life" to get married or receive the same benefits as a married couple does.
jasper76 wrote: But people who are willing to trade in their citizenship benefits for military or civil service should have the same access to the same benefits as everyone else upon reentry into civilian life. It wasn't my intention to radiate jingoism; I am only mildly patriotic in truth. I think what I said could apply to any country.
Honestly man, in regards to this thread, I don't see why those who are in military or civil service should have to wait until they "reenter civilian life" to get married or receive the same benefits as a married couple does.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The correct answer here is not "the government shouldn't be involved in marriage" because that's not the question at all.
jesus...
The govenment shouldn't have the F*CKING right to regulate who anyone can marry. How hard is this concept to grasp?
to which you will respond... "But what about gays?"
to which I will respond..
The govenment shouldn't have the F*CKING right to regulate who anyone can marry.
to which you will respond...
But what about your own children? Can a father groom his daughter from her earliest years to become his bride on her 18th birthday? Because, you know, that kind of stuff happens.
And off you go, without ever bothering to explain your reasons for claiming that homosexuality is immoral. Shouldn't you take the fact that you're too embarrassed about your beliefs to state them in public as a sign that you're wrong?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: It creates a society where abuse is commonplace and often condoned (see Warren Jeffs and his Mormon pals). Because women become so highly valued as wives, and the number of wives often times is tied to status within the society, young boys are often neglected or forced out. It's also fairly common, because marriages being done so often, that girls are forced to marry too young (see also abuse). These issues (well, except for boys being banished/forced away) are also common among other religions where polygamy has been practiced (see the Middle East)
This only applies to religious polygamy, and the issue is the coercion and abuse, not the marriages between multiple people. Contrast this with secular polyamory, which has the same concept of marriages with more than two people but in a way that everyone involved is equal (or at least no less equal than the level of inequality in society as a whole) and all gender combinations are possible instead of just one high-status man with lots of wives. Limiting marriage to only two people is an ineffective attempt to solve the wrong problem. Religious cults that happen to include polygamy are still free to have religious marriages that have no legal status, and it does absolutely nothing at all to address the fundamental problem of having an isolated group with no tolerance for disobedience or independent thought.
This only applies to religious polygamy, and the issue is the coercion and abuse, not the marriages between multiple people. Contrast this with secular polyamory, which has the same concept of marriages with more than two people but in a way that everyone involved is equal (or at least no less equal than the level of inequality in society as a whole) and all gender combinations are possible instead of just one high-status man with lots of wives.
I think the issue there is, where is the "central" point? I mean, in theory you could run into this situation: Suzie has 3 husbands, including Steve. Steve is married to Suzie, as well as Barbara, Hanna and Rachel. Now, let's say that things aren't working so well between Suzie and Steve and they want a divorce. Under our current system, the "norm" is half of assets and whatnot... but in this case, there are more parties in the equation, so would they have to legislate divorces differently? Especially if Suzie and Steve have biological kids together the issue of alimony and child support become a lot more convoluted, though I could see in this system a judge saying "you each have more income and support for children and thus were not supporting each other exclusively, ergo there will be no child support/alimony (or very minimal child support)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think the issue there is, where is the "central" point? I mean, in theory you could run into this situation: Suzie has 3 husbands, including Steve. Steve is married to Suzie, as well as Barbara, Hanna and Rachel. Now, let's say that things aren't working so well between Suzie and Steve and they want a divorce. Under our current system, the "norm" is half of assets and whatnot... but in this case, there are more parties in the equation, so would they have to legislate divorces differently? Especially if Suzie and Steve have biological kids together the issue of alimony and child support become a lot more convoluted, though I could see in this system a judge saying "you each have more income and support for children and thus were not supporting each other exclusively, ergo there will be no child support/alimony (or very minimal child support)
It's complicated, but that just means someone has to do the work of writing the laws. We're able to handle business partnerships between lots of people just fine, so I don't see any inherent problem that would make it impossible to do something similar for marriage.
Peregrine wrote: This only applies to religious polygamy, and the issue is the coercion and abuse, not the marriages between multiple people. Contrast this with secular polyamory, which has the same concept of marriages with more than two people but in a way that everyone involved is equal (or at least no less equal than the level of inequality in society as a whole) and all gender combinations are possible instead of just one high-status man with lots of wives. Limiting marriage to only two people is an ineffective attempt to solve the wrong problem.
A major problem with this line of argument is that religious polygamy is vastly more common than secular polyamory (thanks primarily to Muslims, not Mormons), to such an extreme that surveys of polyamorous relationships have found other forms of relationship to be "statistically non-significant." So before one talks about legalizing polyamorous marriages, one has to acknowledge the real consequences of such a change.
More importantly though, changing the law to allow for polyamorous marriages would require a massive overhaul of the entirety of establish family law. Family law is based on a dyadic relationships. While these are traditionally male-female relationships, they can be readily adapted with minimal change to deal with male-male and female-female relationships. In many states the laws have already been made gender neutral and require no adaptation at all. However, proceedings for the division of assets in a no-fault divorce (to use one example) assume two people are divorcing. Things become infinitely more complex when three people are divorcing, and there is no legal code for dealing with such events. Issues of child custody, inheritance, assumed debt, it goes on and on. Or what about benefits from employment? Social security benefits for widows?
Finally, when you start getting into triads and quartets, you get into very complicated relationships in which one size fits all laws simply won't work. A relationship between two straight men and a straight woman is going to be very different than a relationship between two bisexual men and a woman, or a bisexual man, a gay man and woman. Imagine two straight men in a marriage with a straight woman, and then she dies. Except one of the men is a millionaire and the other is struggling artist. Are they now automatically divorced, or does the millionaire have to sue for divorce, and can then artist then sue for alimony? Does the artist get to keep half the millionaire's money?
These are the kinds of relationships that really should be handle by lawyers and contracts, because they are exceptionally rare and born of particular circumstances.
friendlycommissar wrote: So before one talks about legalizing polyamorous marriages, one has to acknowledge the real consequences of such a change.
What consequences? Are you suggesting that religious polygamous marriages don't already exist without legal recognition? How exactly is making them official going to change anything?
These are the kinds of relationships that really should be handle by lawyers and contracts, because they are exceptionally rare and born of particular circumstances.
Of course it's complicated, but that's what lawyers and politicians are for. "It's hard" should not be an excuse for why we shouldn't do the right thing.
Also, private contracts are not always sufficient. For example, there have been cases where someone is in the hospital and their unmarried partner is denied visitation rights, even though they have a private contract granting them (often because the family doesn't approve of their relationship and bans their partner from visiting). Granting legal recognition to their marriage avoids those kind of problems by removing all doubt about whether the legal contract does what it needs to do. You can just say "we're married" and follow the standard marriage rules instead of having to bring a bunch of lawyers to argue about it.
Wilytank wrote: On a somewhat similar matter, could someone explain to me why there were ever laws against sodomy or other sexual acts?
"Eww, gross."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
marielle wrote: As in essence marriage is religious sacrament like baptism, confirmation or the funeral service.
It really isn't. And funerals aren't religious either.
in which case why are heterosexual civil partnerships forbidden?
Because they aren't? Unless you're talking about cases where "civil partnership" is just a lesser version of marriage, and the only reason you'd ever have a civil partnership is because you're not allowed to have a marriage? But in that case it's a nonsense argument, like whining that you're forbidden to be paid $10 because you have to be paid $20 instead.
You are simply wrong.
Civil partnerships formalise what is commonly referred to as common law marriage, which has no legal basis. Cohabiting heterosexual couples do not have the protections offered to similar homosexual partnerships through civil partnership - pension rights, tenancy agreements, inheritance, child care etc. This is a gross injustice.
That you refer to such matters as a lesser form of marriage simply shows your ignorance.
But then you have already proven that by you claim that funerals are not a religious rite. You really should go and read a bit of history and law to the present legal position.
focusedfire wrote: I know, this seems a bit of a stretch to people for whom spirituality is not daily part of their lives or don't believe in any god but these people are guaranteed the same rights under the constitution as the rest of us.
When you understand their constitutional rights and learn the history of just how intertwined government and religion have been, you can understand how they can believe the term marriage is in their purview. Basically there is enough evidence there for them to make the case.
The religious get as much say in government, but no more than anyone else.
And there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that there was a ever a purely religious inspired version of marriage seperate from property laws and inheritance. None. That is fiction.
And even if there was such a thing at one time, we know that here, in this world, marriage is not a purely religious thing. You can go and get married without involving any church or spirituality at all. And not only is such a thing recognised by the state as a marriage, it's recognised as a marriage by religious people. The idea that religious people would say 'oh you're married per the law but it wasn't in a church I recognise so it isn't really a marriage and you're stealing my word' is laughable.
And that's what this whole argument about religion owning a word is, laughable.
There are other things that complicate the issue such as the Catholic church's long history of providing for the needy with religious based(tax exempt) services(food banks and medical care). Under current anti-discrimination laws, these charities would lose there protections and will likely fail if Gay marriage becomes US law....that is unless the Catholic church caves to secular pressure on a definite no-no in their holy book.
'definite no-no' makes a big assumption about how complex and prone to interpretation the bible is. There was a time, of course, when slavery was defended through a reading of the bible, while other christians argued against slavery with other verses of their own. Ultimately, when one side finally won that debate, the other side just slowly disappeared from view, and generations later it was bizarre to think that Christians could have ever argued that slavery was good and proper and Christian.
Also, private contracts are not always sufficient. For example, there have been cases where someone is in the hospital and their unmarried partner is denied visitation rights, even though they have a private contract granting them (often because the family doesn't approve of their relationship and bans their partner from visiting). Granting legal recognition to their marriage avoids those kind of problems by removing all doubt about whether the legal contract does what it needs to do. You can just say "we're married" and follow the standard marriage rules instead of having to bring a bunch of lawyers to argue about it.
dereksatkinson wrote: Define "traditional". As long as there has been marriage, there has been the ability to nullify it.
Yes, nullify it. Just as you could could nullify a divorce before no fault laws, you just had to convince a court of law that there is a good legal reason.
What changed with no-fault divorce was that you didn't have to convince the court of anything.
The traditional marriage in certain parts of Africa, Europe, Asia and south america have been polygamist. In modern Western society, polygamy is illegal.
Which says a lot about the incomprehensibility of any effort to defend 'traditional marriage', and try and give ownership of that concept to churches.
Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society?
It would be a legal mess (especially regarding kids if the marriage should ever dissolve), and that while polyamory is theoretically non-sexist the reality of the world we live in means that polygamy would be far more common and that brings with it social issues.
None of those issues are insurmountable, but until they're resolved to a reasonable standard it's best we leave well enough alone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I'm not really sure how to make it "harder" to get divorced in modern times as it's really hard to support the idea of the *government* making decisions based on your relationship... but, if it did happen, in whatever form, two things happens:
1) Reinstates that Marriage is very important and not to be taken lightly.
2) Encourages the spouse to work on their marriage, as opposed to pressing the easy relationshipnal nuke button.
I'm not sure anyone goes in to a divorce thinking its going to be easy. It's hard enough negotiating the seperation of assets when the parties involved don't harbour feelings of resentment and betrayal.
Nor is 50% guaranteed, nor does it generally represent an improvement in one's material wealth. Think about a married couple, one of whom brought a house in to the relationship, one of whom did not. They live together ten years before the non-house owner wants a divroce. One the one hand, that's a net gain for the non-house owner, as they will have half the value of a house... but they gained that the second they got married. Consider instead the position before and after divorce, they were living in a house they owned in joint with their partner, and now after divorce they have either no house but cash worth half the house, or they have a house but a mortgage taken out to pay out the other party. Either way, they are materially worse off, and that's before you account for all the other costs (legal fees, moving fees, temporary accommodation etc...)
All that said, I do think marriage is important. I do like the idea of encouraging marriage counseling, even if it's just through providing free or heavily subsidised counseling for couples who might otherwise look for a divorce.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: @D-USA - Completely agree. It's a huge, petty, immature douche move. Doesn't make it a credible threat to her safety like others would contend.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think there has to be a credible threat to personal safety in order for it to be harassment. I think just setting a constant pattern of being annoying and disruptive would be enough.
Now, I'm not saying this instance is harassment (because I'm not a lawyer), and I suspect the best approach would be through local planning laws and not criminal courts... I'm just saying I don't think physical threat is always needed for it to be harassment.
The govenment shouldn't have the right to regulate who anyone can marry. How hard is this concept to grasp?
Because it's very silly.
It just isn't practical to require government step back from one of the major institutions of our society.
It's also just completely bizarre to asset religion suddenly ought to own something they've never claimed sole province over before. As I've argued a few times now, five years ago if someone had claimed 'oh you've gone to the registrar and gotten a legal marriage but that isn't really a marriage because it wasn't in a house of God and religion really owns that word' people would have looked at you as though you were totally fething bonkers. But now, in the wake of the near collapse of the religious argument against gay marriage, that group has attempted this very silly fall back position and suddenly this insanity about religion owning the word marriage has been born.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
marielle wrote: That you refer to such matters as a lesser form of marriage simply shows your ignorance.
When we buried my grandmother there wasn't a single word about God mentioned. It was still a funeral. I had religious family there who stated that they wished there was a mention of God, but they never for one second said it wasn't a funeral. Because that would have been fething bonkers.
Marriage is no different. It is commonly religious, but not always, and when it isn't, it's still a fething marriage and no-one claims otherwise. Until this madness started.
I was married by a lawyer in his office to my wife with 2 witnesses, not a bible or member of the clergy to be seen. I think my marriage counts as "real".
marielle wrote: Civil partnerships formalise what is commonly referred to as common law marriage, which has no legal basis. Cohabiting heterosexual couples do not have the protections offered to similar homosexual partnerships through civil partnership - pension rights, tenancy agreements, inheritance, child care etc. This is a gross injustice.
I really have no idea what you're talking about. All a civil partnership does is allow an unmarried couple to get some or all of the benefits of marriage. If you're a cohabiting heterosexual couple and want those protections then just get married.
That you refer to such matters as a lesser form of marriage simply shows your ignorance.
Err, no. Civil partnerships are a lesser form of marriage. Even ignoring the fact that you don't get the "marriage" title you don't get things like recognition for federal tax purposes. The only reason you would ever want a civil partnership is if you're not allowed to get married and have to take what you can get.
But then you have already proven that by you claim that funerals are not a religious rite.
I made that claim because it's indisputable fact. Funerals can be religious but they are not exclusively religious. When I, a devout atheist, die I will have some kind of funeral ceremony and it will have nothing to do with religion. You tried to claim that because a particular religion has rituals around marriage and funerals those things are owned by religion. And that is simply wrong.
Also, private contracts are not always sufficient. For example, there have been cases where someone is in the hospital and their unmarried partner is denied visitation rights, even though they have a private contract granting them (often because the family doesn't approve of their relationship and bans their partner from visiting). Granting legal recognition to their marriage avoids those kind of problems by removing all doubt about whether the legal contract does what it needs to do. You can just say "we're married" and follow the standard marriage rules instead of having to bring a bunch of lawyers to argue about it.
A living will does this as well. And is cheaper.
Except it doesn't. The people in question had a living will (or equivalent) and it was ignored.
friendlycommissar wrote: So before one talks about legalizing polyamorous marriages, one has to acknowledge the real consequences of such a change.
What consequences? Are you suggesting that religious polygamous marriages don't already exist without legal recognition? How exactly is making them official going to change anything?
It would give those marriage standing in court and law obviously.
These are the kinds of relationships that really should be handle by lawyers and contracts, because they are exceptionally rare and born of particular circumstances.
Of course it's complicated, but that's what lawyers and politicians are for. "It's hard" should not be an excuse for why we shouldn't do the right thing.
It's not that its hard, it's quite likely to be impossible. And considering its a vastly complicated, thorny issue that serves a population so small they have no meaningful representation, and would mostly serve a population that shouldn't be encouraged (patriarchial polygamists), it's likely it will never happen.
Also, private contracts are not always sufficient. For example, there have been cases where someone is in the hospital and their unmarried partner is denied visitation rights, even though they have a private contract granting them (often because the family doesn't approve of their relationship and bans their partner from visiting). Granting legal recognition to their marriage avoids those kind of problems by removing all doubt about whether the legal contract does what it needs to do. You can just say "we're married" and follow the standard marriage rules instead of having to bring a bunch of lawyers to argue about it.
Peregrine, the laws regarding marriage ALL assume a dyad. Two people. You cannot apply laws designed to deal with two people to three people. Lawyers will always have to be involved.
Manchu wrote: And the usual suspects plead ignorance
To be fair to Whembly, he's complained about no-fault divorce a fair few times before, going back a few years. I don't think his interest in the issue has anything to do with anything the Republican party is doing.
Are you seriously suggesting no connection between the MRA line whembly has characteristically taken on these boards and his political affiliation? Or perhaps that there is no connection between MRA, specifically the building attack on no-fault divorce, and the ever-rightward pull of GOP brinksmanship rhetoric? Or that the Republicans are not trying to soften their anti-gay reputation without losing credibility? Despite flying that Australian flag, you are generally pretty on the mark about the political temperature here in the States. But I think you're being a bit naive on this occasion. The novelty isn't right-wing antipathy toward divorce but rather that the issue is becoming a fall back position from the increasingly disastrous GOP stand against gay marriage.
Manchu wrote: Are you seriously suggesting no connection between the MRA line whembly has characteristically taken on these boards and his political affiliation?
Yep, because whembly was giving a similar opinion before the move in Republican position on the issue.
Or perhaps that there is no connection between MRA, specifically the building attack on no-fault divorce, and the ever-rightward pull of GOP brinksmanship rhetoric? Or that the Republicans are not trying to soften their anti-gay reputation without losing credibility? Despite flying that Australian flag, you are generally pretty on the mark about the political temperature here in the States. But I think you're being a bit naive on this occasion. The novelty isn't right-wing antipathy toward divorce but rather that the issue is becoming a fall back position from the increasingly disastrous GOP stand against gay marriage.
sebster wrote: Yep, because whembly was giving a similar opinion before the move in Republican position on the issue.
That assumes the GOP is quite a bit more monolithic than it really is. (Also, MRA did not come out of nowhere.) I can assure you that this is nothing new for Republicans. What is new, as I mentioned, is substituting a critique of no fault divorce for the increasingly unpopular and uncompelling critique of gay marriage. And even then, it's only new as a matter of crystallizing as actual policy proposals in state houses and gubernatorial campaigns. I first heard about this tactic hanging around conservative wonks-to-be about 5-6 years ago and lo and behold here it is.
Also, private contracts are not always sufficient. For example, there have been cases where someone is in the hospital and their unmarried partner is denied visitation rights, even though they have a private contract granting them (often because the family doesn't approve of their relationship and bans their partner from visiting). Granting legal recognition to their marriage avoids those kind of problems by removing all doubt about whether the legal contract does what it needs to do. You can just say "we're married" and follow the standard marriage rules instead of having to bring a bunch of lawyers to argue about it.
A living will does this as well. And is cheaper.
A living will can be extremely costly when it comes to inheriting great amounts of money - depending on your country of course. In Germany, it's a horrible injustice. If you're married, your partner can inherit up to 500.000€ without paying taxes. If you're not it's 20.000€. Had something like this happening to me in the recent past where I had a living will with someone I was very close to (platonic) and inherited a huge amount of money. There are ways to get around the greedy state trying to go for your money, but they aren't open for everyone and it's annoying and a lot of work.
Manchu wrote: And the usual suspects plead ignorance
To be fair to Whembly, he's complained about no-fault divorce a fair few times before, going back a few years. I don't think his interest in the issue has anything to do with anything the Republican party is doing.
Thanks bro.
As I was discussing this with other folks privately... I just don't see any movements from the conservative sphere on changing anything on divorce laws. There will be some serious civil war within the movement if that really picks up steam. Just don't fall into that trap that all conservatives are religious (I'm not) and all religious folks are conservatives.
whembly wrote: I proffer that No Fault Divorces is the true enemy of the "The Institution of Marriage".... Not gay marriage.
I have a difficult time fathoming the mindset that would want to eliminate "no fault divorce". It's the very pinnacle of government intrusion into a private union.
And you know how I'm so anti-government anything with respect to cultural things.
Here's a little bit of information from where I'm coming from...
I've been thru divorce... and I had a great lawyer. She took the time to deal with my issues and candidly told me that the card is stacked against me. She said that the wives are incentivized to divorce by the alimony retirement plan racket, the anti-male divorce industrial complex, and the practical guarantee of child custody. I was extremely lucky that my ex didn't push the issue (which stems from her guilt in failed marriage).
However, let me add that I don't know what the real solution should be. Maybe our current laws is "as good as its going to get" as these laws are tempered with the ideal of "what's best for the childrens".
*shrug*
I'm just a little more opinionated on this subject as a divorcee and having lost a friend of mine who killed himself because he was depressed (which started when his wife divorced him and just took... everything.).
sebster wrote: Yep, because whembly was giving a similar opinion before the move in Republican position on the issue.
That assumes the GOP is quite a bit more monolithic than it really is. (Also, MRA did not come out of nowhere.) I can assure you that this is nothing new for Republicans. What is new, as I mentioned, is substituting a critique of no fault divorce for the increasingly unpopular and uncompelling critique of gay marriage. And even then, it's only new as a matter of crystallizing as actual policy proposals in state houses and gubernatorial campaigns. I first heard about this tactic hanging around conservative wonks-to-be about 5-6 years ago and lo and behold here it is.
Meh...
That may be the case. I'll do some research on this in a bit.
I just don't see how it'll gain any traction.
@Manchu: I feel honored that you think I'm such a spoke person for the conservative movement. If that's what you think... I'll just treat that as a badge of honor.
whembly wrote: I feel honored that you think I'm such a spoke person for the conservative movement. If that's what you think... I'll just treat that as a badge of honor.
I don't think you're a GOP spokesperson; I think you uncritically accept right-wing propaganda -- for personal reasons or whatever, I don't really care -- and parrot it on this board.
whembly wrote: I just don't see how it'll gain any traction.
Traction? This is from a party that has overcommitted to opposing gay marriage. Plus, Q Branch is still working out the glitches in the lab as it were. Republicans and Democrats are both using the states to experiment with policy initiatives. And furthermore we're talking about ideology in addition to policy. Just because you can't get a bill passed doesn't mean you (a) stop believing it and (b) stop using it to rile up constituents who also believe in it.
Ouze wrote: I was married by a lawyer in his office to my wife with 2 witnesses, not a bible or member of the clergy to be seen. I think my marriage counts as "real".
I don't know what he's on about. In Texas and many states (especially in the West where it was common that there were few people around to begin with) "common law" marriage is indeed "real" marriage.
In Texas if you hold yourself out to the public as married you are indeed married in the view of a judge.
Interesting. You hold yourself out as married against all others, you occupy land and hold it against all others. OMG MARRIAGE IS ADVERSE POSSESSION!!! It all makes sense now...
whembly wrote: She said that the wives are incentivized to divorce by the alimony retirement plan racket, the anti-male divorce industrial complex, and the practical guarantee of child custody. I was extremely lucky that my ex didn't push the issue (which stems from her guilt in failed marriage).
Did you consider that your lawyer was selling her services to you?
whembly wrote: I feel honored that you think I'm such a spoke person for the conservative movement. If that's what you think... I'll just treat that as a badge of honor.
I don't think you're a GOP spokesperson; I think you uncritically accept right-wing propaganda -- for personal reasons or whatever, I don't really care -- and parrot it on this board.
Conservative... not GOP. Get that straight boyo.
whembly wrote: I just don't see how it'll gain any traction.
Traction? This is from a party that has overcommitted to opposing gay marriage. Plus, Q Branch is still working out the glitches in the lab as it were. Republicans and Democrats are both using the states to experiment with policy initiatives. And furthermore we're talking about ideology in addition to policy. Just because you can't get a bill passed doesn't mean you (a) stop believing it and (b) stop using it to rile up constituents who also believe in it.
*meh*
To me, it's sorta like those who wants more regulation on 2nd amendment. Nothing of significant will really happen. Likewise to divorce laws.
whembly wrote: She said that the wives are incentivized to divorce by the alimony retirement plan racket, the anti-male divorce industrial complex, and the practical guarantee of child custody. I was extremely lucky that my ex didn't push the issue (which stems from her guilt in failed marriage).
Did you consider that your lawyer was selling her services to you?
Sure...
Keep in mind, we discussed different tactic and outcomes. I was really preparing for a court fight and she was doing her job in tempering projected outcomes.
For example, I made more than half than she did. In the state of MO, she can ask the court for a share of that half.
The three main reasons for the argument against same-sex marriage are:
1. Religious reasons - WAY too many sources to even list, to evangelical Christians gays are worse than satanist
2: Icky factor - two girls no problem, two guys eww, Its really a maturity issue.
3: Psychological harm to a child raised by two same sex parents - the real damage come from the child being bullied by the other classmates in school for having same sex parents
focusedfire wrote: I know, this seems a bit of a stretch to people for whom spirituality is not daily part of their lives or don't believe in any god but these people are guaranteed the same rights under the constitution as the rest of us.
When you understand their constitutional rights and learn the history of just how intertwined government and religion have been, you can understand how they can believe the term marriage is in their purview. Basically there is enough evidence there for them to make the case.
The religious get as much say in government, but no more than anyone else..
By this reply, it almost seems as if you feel that the "religious" have crossed some boundary.
Is this how you feel? Do you feel that they have exceeded what should be allotted to them and that they need to be heeled in? To be shown the error in their thinking?
Just trying to understand your tone here.
sebster wrote:
And there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that there was a ever a purely religious inspired version of marriage seperate from property laws and inheritance. None. That is fiction.
Really, you trying to suck me into a "true scottsman" argument? Its things like this that can make any attempt at a discussion with you an unpleasant chore.
sebster wrote:
And even if there was such a thing at one time, we know that here, in this world, marriage is not a purely religious thing. You can go and get married without involving any church or spirituality at all. And not only is such a thing recognised by the state as a marriage, it's recognised as a marriage by religious people. The idea that religious people would say 'oh you're married per the law but it wasn't in a church I recognise so it isn't really a marriage and you're stealing my word' is laughable.
And that's what this whole argument about religion owning a word is, laughable..
Not about owning a word, It is about the concept of marriage having become more than just a business contract. Marriage by definition is an intimate relationship. Now, intimacy is something shared between two people who have become very close The federal government has no business inserting itself a couples intimate life.
Now to answer your example of a church not recognizing a marriage.
The churches have done just that in the past, Not married by our standards then you are not legally married. And it would stick. What is telling in such situations is that religious marriage ceremonies have a better track record of being approved in the majority of states than does many
of the local (individual state) ceremonies.
States not recognizing another states version of getting married is still quite common. And it is not just over same sex marriage. It is often over different states having differing ages of consent and differing legal requirements for marriage. And there are other things that can throw a wrench in the interstate recognition of a marriage/civil union.
Honestly, I feel the entire system is inefficient, cumbersome and in need of an overhaul, because the concept of marriage has become this romantic religious ritual that usually occurs or is pictured occurring in a place of worship. The government doesn't need to be regulating romance, it needs to be helping set forth the expected financial and childcare duties.
Where the government is concerned, it should be handing out domestic union contracts where the couple agree to who does what and where the money goes. As a contract, both parties can ask to come back on a regular basis to renegotiate needed changes.
These re-negotiations would go a long way towards stopping divorces that are traumatizing to both the kids and the couple..
This new system I advocate would require prospective couples to take a primer on what are the legal benefits and hazards of "Contractually Uniting" are. Then they have to actually hammer out a contract that details who is expected to cover what percent of the costs and what happens when kids enter the picture. There should also be a provision for re-negotiating specific items and who gets what should they decide to dissolve the domestic union.
Yes, this would cost a little money but would save so much more in the long run. Oh well, enough rambling from me on this point.
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:There are other things that complicate the issue such as the Catholic church's long history of providing for the needy with religious based(tax exempt) services(food banks and medical care). Under current anti-discrimination laws, these charities would lose there protections and will likely fail if Gay marriage becomes US law....that is unless the Catholic church caves to secular pressure on a definite no-no in their holy book.
'definite no-no' makes a big assumption about how complex and prone to interpretation the bible is. There was a time, of course, when slavery was defended through a reading of the bible, while other christians argued against slavery with other verses of their own. Ultimately, when one side finally won that debate, the other side just slowly disappeared from view, and generations later it was bizarre to think that Christians could have ever argued that slavery was good and proper and Christian.
No reason to think this will be any different.
Here is a "Big" reason to think it is different different. Nowhere in the bible/torah did it say to go out and gather slaves, but it clearly stated that "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination".
You see, to those that have never read the bible, they think that it is this big book of don'ts because of all of the crappy tv evangelists. Honestly, there are very few things strictly proscribed in the bible. The Ten Commandments, cleanliness violations, don't eat the apple and who not to have sex with are pretty much it. The old and new testament are books much more about "doing" the right thing than they are about the "don't do this".
This is why many Judeo-Christians and also Muslims are dead set against the idea, this is one of the few specific no-no's.
Now, a case can be made much more easily for lesbian marriages. Why?, you ask.
Because, Leviticus Chapt 18 spells out who can get together with who, has a ridiculous amount of detail.....except that there is nothing about woman laying with another woman.
Apparently, God is down with the lesbians, just as long as they do not violate the no sodomy rule(no toys).
Another case could be made for gay men to be married under the Bible if they vowed to never be intimate(Have relations). The second they did such, the marriage would most likely be null and void according to the churches.
Really, the smart move is to just let go of a word whose definition and imagery has become so intermingled with the religious ritual that takes place in a house of worship. Pick another word, make it the "governmental standard" that applies to benefits and let the religious have their rituals as they see fit.
We have done it with other controversial words(words that have legitimate meanings and uses but because they have become associated with a contentious subject, the government stops using the word.
While I'm not a fan of political correctness, it does exist as a part of our society. I think, it would be appropriate if this tool of censorship by the reactionary types was actually put to a good use for once.
Peregrine wrote:
When I, a devout atheist, die I will have some kind of funeral ceremony and it will have nothing to do with religion.
Oh, the sweet, sweet irony of this statement.
Peregrine wrote:
You tried to claim that because a particular religion has rituals around marriage and funerals those things are owned by religion. And that is simply wrong.
Not necessarily wrong, when you consider that up until a few decades back marriages, funerals and burial services were often done by the local church's/synagogues/mosques/ect...or their clergy, completely independent of the government.
That is the kicker. If these rites were "supposed" to be the sole province of the secular government then the various religions and their clergy would never have been granted this right in the first place.
Not necessarily wrong, when you consider that up until a few decades back marriages, funerals and burial services were often done by the local church's/synagogues/mosques/ect...or their clergy, completely independent of the government.
That is the kicker. If these rites were "supposed" to be the sole province of the secular government then the various religions and their clergy would never have been granted this right in the first place.
They still are "often" done by local religious bodies... That doesn't mean that funerals or marriages are the sole domain of religion. Clergy have been "granted" the rights to conduct rites by the state, because to do so the opposite would be to infringe, limit or otherwise violate the people's 1st amendment rights.
Basically, funerals, marriages and the like are not the "sole province" of the government nor the religious body, and almost never have been.
Not necessarily wrong, when you consider that up until a few decades back marriages, funerals and burial services were often done by the local church's/synagogues/mosques/ect...or their clergy, completely independent of the government.
That is the kicker. If these rites were "supposed" to be the sole province of the secular government then the various religions and their clergy would never have been granted this right in the first place.
They still are "often" done by local religious bodies... That doesn't mean that funerals or marriages are the sole domain of religion. Clergy have been "granted" the rights to conduct rites by the state, because to do so the opposite would be to infringe, limit or otherwise violate the people's 1st amendment rights.
Basically, funerals, marriages and the like are not the "sole province" of the government nor the religious body, and almost never have been.
Seems we might be in agreement here. We have just seem to be approaching the same point from opposite ends. The point that I have been arguing is that due to history and to societal perception, the marriage (and funeral) rites have a legitimate association with religion.
This association is so strong that the word marriage will always be legally "tainted" with religion. Now, I am not saying that marriage is solely a religious term, because to do so would be absurd.
Why absurd? Because, when to people join together in marriage it is more than just property rites, bloodlines, taxes and even religion. Marriage is a big concept that deals with the most private and intimate portion of the lives of those who engage in the practice. This is why I am against any "one size fits all law". That it would be more efficient for the government to set up a method of regulating the things that should be in its purview, namely,(taxation, property rights and legal parental rights/duties). And that all things intimate and spiritual should be left to either the couple or the religions, namely(their beliefs, philosophy, private lives, spirituality and spiritual & emotional welfare of the children).
This is where we get to the part that leads to my current stance.
a) Governments and Religions have differing purposes for their involvement in what is commonly called marriage.
b) The Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment as to meaning that it is to be a wall between church and state or more commonly phrased as "separation of church and state"
c) This interpretation has been used by some secularists as cause to crusade against the government and religions sharing any form of a connection.
d) Because various religions and government have to keep everything separate then this would by default include marriage.
e) Due to the legal need to be "separate" then each will have to have their own "separate" terminology. This is because both using the same word will create an unending legal battle(SCOTUS job security?).
and
f) If there has to be separate words, guess who wins. Yep, like you pointed out above, telling the various religions that they cannot "marry" would be unconstitutional.
From a legal stand point, the "churches and the "state" having 2 differing words for what is their purview is not only logical, as long as we use "separation of church and state" as the legal default, it is inevitable.
Imo, the problem does not come from the Bill of Rights but from:
An overly board interpretation that is often applied at times where we need to be looking at the original wording.
and
Various governmental agencies attempting to legislate something that they were never clearly given the right to
Also, there is another amendment at play here that most forget about. It is the reason why the Supreme Court usually kicks this issue back down to lesser courts. It is the 10th amendment.
This is also the amendment that will most likely be the grounds to appeal for the recent SCOTUS decisions that struck down several defense of marriage laws.
Cookie cutter interpretation is only good for cookies
I will keep myself from this discussion, but now that I can post again, I just want to apologise for a previous comment I made here.
I do not hate homosexuals or anything like that. My argument came out worse and stronger-worded than intended.
I have a very annoying tendency to speak in hyperbole, which occasionally gets me into trouble.
I am sorry if I have offended anyone.
focusedfire wrote: This association is so strong that the word marriage will always be legally "tainted" with religion. Now, I am not saying that marriage is solely a religious term, because to do so would be absurd.
So it is not solely a religious term, but it cannot be a legal term at the federal level? Yeah, I've heard that argument before. It ignores the importance of the term in federal jurisprudence, and the importance of the concept in federal law; basically forcing the federal government to bend over backwards for certain states.
Iron_Captain wrote: I will keep myself from this discussion, but now that I can post again, I just want to apologise for a previous comment I made here.
I do not hate homosexuals or anything like that. My argument came out worse and stronger-worded than intended.
I have a very annoying tendency to speak in hyperbole, which occasionally gets me into trouble.
I am sorry if I have offended anyone.
I don't know what you said, but it'd be good if you didn't go down the homophobia route and end up being a twisted homophobe later in life.
focusedfire wrote: This association is so strong that the word marriage will always be legally "tainted" with religion. Now, I am not saying that marriage is solely a religious term, because to do so would be absurd.
So it is not solely a religious term, but it cannot be a legal term at the federal level? Yeah, I've heard that argument before. It ignores the importance of the term in federal jurisprudence, and the importance of the concept in federal law; basically forcing the federal government to bend over backwards for certain states.
Something you doubtlessly want.
Soooo, it is ok to ignore the entire history of the word in terms of how it is applied in federal jurisprudence, just so long as some group gets to stick it to the religio's. Got it.
Really, your argument here seems to be, "you guys can't change how the word is legally used but our side can". Is this irony or just plain hypocrisy?
As to your allusion to what I want? My desires are irrelevant, finding an equitable compromise that clarifies the roles of government and religion are what matter.
Telling Gays that they can't have federal benefits is wrong.
Telling the religious that they don't have constitutional rights to follow their religion AND telling them that they will suffer sanctions for following the tenets of said religion(refusing to marry gay couples) is just as wrong.
What I propose is an equitable solution.
What you want is an "in your face" and "take that" victory over the conservatives and religious right.
Which is the better way to govern? Equitably or maliciously?
Earlier, I asked what are basically these same questions of your close bud Sebster and now ask you:
Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights?
Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?
Dogma was arguing that to remove the word from governmental use was to ignore its use in/ its jurisprudence.
My reply is from the stance that to change the legal definition to include gays is to also ignore its historical use in jurisprudence.
Hence my stance and question of "Why is it wrong for one group and right for another?".
That Dogma is arguing to hold the religio's to a standard that he/she is unwilling to hold non-religious too.
If a group is refusing the compromise that gives everyone what they have been fighting for, then you have to question the motive. My stance is that if a group refuses to compromise based upon an "in your face" attitude, that they are in the wrong.
In the '90s the conservatives were wrong to not accept the domestic union compromise and that the gays are now wrong for the same reason.
Any subsequent questions or statements made to dogma are based upon his/her long posting history and seeking clarification as to how dogma sees the oppositions position on the matter.
focusedfire wrote: Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights? Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?
I do. Religious instiutions are businesses, and should be taxed as such.
Why should I be forced to subsidize a business, especially one I find to be morally questionable?
Hence my stance and question of "Why is it wrong for one group and right for another?".
That Dogma is arguing to hold the religio's to a standard that he/she is unwilling to hold non-religious too.
Thing is, in my mind, Government has more "right" to the usage of the word than the "religious" as, lets face it most of the noise coming from the religious camp is of Christian, Mormon or similar faiths.... The word "marriage" has been used since long before even Judaism was a thing, and every known language, past or present has a word for it.
If the Spartans had a different word for "man love" or a "homosexual marriage" then it has been lost to time. The point is, no one group has any more right to a simple word than another, excepting in the legal sense of the Government's role as a "guardian of equality" (ie, they're supposed to support equality and equal rights, regardless of what a small/large portion of society screams about).
focusedfire wrote: Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights? Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?
I do. Religious instiutions are businesses, and should be taxed as such.
Why should I be forced to subsidize a business, especially one I find to be morally questionable?
Interesting argument though I disagree with the blanketing use.
First there is a difference betwen the religious and the religions. One is a person exercising their freedom of religion while the other is a man made structure whose purpose is to provide a structured place of worship(churches).
Second, I would argue that there is a "big" difference between being a tax exempt "non-profit" business and astate or federally subsidized social welfare program.
Non-profits "do not take", subsidized groups do.
Is there some instance of subsidization? Yeah, but I don't believe that you want to argue against federal insurers paying christian and Jewish hospitals or supporting the some of the most efficient medical charities(Saint Judes?....Though I believe St Judes may be 100% private funding these days).
And last, I would ask you to answer the question again, noting that I asked about the "religious" as opposed to religions".
focusedfire wrote: And last, I would ask you to answer the question again, noting that I asked about the "religious" as opposed to religions".
I think there's a murky area here, because IIRC there are instances of the law preventing child abuse from the religious (ex. refusing medical treatment for your child, forced marriages, etc).
However, I think alot of what children are exposed to at the hands of their parents or clergy that is now totally legal is in fact child abuse, it is just not classified that way because no politician has the will to call a spade a spade.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
focusedfire wrote: Is there some instance of subsidization? Yeah, but I don't believe that you want to argue against federal insurers paying christian and Jewish hospitals or supporting the some of the most efficient medical charities(Saint Judes?....Though I believe St Judes may be 100% private funding these days).
By virtue of not paying taxes alone, every religious institution that claims tax exemption in the country is subsidized.
By virtue of not paying taxes alone, every religious institution in the country is subsidized.
Not true at all... So they don't pay an income tax.
Well, if they have a building/property... they pay a property tax
Many-most of them that have a building are paying a mortgage or lease for that facility, which usually entail taxes as well.
They run on electricity and have water running to them, so they pay utility bills.
They also have insurance for liability purposes.
Quite often, they have more than 2 employees which means salaries and payroll taxes
And they have to take care of all of that purely through the goodwill of the people who show up on Sundays/Wednesdays/Saturdays (or whenever they meet)
Thing is, in my mind, Government has more "right" to the usage of the word than the "religious" as, lets face it most of the noise coming from the religious camp is of Christian, Mormon or similar faiths.... The word "marriage" has been used since long before even Judaism was a thing, and every known language, past or present has a word for it.
If the Spartans had a different word for "man love" or a "homosexual marriage" then it has been lost to time. The point is, no one group has any more right to a simple word than another, excepting in the legal sense of the Government's role as a "guardian of equality" (ie, they're supposed to support equality and equal rights, regardless of what a small/large portion of society screams about).
My point is that the word "marriage" is a french based word that is also used in english. The act of domestic unions "pre-dates the word".
Another issue that compounds the problem is that the US has never established a national language, which from a legal standpoint is insane.
There are many iterations and synonyms that have little or no connection to religion. Using one of these could easily be done at the time that we finally codify our "legal" language.
As to the government protecting equality, we have already discovered that discrimination against one group in favour of another doesn't work. If the government is truly going to "equally" protect peoples rights then continuing on a path that is guaranteed to create an inequality is, at best, counter-productive.
Well I don't want to get caught up in a symantic argument. If you don't think that federal income tax exemption is a subsidy, than there's no need to argue the point.
As to the government protecting equality, we have already discovered that discrimination against one group in favour of another doesn't work. If the government is truly going to "equally" protect peoples rights then continuing on a path that is guaranteed to create an inequality is, at best, counter-productive.
How would "granting" marriage rights to same sex couples be "guaranteed to create an inequality" ??
focusedfire wrote: And last, I would ask you to answer the question again, noting that I asked about the "religious" as opposed to religions".
I think there's a murky area here, because IIRC there are instances of the law preventing child abuse from the religious (ex. refusing medical treatment for your child, forced marriages, etc).
However, I think alot of what children are exposed to at the hands of their parents or clergy that is now totally legal is in fact child abuse, it is just not classified that way because no politician has the will to call a spade a spade.
Well, You did a good job of dancing around a direct answer. Though the last sentence gives me what I was looking for.....
Still would like a more direct answer to the original questions, though I understand why you might want to avoid such.
Well I don't want to get caught up in a symantic argument. If you don't think that federal income tax exemption is a subsidy, than there's no need to argue the point.
Not semantics, rather legal definition and proper use of the words. Do you have any idea of just how much worse the US's debt problem would be if we allowed tax-exempt to be conflated with subsidies?
focusedfire wrote: And last, I would ask you to answer the question again, noting that I asked about the "religious" as opposed to religions".
I think there's a murky area here, because IIRC there are instances of the law preventing child abuse from the religious (ex. refusing medical treatment for your child, forced marriages, etc).
However, I think alot of what children are exposed to at the hands of their parents or clergy that is now totally legal is in fact child abuse, it is just not classified that way because no politician has the will to call a spade a spade.
OK, leaving behind whether tax exemption is a subsidy, in fact or in practice, here are direct answers to original questions:
focusedfire wrote: Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights?
Yes, I do. Religious people should not have the right to abuse children behind the shield of their religious belies.
focusedfire wrote: Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?
Yes, I believe that there is a prevelant attitude in the United States that the religious are morally superior to everyone else, and that their beliefs should be shielded from criticism and given an exalted place in the public arena.
As to the government protecting equality, we have already discovered that discrimination against one group in favour of another doesn't work. If the government is truly going to "equally" protect peoples rights then continuing on a path that is guaranteed to create an inequality is, at best, counter-productive.
How would "granting" marriage rights to same sex couples be "guaranteed to create an inequality" ??
By the government being in favour of gay "marriage" it would open the religions(private organizations) to federal and various states anti-discrimination laws. Churchs or Pastors could be fined under laws like Houston's new anti-discrimination ordinsnce for refusing to marry openly gay couples.
This creates a defacto situation of where gay > religion in the eyes of the law.
jasper76 wrote: Yes, I do. Religious people should not have the right to abuse children behind the shield of their religious belies.
As I've already said, please explain how religious people abuse children, and are not prosecuted because of their beliefs.
Yes, I believe that there is a prevelant attitude in the United States that the religious are morally superior to everyone else, and that their beliefs should be shielded from criticism and given an exalted place in the public arena.
Well, I believe that there is a prevelant attitude in the United States that atheists are morally superior to everyone else, and that their beliefs should be shielded from criticism and given an exalted place in the public arena.
If a teacher tells a child that she will burn forever and ever if she doesn't follow the rules on the chalkboard, it would rightfully be called child abuse, the teacher woul be fired, and the case would probably end up in courts and likely result in civil and perhaps criminal penalties for that teacher.
If a parent or clergy does the same thing under the shield of religious protection, it is still child abuse, but it is not illegal.
focusedfire wrote: Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights?
Yes, I do. Religious people should not have the right to abuse children behind the shield of their religious belies.
focusedfire wrote: Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?
Yes, I believe that there is a prevelant attitude in the United States that the religious are morally superior to everyone else, and that their beliefs should be shielded from criticism and given an exalted place in the public arena.
Nice, you cloak your anti-religious bigotry with the "What about the children defense?".
I say bigotry because my questions were polite references of the terms historically used by those who wish to discriminate.
In essence, what I asked was if you feel these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place. This same type of language was used against my ancestors and other minorities by groups preaching intolerance and hate.
All I said was religious people shold not have the right to abuse children.
Do you think that religious people should ave the right to abuse children?
As you asked of me, just answer the question.
P.S. Trying to trick someone into providing answers to questions you did not ask is pretty rude. If you waned to ask me whether I think religious people are "uppity" or "need to be taught their place", both of which are clear allusions to racial discrimination, you should have just asked me that question, instead of asking a different question, using my answer as the response to a question you did not aks, and then trying to paint me as some sort of evil oppressor or somehting by subterfuge and verbal trickery. You did not ask me if I think "these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked me: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.
P.S. Trying to trick someone into providing answers to questions you did not ask is pretty rude. If you waned to ask me whether I think religious people are "uppity" or "need to be taught their place", both of which are clear allusions to racial discrimination, you should have just asked me that question, instead of asking a different question, using my answer as the response to a question you did not aks, and then trying to paint me as some sort of evil oppressor or somehting by subterfuge and verbal trickery. You did not ask me if I think "these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked me: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.
He didn't have to paint you in any way shape or form. It's pretty clear that you an irrational hatred of religion and religious people.
P.S. Trying to trick someone into providing answers to questions you did not ask is pretty rude. If you waned to ask me whether I think religious people are "uppity" or "need to be taught their place", both of which are clear allusions to racial discrimination, you should have just asked me that question, instead of asking a different question, using my answer as the response to a question you did not aks, and then trying to paint me as some sort of evil oppressor or somehting by subterfuge and verbal trickery. You did not ask me if I think "these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked me: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.
He didn't have to paint you in any way shape or form. It's pretty clear that you an irrational hatred of religion and religious people.
This is a perfect example of the prevalant attitude I was talking about. You are equating criticism with hatred.
I also don't think that men who are 5'6" should be allowed to steal money from the elderly. Do I now have an "irrational hatred" of men who are 5'6"?
P.S. Trying to trick someone into providing answers to questions you did not ask is pretty rude. If you waned to ask me whether I think religious people are "uppity" or "need to be taught their place", both of which are clear allusions to racial discrimination, you should have just asked me that question, instead of asking a different question, using my answer as the response to a question you did not aks, and then trying to paint me as some sort of evil oppressor or somehting by subterfuge and verbal trickery. You did not ask me if I think "these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked me: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.
He didn't have to paint you in any way shape or form. It's pretty clear that you an irrational hatred of religion and religious people.
This is a perfect example of the prevalant attitude I was talking about. You are equating criticism with hatred.
I also don't think that men who are 5'6" should be allowed to steal money from the elderly. Do I know have an "irrational hatred" of men who are 5'6"?
By the government being in favour of gay "marriage" it would open the religions(private organizations) to federal and various states anti-discrimination laws. Churchs or Pastors could be fined under laws like Houston's new anti-discrimination ordinsnce for refusing to marry openly gay couples.
This creates a defacto situation of where gay > religion in the eyes of the law.
Except that, as of yet, no State that has legalized gay marriage has put a PRIVATE organization, such as a church under that umbrella. So thus far, churches are still able to decline a couple's wedding on the grounds that they are the same sex/gender.... For the State to do so would severely infringe on the Pastor's and church organizations ability to practice their 1st amendment rights.
So, legalizing same-sex marriage does not create a gay>religion situation, nor does it create a discriminatory situation.
This is a perfect example of the prevalant attitude I was talking about. You are equating criticism with hatred.
I also don't think that men who are 5'6" should be allowed to steal money from the elderly. Do I now have an "irrational hatred" of men who are 5'6"?
If you go on for several pages creating strawman arguments about how 5'6 men are constantly stealing money for the elderly and regurgitating stereotypes (like you were with priests molesting children) then most certainly, you would be displaying an "irrational hatred" of men who are 5'6.
Once actual research was done, it flat out dispelled that myth. Using the child molestation scandal as a justification to attack religion is extremely bigoted. That kind of stereotype is on par with saying jews are greedy, mexicans lazy and blacks less intelligent than whites. There is zero evidence to support those claims and mountains of evidence that completely dispel those stereotypes. Just like there is ample data to show that a child is 50% less likely to be molested by a priest than by any other person in the general population.
You can sit there bashing religion all you want because right now it's politically correct to do so. It doesn't make what you are saying any less inflammatory and frankly, you've been excessively hateful. It's one thing to be critical, it's another thing to be hateful. Based on the choice of your words, it's pretty clear that you hate religion.
So you just proved to me that you didn't even read my posts, because I never once mentioned or alluded to priests molesting children, which is totally illegal already.
jasper76 wrote: So you just proved to me that you didn't even read my posts, because I never once mentioned or alluded to priests molesting children, which is totally illegal already.
You quite clearly eluded to it when you called their teachings "abuse". Own up to it because it's pretty damn obvious.
jasper76 wrote:
If a teacher tells a child that she will burn forever and ever if she doesn't follow the rules on the chalkboard, it would rightfully be called child abuse, the teacher woul be fired, and the case would probably end up in courts and likely result in civil and perhaps criminal penalties for that teacher.
If a parent or clergy does the same thing under the shield of religious protection, it is still child abuse, but it is not illegal.
Nice but inaccurate "Hyperbole" there. Lets go point by point:
A)The teacher would most definitely be fired over violating what has become an all to common zero-tolerance rule about religion in public schools.(Odd that many forget that such policies are in direct contradiction to the exact wording of the 1st amendment...please note that such policies are currently being challenged in the court system.)
B)The Teacher could try to sue to get her job back.
C)The thought that as per your example, that she would be facing criminal charges is far, far beyond the scope of reality. It does show how you think religions should be treated and is further evidence that you are not criticizing but are using hateful rhetoric.
Now to your example itself. Let us get past the "Hyperbole" and look at the basics of what you are saying. In essence the teacher says if you mis-behave(sin) you will be punished(Go to hell).
Would you be so quick to charge a teacher with abuse if they told said child that they would go to jail if they commited a crime(brought a gun to school)?
Should a teacher be fired for telling students that if they commit murder that they can get the death penalty in many states?
*Warning:To answer no to these will put you in a very difficult to defend position
jasper76 wrote:OK...
All I said was religious people shold not have the right to abuse children.
Do you think that religious people should ave the right to abuse children?
As you asked of me, just answer the question.
Do I think religious people should have the right to abuse children?
No
See how easy it is to answer succinctly when people are honest with both themselves and with whom they are conversing.
Now do I equate all religions with child abuse as you seem to?
No, to does so would be bigoted and to verbally imply such would be pretty close to hate speach
jasper76 wrote:
P.S. Trying to trick someone into providing answers to questions you did not ask is pretty rude. If you waned to ask me whether I think religious people are "uppity" or "need to be taught their place", both of which are clear allusions to racial discrimination, you should have just asked me that question, instead of asking a different question, using my answer as the response to a question you did not aks, and then trying to paint me as some sort of evil oppressor or somehting by subterfuge and verbal trickery. You did not ask me if I think "these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked me: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.
I didn't trick you. You voluntarily answered a question. A question that I might add was directed at other posters. Of which, said other posters knew better than to answer such a loaded question. Their silence should have been your first hint.
As to the question(s), not question. There were 2 and they were asking the other posters if they felt a certain way. This was because of certain allusions that had been made about the religious and or religions having exceeded their proper place within our society. One of the individuals was arguing against the religious people having a right to sue under the 1st amendment. To say that they don't have a right to sue for constitutional protection would mean that they immediately become lesser almost non- citizens.
Now go back and re-read the original questions and you will see that they are not what you claim here.
By the government being in favour of gay "marriage" it would open the religions(private organizations) to federal and various states anti-discrimination laws. Churchs or Pastors could be fined under laws like Houston's new anti-discrimination ordinsnce for refusing to marry openly gay couples.
This creates a defacto situation of where gay > religion in the eyes of the law.
Except that, as of yet, no State that has legalized gay marriage has put a PRIVATE organization, such as a church under that umbrella. So thus far, churches are still able to decline a couple's wedding on the grounds that they are the same sex/gender.... For the State to do so would severely infringe on the Pastor's and church organizations ability to practice their 1st amendment rights.
So, legalizing same-sex marriage does not create a gay>religion situation, nor does it create a discriminatory situation.
I could easily dig up various other situations but these 2 already cover the scope of a personal religiopus infringement and one directed at religion on an institutional basis.
BTW, In Houston it will be a $5000 US fine and Mayor Anise Parker has already displayed an intention to go after the churches by what had to be removed from her "personal" crusade just to get it passed as an ordinance.
I do not believe, nor have I stated, that religious people's constituational rights should differ in any way shape or form from everyone elses. I'm sorry if I missed the context of your question.
jasper76 wrote:
Now to your example itself. Let us get past the Hyperbole and look at the basics of what you are saying. In essence the teacher says if you mis-behave(sin) you will be punished(Go to hell).
Would you be so quick to charge a teacher with abuse if they told said child that they would go to jail if they commited a crime(brought a gun to school). Should a teacher be fired for telling students that if they commit murder that they can get the death penalty in many states?
*Warning:To answer no to these will put you in a very difficult to defend position
No. If you can't tell the difference between warnings against legal ramifactions for crimes, and threatening a child with eternal torture, then lets just stop this part of the discussion right now.
focusedfire wrote: Now do I equate all religions with child abuse as you seem to?
No, to does so would be bigoted and to verbally imply such would be pretty close to hate speach
I don't know where you and derek are getting this stuff from. Please quote where I said that I equate all religions with child abuse, and I will promptly apologize and correct my statement to what I actually mean.
focusedfire wrote: I didn't trick you. You voluntarily answered a question. A question that I might add was directed at other posters. Of which, said other posters knew better than to answer such a loaded question. Their silence should have been your first hint.
While I did miss the context of your question, for which I sincerely apologize, I did answer the question you aksed, and then you changed the question. If you'd like me to answer a question, just ask. You did not ask if religious "people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, for the purpose of clarity, I was trying to compare the following.
Teacher: Here are my rules. No chewing gum. No talking in class. If you break these rules, you will burn forever.
Parent: Don't do "religious prohibition X, Y, Z". If you break these rules, you will burn forever.
Soooo, it is ok to ignore the entire history of the word in terms of how it is applied in federal jurisprudence, just so long as some group gets to stick it to the religio's. Got it.
No. That isn't the argument I made. How you gathered that from my post is (not) a mystery to me.
Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights? Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?
No and no...well maybe yes on the last question.
At any rate I dislike the phrase "the religious" as it is an oblique reference to Christians and Jews, rather than a reference to religious people in general.
focusedfire wrote: Would you be so quick to charge a teacher with abuse if they told said child that they would go to jail if they commited a crime(brought a gun to school)?
Should a teacher be fired for telling students that if they commit murder that they can get the death penalty in many states?
*Warning:To answer no to these will put you in a very difficult to defend position
Actually it's very easy to defend: the legal consequences of being convicted of a given crime are indisputable facts. Hell is an absurd myth used to scare people into obeying an equally-absurd system of arbitrary rules. Is it really so hard to see a difference between "this is how our legal system works" and "my imaginary friend is going to torture you forever if you don't obey me"?
Now do I equate all religions with child abuse as you seem to?
All religions? No. Not all religions threaten children with eternal torture if they don't obey, nor do they provide a message that is essentially "you suck and deserve to be tortured forever, you'll never be anything without god". But religions that do are pretty abusive.
Oh good, a dishonest argument! Let's just conveniently ignore the fact that state anti-discrimination laws include sexual orientation, and the florist is being sued for refusing service, not for their religious beliefs. This case would be exactly the same if the flowers were for a "marriage" ceremony with no legal status.
You're just making this too easy. Read the details of the case, not just the title. This one involves property owned by the church (NOT the church buildings) that is offered for public use, and the church has accepted government support that includes a requirement that it be open to everyone. This isn't even close to an violation of their rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: Grimm's fairy tales: Don't do A, B or C, monsters and animals will eat you alive.
Is reading their stories to children abuse?
No, because nobody is presenting them as true stories. It would be fine to teach the bible as a work of fiction in a literature class, as long as it was presented as a work of fiction. But that's not what's happening in this hypothetical scenario. It's the difference between watching a scary movie with a robbery scene, knowing that it's a work of fiction and you can walk away at any time, and getting robbed at gunpoint in the real world.
jasper76 wrote: Not a good analogy, because parents (usually, I hope) make it clear to their children that those books are make-believe.
In certain religious mindsets, the threat of eternal torture is very very real, and is presented to children as being very, very real.
Ever heard the phrase, "the moral of the story is..."?
There is a reason why children are told these kinds of stories. They are told to reinforce beliefs... To plant seeds of morality into their impressionable brains.
jasper76 wrote: Not a good analogy, because parents (usually, I hope) make it clear to their children that those books are make-believe.
In certain religious mindsets, the threat of eternal torture is very very real, and is presented to children as being very, very real.
Ever heard the phrase, "the moral of the story is..."?
There is a reason why children are told these kinds of stories. They are told to reinforce beliefs... To plant seeds of morality into their impressionable brains.
jasper76 wrote: Not a good analogy, because parents (usually, I hope) make it clear to their children that those books are make-believe.
In certain religious mindsets, the threat of eternal torture is very very real, and is presented to children as being very, very real.
Ever heard the phrase, "the moral of the story is..."?
There is a reason why children are told these kinds of stories. They are told to reinforce beliefs... To plant seeds of morality into their impressionable brains.
Yes, but that is different from telling a kid he may actually burn in hell for eternity.
This is a perfect example of the prevalant attitude I was talking about. You are equating criticism with hatred.
I also don't think that men who are 5'6" should be allowed to steal money from the elderly. Do I now have an "irrational hatred" of men who are 5'6"?
As a 5'6" man who is not Christian, I will opine that no hatred of us is irrational!
Sooon...
edit- Although I'm wildly off topic, what on the goddess's earth does anything on this page have to with people marrying who they love?
It breaks legal precedent, and some people are mad about extending the rights they enjoy to others. That's the non-religious argument in a nutshell. The rest is just trying to figure out who's morally right.
Mathematically speaking- 19 states legalized in 5 years. In another 10-15, you should be able to marry any consenting adult who'll have you.
Soooo, it is ok to ignore the entire history of the word in terms of how it is applied in federal jurisprudence, just so long as some group gets to stick it to the religio's. Got it.
No. That isn't the argument I made. How you gathered that from my post is (not) a mystery to me.
(Neither) is it a mystery to me, when one takes into account your what you actually posted "and" your very long history of intolerance towards christian based religions.
Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights? Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?
No and no...well maybe yes on the last question.
At any rate I dislike the phrase "the religious" as it is an oblique reference to Christians and Jews, rather than a reference to religious people in general.
Thank you for at least being a little honest about your anti-religious prejudices.
As to the use of the term "the religious": So, you want to censor my use of the term because of how you interpret it? Not gonna happen.
I use the term in a non- derogatory manner to reflect any and all who are religious, whether they be Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Taoist, Muslim, Atheist or any other well know organized group with a devout belief concerning the "universals" of metaphysics. I also use the term to denote that I am not a religious person.
Though, from past post on similar topics, I understand your bias and desire to single out the Christians.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote: Would you be so quick to charge a teacher with abuse if they told said child that they would go to jail if they commited a crime(brought a gun to school)?
Should a teacher be fired for telling students that if they commit murder that they can get the death penalty in many states?
*Warning:To answer no to these will put you in a very difficult to defend position
Actually it's very easy to defend: the legal consequences of being convicted of a given crime are indisputable facts. Hell is an absurd myth used to scare people into obeying an equally-absurd system of arbitrary rules. Is it really so hard to see a difference between "this is how our legal system works" and "my imaginary friend is going to torture you forever if you don't obey me"?
Congratulations upon your scientific breakthrough disproving the existence of an afterlife, alternate planes and future evolution towards non-physical beings. Please, let us know when you are due to accept your Nobel peace prize. What?..wait? You haven't scientifically proven that Hell doesn't exist? Well, that would mean that you are just spouting off your personal beliefs and trying to pass them off as fact.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Now do I equate all religions with child abuse as you seem to?
All religions? No. Not all religions threaten children with eternal torture if they don't obey, nor do they provide a message that is essentially "you suck and deserve to be tortured forever, you'll never be anything without god". But religions that do are pretty abusive.
What you see as abuse and damage to precious self-esteem, others might see as an educational process that attempts to reign in humanities natural tendency towards narcissism. Teaching that there are things greater than than any single human(or all of humanity) in this universe seems to be one of the more worthwhile goals of the religious.
I would also like to know if you really think that all religious groups that believe in hell beat the concept into their children on a daily basis.
Oh good, a dishonest argument! Let's just conveniently ignore the fact that state anti-discrimination laws include sexual orientation, and the florist is being sued for refusing service, not for their religious beliefs. This case would be exactly the same if the flowers were for a "marriage" ceremony with no legal status.
Only dishonesty is how you are intentionally ignoring the rights of "private" businesses and individuals to refuse service for as a part of their faith. Where would you take it next? Force people to open their business on their Sabbath because their taking a day off is somehow shoving their beliefs down your throat?
Man, you are a piece of work. In your reply above, somehow you think that you won an internet cookie "by arguing the exact point that I was making". You just argued that the government "is" intruding into private religious belief and the freedom to practice such "is" being affected by how the gay marriage laws interact with current anti-discrimination laws.
Really, thank you for helping to make my case.
You're just making this too easy. Read the details of the case, not just the title. This one involves property owned by the church (NOT the church buildings) that is offered for public use, and the church has accepted government support that includes a requirement that it be open to everyone. This isn't even close to an violation of their rights.
Ahh, yeah. Instead of just doing a casual perusal of the case, you might want to look deeper. You see, the Church stopped taking state money several years before this case. As such, they were no longer bound by the states public land clause. This is why the gay-lesbian community consider it a bench mark case. The ruling set the precedent for gays&lesbians to sue churches for refusing to conduct same-sex marriages on church property.
It is odd, with you being such a religious person, seems you would have more empathy for those of other beliefs.
BTW, this is getting a bit afield. I have already offered up several ways that would accomplish the stated goals of all groups involved. Even pointed out a few possible loopholes in the Christian/Judaic texts that people could use to argue the technical right to have Judaic-Christian same-sex marriages. Unfortunately, seems that many here would rather indulge in their hatred of certain religions rather than have a discussion on the difficulties of separating religion and government where marriage is concerned.
focusedfire wrote: I use the term in a non- derogatory manner to reflect any and all who are religious, whether they be Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Taoist, Muslim, Atheist or any other well know organized group with a devout belief concerning the "universals" of metaphysics.
You certainly don't, because under that definition "the religious" includes everyone. And therefore asking things like "do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights" doesn't make any sense at all. Your question is only a reasonable thing to ask if you interpret "the religious" in a much narrower way, to create a defined subset of the population that could act as a unified whole. So yeah, I think it's pretty clear that you're using "the religious" in the common way, where it means "Christians".
Congratulations upon your scientific breakthrough disproving the existence of an afterlife, alternate planes and future evolution towards non-physical beings. Please, let us know when you are due to accept your Nobel peace prize. What?..wait? You haven't scientifically proven that Hell doesn't exist? Well, that would mean that you are just spouting off your personal beliefs and trying to pass them off as fact.
I don't think you understand the concept of a burden of proof. I have no obligation to prove that hell doesn't exist, I can simply point to the fact that nobody, in the entire history of humanity, has provided even the slightest credible evidence that it exists. Unless you want to consistently apply your standards of proof and never, under any circumstances, say "X doesn't exist" then I think we can end this ridiculous diversion into nitpicking and bad philosophy.
I would also like to know if you really think that all religious groups that believe in hell beat the concept into their children on a daily basis.
No, of course they don't. But it's the difference between beating your children occasionally, and beating them daily. It's still wrong even if you don't do it as much as other people.
Only dishonesty is how you are intentionally ignoring the rights of "private" businesses and individuals to refuse service for as a part of their faith.
Do you also support the right of private businesses and individuals to refuse service as a part of their racist beliefs? Should we go back to the days of "whites only" signs? Or does the right to refuse service only apply when it's discrimination against a group that you don't mind people discriminating against?
Force people to open their business on their Sabbath because their taking a day off is somehow shoving their beliefs down your throat?
WTF? Do you honestly think that this is a good argument? I really don't see how anyone can reasonably make a connection between "you can't refuse service" and "you must be available any time I want you to be available".
You just argued that the government "is" intruding into private religious belief and the freedom to practice such "is" being affected by how the gay marriage laws interact with current anti-discrimination laws.
No, you just didn't pay attention. The case has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. It's a straightforward case of violating anti-discrimination laws, the fact that the refused service had to do with weddings was purely a coincidence. The outcome would have been exactly the same if the flowers had been for a "marriage" ceremony with no legal status. Giving that legal status is a completely independent issue.
You see, the Church stopped taking state money several years before this case. As such, they were no longer bound by the states public land clause.
Under whose rules? The state's rules, or the church's desire to have those restrictions end as soon as they want them to go away? Could you cite the exact laws governing the conversion of a public space into a private one?
The ruling set the precedent for gays&lesbians to sue churches for refusing to conduct same-sex marriages on church property.
For a very limited definition of "church property" that only includes public-use property that just happens to be owned by a church. If you make a park available to anyone who wants to use it and accept state support that comes with a requirement to continue that availability then yes, you lose the right to kick people out just because you don't like them. But don't try to present this as some kind of dangerous precedent that inevitably leads to gay couples getting married in anti-gay churches because the poor church officials are afraid of going to prison if they object.
It is odd, with you being such a religious person, seems you would have more empathy for those of other beliefs.
I don't see where you get the idea that I'm a religious person. I'm not. And I have no empathy for repulsive bigots.
focusedfire wrote: I use the term in a non- derogatory manner to reflect any and all who are religious, whether they be Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Taoist, Muslim, Atheist or any other well know organized group with a devout belief concerning the "universals" of metaphysics.
You certainly don't, because under that definition "the religious" includes everyone. And therefore asking things like "do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights" doesn't make any sense at all. Your question is only a reasonable thing to ask if you interpret "the religious" in a much narrower way, to create a defined subset of the population that could act as a unified whole. So yeah, I think it's pretty clear that you're using "the religious" in the common way, where it means "Christians".
Really? So My Orthodox Jewish relatives would not be a part of this? How about practitioners of Islam? What about the Theravada Buddhists? How about the few Hindu Nationalists in the US?
No, Your extensive knowledge says that there are no such groups and that I must be only talking about the Christians. Gods man, seems your bigotry and hate for Christians may be blinding you to how others could be affected.
Peregrine wrote:
Congratulations upon your scientific breakthrough disproving the existence of an afterlife, alternate planes and future evolution towards non-physical beings. Please, let us know when you are due to accept your Nobel peace prize. What?..wait? You haven't scientifically proven that Hell doesn't exist? Well, that would mean that you are just spouting off your personal beliefs and trying to pass them off as fact.
I don't think you understand the concept of a burden of proof. I have no obligation to prove that hell doesn't exist, I can simply point to the fact that nobody, in the entire history of humanity, has provided even the slightest credible evidence that it exists. Unless you want to consistently apply your standards of proof and never, under any circumstances, say "X doesn't exist" then I think we can end this ridiculous diversion into nitpicking and bad philosophy.
A Bad understanding of how theorems and proofs work has led you to bad scientific example. How the burden of proof works is when someone(in this case you) makes an assertion(puts forth a theorem) on the properties of something. In this case whether something exists or does not. Then you have to come up with a scientific way of proving your theorem before they can be considered fact.
Seeing as there is no current way to prove that Hell does or does not exist then to make a claim as to its existence or non-existence is to lie. Basically, you are doing the thing of which you accuse the Christians. Only, in your case I feel that it is worse. Most Christians say that they believe in a heaven and hell, but most will admit that it cannot be proven until they die. You, on the other hand are making blanket declarations of facts that you cannot prove.
I will agree, that with your willingness to violate research methodology 101, it is useless to have this discussion with you.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:I would also like to know if you really think that all religious groups that believe in hell beat the concept into their children on a daily basis.
No, of course they don't. But it's the difference between beating your children occasionally, and beating them daily. It's still wrong even if you don't do it as much as other people.
There is a difference between telling your child about your faith and its tenets and browbeating them daily with threats of burning. Again, it seems as if hatred and bigotry are clouding your view.
Also, as mentioned by others in this thread,"Who says that the threat of hell is abuse?". No different than telling your kids that the Boogey man will get them if they misbehave. It has more to do with how the topic is handled than the mention of the topic.
But wait, you said it is abuse so it has to be.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Only dishonesty is how you are intentionally ignoring the rights of "private" businesses and individuals to refuse service for as a part of their faith.
Do you also support the right of private businesses and individuals to refuse service as a part of their racist beliefs? Should we go back to the days of "whites only" signs? Or does the right to refuse service only apply when it's discrimination against a group that you don't mind people discriminating against?
Sure, I also believe in the right to refuse to sell to a customer with long nose hair. If someone wants to be a poor business person, let them. Their competition will reap the benefits and word of mouth will hurt the business if that is the way society feels. You see, I don't like the concept of societal engineering, I think that societies should be left to develop more organically.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Force people to open their business on their Sabbath because their taking a day off is somehow shoving their beliefs down your throat?
WTF? Do you honestly think that this is a good argument? I really don't see how anyone can reasonably make a connection between "you can't refuse service" and "you must be available any time I want you to be available".
While I am glad to see that your hatred of the Christians hasn't pushed you to this point, there are other groups willing to go after various religious groups just for this reason. When the NAACP does something like this, you can bet that the Anti-religious groups will start filings such lawsuits en mass.
(And yes, the clinic receives federal funding. Does this mean that the Government employees can't have the Sabbath off? Will have to see how this progresses)
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:You just argued that the government "is" intruding into private religious belief and the freedom to practice such "is" being affected by how the gay marriage laws interact with current anti-discrimination laws.
No, you just didn't pay attention. The case has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. It's a straightforward case of violating anti-discrimination laws, the fact that the refused service had to do with weddings was purely a coincidence. The outcome would have been exactly the same if the flowers had been for a "marriage" ceremony with no legal status. Giving that legal status is a completely independent issue.
Go..back..and..re-read..the..end..of..what..you..quoted. This subject was a reply to another poster about how state ratified same-sex marriage would interact with current anti-discrimination laws in a way that would force private individuals and businesses to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. Your inability to see how these interact and relate comes across like you are "compartmentalizing". You might want to work on that.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:You see, the Church stopped taking state money several years before this case. As such, they were no longer bound by the states public land clause.
Under whose rules? The state's rules, or the church's desire to have those restrictions end as soon as they want them to go away? Could you cite the exact laws governing the conversion of a public space into a private one?
It would seem that it would be under the state and federal rules. The ones that stopped providing protections and coverage when the church stopped taking the money. If a deal is off then it is off, kinda hard to argue that the Church gets all the hassle, none of the benefits and still has to abide by a deal no longer in effect.
Expect this to get appealed.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:The ruling set the precedent for gays&lesbians to sue churches for refusing to conduct same-sex marriages on church property.
For a very limited definition of "church property" that only includes public-use property that just happens to be owned by a church. If you make a park available to anyone who wants to use it and accept state support that comes with a requirement to continue that availability then yes, you lose the right to kick people out just because you don't like them. But don't try to present this as some kind of dangerous precedent that inevitably leads to gay couples getting married in anti-gay churches because the poor church officials are afraid of going to prison if they object.
Please to refrain from asserting your hyperbole as my having said such, Never argued the imprisonment of clergy (though a contempt of court ruling could lead to such happening). I did argue that the ground work is being laid to do just what you are saying won't happen. That the anti-religious groups and gay couples that are willing to put their desires before the rights of various religious entities will sue to force anti-gay congregations to marry them. You know, to teach them a lesson. Teach them how wrong they are to follow what is to them the highest authority.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:It is odd, with you being such a religious person, seems you would have more empathy for those of other beliefs.
I don't see where you get the idea that I'm a religious person. I'm not. And I have no empathy for repulsive bigots.
Well, by your own words I've quoted below, you would be be both.
Peregrine wrote:When I, a devout atheist, die I will have some kind of funeral ceremony and it will have nothing to do with religion.
A devout person who has ceremonies definitely fits the term religious
focusedfire wrote: Really? So My Orthodox Jewish relatives would not be a part of this? How about practitioners of Islam? What about the Theravada Buddhists? How about the few Hindu Nationalists in the US?
Please don't change the context of the statement you quoted. I'm talking about your use of "the religious", which is clearly much narrower than your later defense of "it's everyone" claims, not saying that only Christians would be affected by gay marriage.
Gods man, seems your bigotry and hate for Christians may be blinding you to how others could be affected.
I know other groups can be affected, and I don't care. In fact I enjoy the thought of repulsive bigots, whatever their religion may be, being forced to watch as the world changes around them and they are helpless to do anything but pray to their imaginary gods and whine about how persecuted they are.
A Bad understanding of how theorems and proofs work has led you to bad scientific example.
No, you just don't understand how proof works. And honestly, I've done this debate enough times already, so I'm not going to get dragged into it again. By the standards we apply to everything but religious claims "hell doesn't exist" is indisputable fact, just like "1+1 is not equal to 5". You can argue bad philosophy all you want (which, btw, doesn't impress anyone over about 20 or so), but all you're doing is nitpicking the definition of "proof" and coming up with your own version that is only used to win forum arguments.
There is a difference between telling your child about your faith and its tenets and browbeating them daily with threats of burning. Again, it seems as if hatred and bigotry are clouding your view.
No, you just don't bother reading what I said. I specifically said that not all religious people are guilty of it, so don't go whining about bigotry just because I consider hell a morally appalling concept (as should anyone with a functioning sense of morality). You're the only one who seems to think that I'm talking about all religious people, rather than just the ones who threaten their kids with hell if they don't obey.
No different than telling your kids that the Boogey man will get them if they misbehave.
Of course it's different. The boogey man or whatever is presented as a silly story. Sure, you might scare your kids with it, but in the end everyone knows it's just a joke and nobody takes it seriously (and if you seriously use it to threaten them into obedience then you're a just like the people threatening hell). Hell, on the other hand, is presented as a real thing that they have to worry about.
Peregrine wrote:Do you also support the right of private businesses and individuals to refuse service as a part of their racist beliefs? Should we go back to the days of "whites only" signs? Or does the right to refuse service only apply when it's discrimination against a group that you don't mind people discriminating against?
Sure, I also believe in the right to refuse to sell to a customer with long nose hair.
Well, at least you're honest. Though I really don't know why I'm bothering to have a discussion with someone that thinks that it's ok to go back to the days of "whites only" policies and just hope that the free market will magically fix everything.
While I am glad to see that your hatred of the Christians hasn't pushed you to this point, there are other groups willing to go after various religious groups just for this reason. When the NAACP does something like this, you can bet that the Anti-religious groups will start filings such lawsuits en mass.
So because some people can file ridiculous lawsuits we should refuse to do anything that could possibly provoke one? That's absolutely insane.
Also, I notice how we've gone from "get sued because your store is closed on the wrong day" to "get sued because your clinic, which provides important medical services and receives government funding to provide those services, does a poor job of providing them". Do you actually have any examples of private businesses that don't have government ties (which often come with obligations attached) facing lawsuits simply because they are closed on religious holidays? Or is the idea that gay marriage means getting sued for taking holidays off just a ridiculous slippery slope argument?
Go..back..and..re-read..the..end..of..what..you..quoted. This subject was a reply to another poster about how state ratified same-sex marriage would interact with current anti-discrimination laws in a way that would force private individuals and businesses to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. Your inability to see how these interact and relate comes across like you are "compartmentalizing". You might want to work on that.
Sigh.
Nothing. To. Do. With. Gay. Marriage. Gay marriage is 100% official and equal to every other marriage? No change. Gay marriage is completely banned? No change. Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with this case, and I don't know why you think it is a relevant example.
It would seem that it would be under the state and federal rules.
So do you have those rules, or are you just assuming that the church is right?
That the anti-religious groups and gay couples that are willing to put their desires before the rights of various religious entities will sue to force anti-gay congregations to marry them.
Of course they will, and the courts will toss the lawsuit in the same trash can where they file the lawsuit claiming that Obama is responsible for the mind control in the chemtrails and suing for $9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 in damages. You still haven't done anything to explain how these lawsuits have any hope of success.
I am not clear how all this relates to gay marriage however if you wish to debate the pros and cons of religion please do so without vituperation as the forum rules require.
As it stands there is no real argument against SSM, other than "..it's ickkie.." and "..'couse my invisible friend in the sky said so..".
Also spair a thought for those of us trans-gendered-ness. We get so much more crap than we should, but we put up with it. Some day I would love to get married, in a awesome wedding dress, all glamed up to eleven. Asumming I find the right guy.
Nice and hearting to know that most of Dakka is for it. Now who want to pop the question to me
Ribon Fox wrote: As it stands there is no real argument against SSM, other than "..it's ickkie.." and "..'couse my invisible friend in the sky said so..".
Also spair a thought for those of us trans-gendered-ness. We get so much more crap than we should, but we put up with it. Some day I would love to get married, in a awesome wedding dress, all glamed up to eleven. Asumming I find the right guy.
Nice and hearting to know that most of Dakka is for it. Now who want to pop the question to me
Aww... I spend ten minutes reading the eye-rolling, hair-tearing, foaming at the mouth, hate-filled trainwreck of a "debate" between the two posters above you, then you come in with that honest and unarmoured perspective.
Ribon Fox wrote: As it stands there is no real argument against SSM, other than "..it's ickkie.." and "..'couse my invisible friend in the sky said so..".
Also spair a thought for those of us trans-gendered-ness. We get so much more crap than we should, but we put up with it. Some day I would love to get married, in a awesome wedding dress, all glamed up to eleven. Asumming I find the right guy.
Nice and hearting to know that most of Dakka is for it. Now who want to pop the question to me
Aww... I spend ten minutes reading the eye-rolling, hair-tearing, foaming at the mouth, hate-filled trainwreck of a "debate" between the two posters above you, then you come in with that honest and unarmoured perspective.
People are good.
Seconded , it's ickie or it scares me is what the arguments against SSM seem to be(first time I saw SSM here I thought the argument had shifted to S&M - I need more sleep).
To those that just say call it a diffrent name, thats not the answer.
Words and names have power. How many times have we played a game and the rules lawers have used the wordings of the rules to their advantage and not as intended, the same goes for SSM, a CP is not the same as a SSM.
It is in a way degrading those that want to show the world their comitment as second class and not as good as the real thing, which it is.
We all long for a place to belong, for some other soul to ride this rollercoaster we call life with so why should a bunch of folk stuck with dark age mentality stop the rest of us enlightened souls from doing what is right for the rest of humaity.
Me as you guess am all for it, why should we be deprived of the universal misery that is marrige, universal suffage should be enjoyed by all
I don't have an issue with SSM (that's same sex marriage...not sado-sexual - masochism..... ) Having worked with enough gay men and women in ym brief time so far on this here rock, I cannot fathom why many don't like the idea, as it has no effect on them whatsoever.
My sky fairy being more right than your sky fairy seems to be the crux of it. I cant see it being an issue for our childrens age, its only taken 1 generation from it to go from illegal to be homosexual, to George Takei "Takei Friendly" T-shirts being sold on Amazon
Someone asked me what would you do if your kids were gay, I said I don't know, mainly as I don't have any, but I would very much like to believe I would stand by them and be all for it.
There is far too many things going on in the human world to be bothered about what you are attracted too, who you love and what bit of paper says you love each other more.
I know a few LGBT folks and one or two of the last group (trans) you would have no idea whatsoever that they are not in fact some of the hottest women ever seen by man...and the laugh we get when they quite easily get drinks bought for them in the rock club we frequent by straight men is quite fun.
So its all down to what you expect\perceive and want from life, do it for love, not for political\religious reasons
Ribon Fox wrote: To those that just say call it a diffrent name, thats not the answer.
Words and names have power. How many times have we played a game and the rules lawers have used the wordings of the rules to their advantage and not as intended, the same goes for SSM, a CP is not the same as a SSM.
It is in a way degrading those that want to show the world their comitment as second class and not as good as the real thing, which it is.
We all long for a place to belong, for some other soul to ride this rollercoaster we call life with so why should a bunch of folk stuck with dark age mentality stop the rest of us enlightened souls from doing what is right for the rest of humaity.
Me as you guess am all for it, why should we be deprived of the universal misery that is marrige, universal suffage should be enjoyed by all
I am also in favor of SSM, but as I had argued earlier in the thread, one possible solution is the old parenting tactic of "if you can't share it, then NO ONE can have it". To me, yeah, it'd piss off the super religious who want to piss on everyone's parade, but it would make everyone completely equal in the eyes of the law, and... while legally it's called one thing, it leaves it up to those who are married to call it a marriage, or a civil partnership, civil union, etc.
Ribon Fox wrote: To those that just say call it a diffrent name, thats not the answer.
Words and names have power. How many times have we played a game and the rules lawers have used the wordings of the rules to their advantage and not as intended, the same goes for SSM, a CP is not the same as a SSM.
It is in a way degrading those that want to show the world their comitment as second class and not as good as the real thing, which it is.
We all long for a place to belong, for some other soul to ride this rollercoaster we call life with so why should a bunch of folk stuck with dark age mentality stop the rest of us enlightened souls from doing what is right for the rest of humaity.
Me as you guess am all for it, why should we be deprived of the universal misery that is marrige, universal suffage should be enjoyed by all
I am also in favor of SSM, but as I had argued earlier in the thread, one possible solution is the old parenting tactic of "if you can't share it, then NO ONE can have it". To me, yeah, it'd piss off the super religious who want to piss on everyone's parade, but it would make everyone completely equal in the eyes of the law, and... while legally it's called one thing, it leaves it up to those who are married to call it a marriage, or a civil partnership, civil union, etc.
Ooor you could not do something so bloody stupid to spite those who want equal rights and just call it what it is... marriage.
Ooor you could not do something so bloody stupid to spite those who want equal rights and just call it what it is... marriage.
An action like that wouldn't be to spite those who actually want equal rights, but rather it'd spite the people who are vehemently against it.
As I said, I am pro-Same Sex Marriage, and think that the uber-religious don't really have a leg to stand on in this argument.
Equal rights would be allowing people to marry. Because words have meaning and power outside of a strict definition.
By saying "ok, no one can marry now!" is throwing the baby out with the bath water and really just a slap in the face for equal rights and ultimately a win for those against non-traditional marriage.
People against ssm: "We don't want THOSE types getting married"
Gov: *bans all mention of marriage*
People againts ssm: "Yay! We stopped those sorts getting married but we have the true faith so we will go right on calling it marraige and refusing to give it to THOSE people just lile we were!"
Everyone else: "erm... wtf government? Why can't anyone be married now because of a few people who claim they don't like the idea of people with the same gender loving each other getting married throw a strop?"
focusedfire wrote: By this reply, it almost seems as if you feel that the "religious" have crossed some boundary.
Is this how you feel? Do you feel that they have exceeded what should be allotted to them and that they need to be heeled in? To be shown the error in their thinking?
Just trying to understand your tone here.
The religious get to live their lives as they please, same as everyone else. But the second they start to try and use their morality to tell other people how to live their lives, they get told no, same as everyone else.
Really, you trying to suck me into a "true scottsman" argument? Its things like this that can make any attempt at a discussion with you an unpleasant chore.
Nope, not a 'no true scotsman' argument. Just a simple fething acceptance of reality that there has never been a purely religious marriage, that had no legal meaning re children, inheritance etc. Never happened. So claiming that marriage is religious is a very silly fiction.
Not about owning a word, It is about the concept of marriage having become more than just a business contract. Marriage by definition is an intimate relationship. Now, intimacy is something shared between two people who have become very close The federal government has no business inserting itself a couples intimate life.
Gibberish. The relationship between a parent and a child is intensely close and personal, and yet government is involved because of course it is, because child welfare is an essential duty of the state, as is childcare and so on.
Similarly, it is an essential part of government to determine inheritance and define where household assets and private assets begin and end (because determining property rights are a key part of government). And so, yeah, obviously government is going to be involved in marriage, just as they always have been.
This is a basic thing that can't be argued.
Now to answer your example of a church not recognizing a marriage.
The churches have done just that in the past, Not married by our standards then you are not legally married. And it would stick.
Really? You want to start listing all the instances in which a couple married by a government authorised agent had that marriage refused by one or more churches, and government then backed down on that marriage? I mean, I'll take one example. Because god-damn you just claimed some crazy nonsense.
States not recognizing another states version of getting married is still quite common. And it is not just over same sex marriage.
Sigh. Yes, states will differ on marriage. But the idea that a religious organisation is given review of that is nonsense.
Honestly, I feel the entire system is inefficient, cumbersome and in need of an overhaul, because the concept of marriage has become this romantic religious ritual that usually occurs or is pictured occurring in a place of worship. The government doesn't need to be regulating romance, it needs to be helping set forth the expected financial and childcare duties.
Where the government is concerned, it should be handing out domestic union contracts where the couple agree to who does what and where the money goes. As a contract, both parties can ask to come back on a regular basis to renegotiate needed changes.
These re-negotiations would go a long way towards stopping divorces that are traumatizing to both the kids and the couple..
I don't think there's much practicality in your suggestion, to be honest. The idea of couples sitting down to negotiate domestic union contracts, and then returning to the negotiating table every so often after that sounds like something from a really bad 60s sci-fi novel, back when it seemed like a certain portion of sci-fi forgot that people acted like people, not as weird robot things that would act however your utopia needed them to.
I mean, I agree that aid to married couples in helping them life as a single household is essential, but you can do that simply by subsidizing or mandating couples counseling before marriage. That's what happens here in Oz, and because my wife and I got a Catholic marriage then a Catholic counseling service was used, and it was a really positive and useful experience. Other churches have their own services, and there's non-denominational services as well as that.
Here is a "Big" reason to think it is different different. Nowhere in the bible/torah did it say to go out and gather slaves, but it clearly stated that "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination".
Which is Leviticus, and you should be familiar with the biblical argument that means Leviticus is no longer law. If you aren't, you really need to go and read Apostles, go read about Peter right now.
Anyhow, in terms of clobber verses about slavery, there's plenty.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you."
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom."
You see, to those that have never read the bible, they think that it is this big book of don'ts because of all of the crappy tv evangelists. Honestly, there are very few things strictly proscribed in the bible. The Ten Commandments, cleanliness violations, don't eat the apple and who not to have sex with are pretty much it. The old and new testament are books much more about "doing" the right thing than they are about the "don't do this".
This is why many Judeo-Christians and also Muslims are dead set against the idea, this is one of the few specific no-no's.
Actually, the exact same reason that Christianity is not a list of rules is why that particular verse can't be accepted at face value. Go and read the Apostles. Read about Peter's vision, understand that while his vision was literally just about food, afterwards he reacted by inviting a Roman in to his home. Because the line "You must stop calling unclean what God has made clean" is an extraordinary powerful, great line.
And Peter got it. He understood that it meant he doesn't get to chase some false purity anymore, he doesn't get to moralise and place himself above others. When he awoke from his vision he welcome Cornelius, the gentile, the roman, in to his home.
But of course, Peter is a Saint so he understood the truth of things in a way that others don't. Most of the people who followed were just regular folk, and they missed the point rather terribly. Those regular folk figured that story just meant that now they were allowed to eat bacon and shrimp, but to carry on shunning people. Even when it meant they were calling unclean those people that God had made clean.
It's a shame that all Christians can't be as great as Peter.
Really, the smart move is to just let go of a word whose definition and imagery has become so intermingled with the religious ritual that takes place in a house of worship.
Giving in to bigots is never the smart move. Especially when the bigots are losing. Then it is both the dumb move, and the pissweak move.
That is the kicker. If these rites were "supposed" to be the sole province of the secular government then the various religions and their clergy would never have been granted this right in the first place.
Government and religion have historically been highly intermingled. It was once very important for the Pope to give his approval to the crowning of a new king, and a very big deal when he withheld that blessing. To argue that any monarch today, let alone a democratically head of state, should require the approval of the Pope would be flying rodent gak.
Marriage is no different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
focusedfire wrote: By the government being in favour of gay "marriage" it would open the religions(private organizations) to federal and various states anti-discrimination laws. Churchs or Pastors could be fined under laws like Houston's new anti-discrimination ordinsnce for refusing to marry openly gay couples.
Actually, the right of churches to refuse to marry inter-racial couples has been upheld by the courts, so fear that those churches would be forced to marry gay people is misplaced.
And that's how it should be. It's bigoted to refuse to marry inter-racial or gay couples, but that's the right of the church if it wants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So much talk about how mean religions are in the "without talking about religion" thread...
We couldn't figure out a way to make this about gun rights, so we settled on religion.
Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them). But thats the specific practice of a Christian service.
The great Wiener Dog Welcomes all however. Our is a simple service. The Bride and Groom exchange tasty treats, drink from the same (water) bowl, and together bark at the nearest treed squirrel for 15 seconds, joined by all the members of the wedding. Congrats, you're hitched! Where's the booze?
Note: Blue hair is really hard to maintain. The dye fades in a few days even with good dyes.
Frazzled wrote: Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them).
Then it would help you to read the article.
Then you would find that a non-religious couple wanted a non-religious marriage from a court appointed non-religious authority in a non-religious setting. And then were denied the wedding for being non-religious.
Frazzled wrote: Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them).
Then it would help you to read the article.
Then you would find that a non-religious couple wanted a non-religious marriage from a court appointed non-religious authority in a non-religious setting. And then were denied the wedding for being non-religious.
I did. He should not have offered them a Christian service at the church. He should, however have offered them a wedding service under the rules put down by his office, or nearest tavern.
Frazzled wrote: Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them).
Then it would help you to read the article.
Then you would find that a non-religious couple wanted a non-religious marriage from a court appointed non-religious authority in a non-religious setting. And then were denied the wedding for being non-religious.
I did. He should not have offered them a Christian service at the church. He should, however have offered them a wedding service under the rules put down by his office, or nearest tavern.
The problem being, he imposed his own religious qualifications to what is a civil posting... They went in and asked specifically for a civil service, not a religious one.
Frazzled wrote: Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them).
Then it would help you to read the article.
Then you would find that a non-religious couple wanted a non-religious marriage from a court appointed non-religious authority in a non-religious setting. And then were denied the wedding for being non-religious.
I did. He should not have offered them a Christian service at the church. He should, however have offered them a wedding service under the rules put down by his office, or nearest tavern.
The problem being, he imposed his own religious qualifications to what is a civil posting... They went in and asked specifically for a civil service, not a religious one.
Exactly. see post above. he should have performed his function via his office using the function of his office, at his office, or the closest bar with good whiskey.
Mine was at a church strategically located within five minutes of the Sacred temple of barbeque were the real service was held - the eating of the Sacred Cow, Sacred Pig, and wating of the Sacred Cake. MMMMM!
Ribon Fox wrote: As it stands there is no real argument against SSM, other than "..it's ickkie.." and "..'couse my invisible friend in the sky said so..".
Also spair a thought for those of us trans-gendered-ness. We get so much more crap than we should, but we put up with it. Some day I would love to get married, in a awesome wedding dress, all glamed up to eleven. Asumming I find the right guy.
Nice and hearting to know that most of Dakka is for it. Now who want to pop the question to me
It is impossible to date around here, most people see trans people as a fetish type thing but not a person they would want to spend their life with. Kind of sucks really.
I think marriage is sort of silly itself, kind of dumb to limit who can and can't get married by sexual orientation. Makes no sense.
It would seem that homosexuals aren't the only ones still being discriminated against.
Funny how something like 'marriage is a religious thing only' can be invented in just the few years, purely as a means of sidestepping the complete fail of an argument religious groups put up to try and stop gay marriage, and before long its encouraging donkey-caves to do obnoxious things to random members of the public.
Someone should write a book on the phenomenon. Is "Obnoxious Beliefs That Were Invented For No Good Reason and Do Nothing But Give Justification to donkey-caves to Annoy Decent People" too long for a title?
Someone should write a book on the phenomenon. Is "Obnoxious Beliefs That Were Invented For No Good Reason and Do Nothing But Give Justification to donkey-caves to Annoy Decent People" too long for a title?
Someone did and decided your suggested working title was too long. They settled on "The Bible" as it is much easier to say.
Someone should write a book on the phenomenon. Is "Obnoxious Beliefs That Were Invented For No Good Reason and Do Nothing But Give Justification to donkey-caves to Annoy Decent People" too long for a title?
Someone did and decided your suggested working title was too long. They settled on "The Bible" as it is much easier to say.
Depending on who you are, the more proper title is "the Holy Bible"
I was originally going to go for Torah (since that's what the other 2 sprung from) in my cheap shot , but decided I really didn't want to open the anti-Semite can of worms.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Would it be less cheap to say it's called "The Kuran" ??
I think picking any text other than Mein Kampf would be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bullockist wrote: I was originally going to go for Torah (since that's what the other 2 sprung from) in my cheap shot , but decided I really didn't want to open the anti-Semite can of worms.
Yeah, the joke worked better kept simple, I think.
focusedfire wrote: Really? So My Orthodox Jewish relatives would not be a part of this? How about practitioners of Islam? What about the Theravada Buddhists? How about the few Hindu Nationalists in the US?
Please don't change the context of the statement you quoted. I'm talking about your use of "the religious", which is clearly much narrower than your later defense of "it's everyone" claims, not saying that only Christians would be affected by gay marriage.
Ah, no. You don't get to dictate the intent and meaning of how i am using the term and from what contest it is derived. You might be able to bully the impressionable kiddies with your hate speech and propaganda tricks(Yes, propaganda. As in control the language and control the debate/argument/people.) but not me. Really, take that weak as junior debate trash back your freshman year where you learned it.
Peregrine wrote:
focusefire wrote:Gods man, seems your bigotry and hate for Christians may be blinding you to how others could be affected.
I know other groups can be affected, and I don't care. In fact I enjoy the thought of repulsive bigots, whatever their religion may be, being forced to watch as the world changes around them and they are helpless to do anything but pray to their imaginary gods and whine about how persecuted they are.
Thanks for showing your true colours. Of, course, you will probably get what you wish for.....just with the universes usual twisted irony. I mean that we have already established by your own words that you are a religious individual and that you feel that all religious people are hateful bigots.
Time will be the ultimate justice for you and your bigotry.
Peregrine wrote:
A Bad understanding of how theorems and proofs work has led you to bad scientific example.
No, you just don't understand how proof works. And honestly, I've done this debate enough times already, so I'm not going to get dragged into it again. By the standards we apply to everything but religious claims "hell doesn't exist" is indisputable fact, just like "1+1 is not equal to 5". You can argue bad philosophy all you want (which, btw, doesn't impress anyone over about 20 or so), but all you're doing is nitpicking the definition of "proof" and coming up with your own version that is only used to win forum arguments.
Typical, when confronted with the actual facts of how the scientific method works you try to shout it down and cast it as a philosophical statement. Btw, Noticed that you edited out where I explained what proper research methodology is......but go on. The world has to be just how you dictate it to be, regardless of your inability to provide any proof. Will warn you though, your showing and almost fundamentalist level of faith here.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:There is a difference between telling your child about your faith and its tenets and browbeating them daily with threats of burning. Again, it seems as if hatred and bigotry are clouding your view.
No, you just don't bother reading what I said. I specifically said that not all religious people are guilty of it, so don't go whining about bigotry just because I consider hell a morally appalling concept (as should anyone with a functioning sense of morality). You're the only one who seems to think that I'm talking about all religious people, rather than just the ones who threaten their kids with hell if they don't obey.
A) Who determines when such story telling and warnings of punishment go from education and morality building to "torture"? You? .....Just because you might of had a bad experience with a religious person doesn't make them all bad. I mean, would you have the same attitude against another race just because someone of that race did something that you considered hurtful?
B)If you want me to stop thinking that you don't mean to apply your hatred to all religious groups then be more specific and stop using my general term. Go ahead, single out the group that you hate, Tell us what you would do with them if you had the chance. Is it the Christians? You keep trying to turn my general non-offensive blanket term for those with strong religious beliefs into being just about Christians. Go ahead, instead of trying to misuse my term, use your own words......or, "Would that be too revealing?".
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
Peregrine wrote:Do you also support the right of private businesses and individuals to refuse service as a part of their racist beliefs? Should we go back to the days of "whites only" signs? Or does the right to refuse service only apply when it's discrimination against a group that you don't mind people discriminating against?
Sure, I also believe in the right to refuse to sell to a customer with long nose hair.
Well, at least you're honest. Though I really don't know why I'm bothering to have a discussion with someone that thinks that it's ok to go back to the days of "whites only" policies and just hope that the free market will magically fix everything.
Well, one of us has to be. If you feel so strongly about business turning people away due to their ethnicity and culture then why aren't you raging against Nightclubs that don't let people in because they "fit" the clubs atmosphere.?
Let me guess, its only a problem when a white person does it to someone from another race....but it's ok to turn the white boys away from a hip-hop club or a suburbanite middle class-er away from the latest hipster joint.
Businesses discriminate about there clientele all the time. They just cloak it in terms that cover their ass. Terms like "dress code"(Not people without shoes, talking about elitist clubs demanding certain styles of clothes) and "disruptive presence"(Not someone making a nuisance of themselves, just a person viewed as intimidating to the other guests because his/her appearance contrasts so sharply with the normal clientele 0.
I also find it amusing that you think that society would some how instantly revert back to 1950' america without these laws. I think such an assumption is incorrect. We live in a different world , a world where i believe that social media makes such laws redundant. If a business does something that society doesn't like the twitter-sphere lights up about it. This is one of the few redeeming qualities of social media imo. It can be a great tool for supporting/protecting consumers from abuse.
Basically, let society and free enterprise handle the problem. If someone won't sell to you, there will be someone else who only sees the colour green(or rainbow monopoly money with the $100 bills.
Now, lets play the, "Would you discriminate?", game.
Lets say you own an atheist themed nightclub and a group of people from a certain faith showed up with their holy books/texts in hand and sat down in your club. They order pay their two drink minimum and order sodas. They then stay to themselves while conversing and comparing notes. Your regular clients get upset. What do you do?
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:While I am glad to see that your hatred of the Christians hasn't pushed you to this point, there are other groups willing to go after various religious groups just for this reason. When the NAACP does something like this, you can bet that the Anti-religious groups will start filings such lawsuits en mass.
So because some people can file ridiculous lawsuits we should refuse to do anything that could possibly provoke one? That's absolutely insane.
Also, I notice how we've gone from "get sued because your store is closed on the wrong day" to "get sued because your clinic, which provides important medical services and receives government funding to provide those services, does a poor job of providing them". Do you actually have any examples of private businesses that don't have government ties (which often come with obligations attached) facing lawsuits simply because they are closed on religious holidays? Or is the idea that gay marriage means getting sued for taking holidays off just a ridiculous slippery slope argument?
Not just some people, the NAACP. A group that has been one of the leaders in the fight against discrimination. Where they go, many others will follow. And it doesn't matter if you think the lawsuit is ridiculous. Filing harassing law suits is an age old tactic usede to bully businesses into caving versus bearing the legal costs.
Also, there was a time when filing a lawsuit against the cigarette companies was considered ridiculous because warnings had been on the packages for about 25-30 years. People were properly warned about the hazards and the companies followed the laws. All it takes is one judge that wants to make history.
Also, correction, The clinic in question was a dental clinic. A bit different from the medical clinic yours misrepresenting it to be. If it is a dental emergency then they can go to the christian or atheist dentist on Saturdays. Also realize that you don't know what for of governmental money the clinic took. Is it payments for working on county prisoners? Working on officers? We don't have those details and it shouldn't matter. Unless you want to imminent domain peoples days off
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Go..back..and..re-read..the..end..of..what..you..quoted. This subject was a reply to another poster about how state ratified same-sex marriage would interact with current anti-discrimination laws in a way that would force private individuals and businesses to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. Your inability to see how these interact and relate comes across like you are "compartmentalizing". You might want to work on that.
Sigh.
Nothing. To. Do. With. Gay. Marriage. Gay marriage is 100% official and equal to every other marriage? No change. Gay marriage is completely banned? No change. Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with this case, and I don't know why you think it is a relevant example.
Ah, think I see the problem. Your earlier lack of understanding about scientific principals is at play here. I am arguing a case of cause and effect. It says as much in what you quoted.
Same Sex "marriage" creates the problem due to its interaction with many current anti-discrimination laws.
My point is that with no same sex marriage there would have been no need for a cake to celebrate such, No cake means the baker/bakery doesn't get asked to support something that she/they believe is against her/their religious beliefs. Thus no lawsuit that amounts to you believe different so you should be punished.
And that's what gets me. For people screaming about intolerance, you and others with your position seem to have very little tolerance your selves. The Bakery wasn't rude nor did they engage in any form of homophobic speech. They just said it wasn't something they could support.
Of course, with some of your comments in other threads, I understand that you probably don't believe in or support the concept free choice
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:It would seem that it would be under the state and federal rules.
So do you have those rules, or are you just assuming that the church is right?
From what information I can glean it was a case of Defeasible Fees. But that the city claimed that they could enforce the zoning that came from paying the fees after they stopped paying, even though the history in these cases have been pretty clear that once payments stop the property and its uses revert entirely back to the owner.
For Sebster:
Spoiler:
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote: By this reply, it almost seems as if you feel that the "religious" have crossed some boundary.
Is this how you feel? Do you feel that they have exceeded what should be allotted to them and that they need to be heeled in? To be shown the error in their thinking?
Just trying to understand your tone here.
The religious get to live their lives as they please, same as everyone else. But the second they start to try and use their morality to tell other people how to live their lives, they get told no, same as everyone else.
Not really, Their rights are constantly being challenged and infringed upon. Admittedly, such infringements normally come from public school and private business policies trying to avoid lawsuits by appeasing the crusading Atheists....still, there is enough for those of us that aren't overly religious to have some empathy.
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Really, you trying to suck me into a "true scottsman" argument? Its things like this that can make any attempt at a discussion with you an unpleasant chore.
Nope, not a 'no true scotsman' argument. Just a simple fething acceptance of reality that there has never been a purely religious marriage, that had no legal meaning re children, inheritance etc. Never happened. So claiming that marriage is religious is a very silly fiction.
Before I give answers that prove the falseness of your claim, how about we set the goal posts firmly. You have a tendency to try and move them when someone comes up with a good rebuttal.
What do you mean by purely religious? I just want to know if you will claim that my examples don't count because they fail to fulfill the governmental secular definitions of legal. 'Cause that would be a perfect example of a True Scottsman argument. If you are arguing that they in order for it to be a purely religious marriage then you can't bring in secular law as an argument against.
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Not about owning a word, It is about the concept of marriage having become more than just a business contract. Marriage by definition is an intimate relationship. Now, intimacy is something shared between two people who have become very close The federal government has no business inserting itself a couples intimate life.
Gibberish. The relationship between a parent and a child is intensely close and personal, and yet government is involved because of course it is, because child welfare is an essential duty of the state, as is childcare and so on.
Similarly, it is an essential part of government to determine inheritance and define where household assets and private assets begin and end (because determining property rights are a key part of government). And so, yeah, obviously government is going to be involved in marriage, just as they always have been.
This is a basic thing that can't be argued.
A)Not even close to a relevant argument, Government involvement in the parent-child relationship is an "after the fact" regulatory measure to protect the rights of those to little or young to defend themselves. The parents didn't have to go get a license to have the kid. Now if this was about Chinese population regulation laws there might be a connection, but their laws were a matter of economic necessity and are now being eased a bit.. But, as the current discussion goes your off by a few thousand miles.
B)Inheritance does not equal marriage. I don't understand why you continue to conflate the two. The governments involvemnt has nothing to do with the "union" and everything to do with properties and taxes. I also refuse to accept your assertion that the government has always been involved in marriage. It is a patently false claim. The governments have usually been involved in the business aspect of when two people join property and finances, they couldn't careless about the personal and intimate reasons why two people are uniting. The tradition of how people wed proves this. People would marry in a religious ceremony and then file the paperwork as to who got what for which separately.
C)Apparently, this basic thing can be argued because your asserted facts are erroneous and subsequent summation is flawed by the such assumption.
sebster wrote:
Now to answer your example of a church not recognizing a marriage.
The churches have done just that in the past, Not married by our standards then you are not legally married. And it would stick.
Really? You want to start listing all the instances in which a couple married by a government authorised agent had that marriage refused by one or more churches, and government then backed down on that marriage? I mean, I'll take one example. Because god-damn you just claimed some crazy nonsense.
Really, guess your not big on your European history. Huh?
Remember the Reformation period, where Catholics refused to acknowledge Protestant marriages and the Protestants doing the same on Catholic ones?
You can argue that the churches "never" had authority over the act of marriage until your blue in the face, but it won't change European history......especially English history.
Quick question, What is the almost unanimously agreed upon reason for the creation of the Anglican church by Henry VIII?
Yep, He was married by the catholic church and they wouldn't give him an annulment.
So, Did he just make a law that allowed him to get an annulment and then re-wed without any religious meddling? I mean, he was king after all.
No? You mean to say that he went to all the trouble to found an entire new religion in order to do such.
Point being, that if Henry VIII had to found a new religion just to get the legal room to do his wife shuffle then I would maybe back off the "church have never had the
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Honestly, I feel the entire system is inefficient, cumbersome and in need of an overhaul, because the concept of marriage has become this romantic religious ritual that usually occurs or is pictured occurring in a place of worship. The government doesn't need to be regulating romance, it needs to be helping set forth the expected financial and childcare duties.
Where the government is concerned, it should be handing out domestic union contracts where the couple agree to who does what and where the money goes. As a contract, both parties can ask to come back on a regular basis to renegotiate needed changes.
These re-negotiations would go a long way towards stopping divorces that are traumatizing to both the kids and the couple..
I don't think there's much practicality in your suggestion, to be honest. The idea of couples sitting down to negotiate domestic union contracts, and then returning to the negotiating table every so often after that sounds like something from a really bad 60s sci-fi novel, back when it seemed like a certain portion of sci-fi forgot that people acted like people, not as weird robot things that would act however your utopia needed them to.
I mean, I agree that aid to married couples in helping them life as a single household is essential, but you can do that simply by subsidizing or mandating couples counseling before marriage. That's what happens here in Oz, and because my wife and I got a Catholic marriage then a Catholic counseling service was used, and it was a really positive and useful experience. Other churches have their own services, and there's non-denominational services as well as that.
While I am glad to see that there is some common ground between us concerning young couples needing better preparation for marriage, I can't help but note that you have a very euro-centric post-Victorian romantic view on the concept of marriage.
What I am getting at is that before the Victorian notion of romance took hold, marriages were negotiated as I describe. The business detail were hammered out and once everything was agreed upon then the couple had the ceremony that they wanted/could afford/was traditional. They separated the law from the ceremony. This style of marriage and the practice of arranged marriages is still going strong in many parts of the world. There has even been a fair bit of research that suggests that couples from arranged marriages are might be happier than passion/romance based ones.
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Here is a "Big" reason to think it is different different. Nowhere in the bible/torah did it say to go out and gather slaves, but it clearly stated that "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination".
Which is Leviticus, and you should be familiar with the biblical argument that means Leviticus is no longer law. If you aren't, you really need to go and read Apostles, go read about Peter right now.
Anyhow, in terms of clobber verses about slavery, there's plenty.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you."
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom."
I've read the book several times cover to cover and did a bit of studying on it because there were questions that the book brings up. Not being particularly religious myself and having an analytical approach to the overall story arc is very liberating and enlightening......though most Christians would find my views blasphemous at best.
You see, I find it interesting that you direct me to "apostles". A subsequent compilation of the works of the very fallible individuals that followed the one now erroneously know as Jesus*. When reading the bible(especially the New Testament) as a story, some glaring contradictions pop up.
These contradictions seem to stem from an attempt by Paul's creation(The man-made physical church) to co-opt the non-materialistic spiritual movement, that Jesus* started, into a powerful political organization. Seriously, If you highlight Jesus's quoted statements of how to minister in the"Gospels" and then read Paul's teachings you should note that Paul contradicts almost every direction that Jesus had given.
These contradictions, and that the fact that Paul started off as a Roman paid persecutor of the Christians who was put out of work at the death of Jesus*, is why I view him as one of the false anti-christs/prophets that Jesus warned would soon come and to be wary of.
I mean, I love the part where Paul gets Pink-Eye and just sits around for a few days until someone comes by and washes his eyes "in Jesus's name". I laughed hard at that miracle and how stupidly trusting the apostles were.
tldr; point is that the part that you are referencing about Peter is from a post Jesus time frame where Paul manages to assume the mantle of leadership. A time that lead to contradicting where "Jesus" said "I have not come to abolish The Law, but to fulfill it." and" To Love the Lord and kepp his Commandments"
It is ironic that almost everything that people criticize Christians and Christ for are actually the teaching of someone Jesus never met. If you take just the Gospels that contain the teachings of "Jesus" it is a decent philosophy of cooperation and love. Very similar to the teachings of Gandhi and Buddha in that you are to treat your neighbors as you wish to be treated. If the New testament just stopped at the Gospels I might have been tempted towards Christianity......If it wasn't for the whole awkward my ancestors crucified him thing.
Note* Jesus is a latin word/name that was translated somewhere between his death and the councel of Nicea, but try and tell the average Christian that his name was actually "Yeshua" and that Christ isn't a name but a translation of the Hebrew title "Messiah". So the real name was Yeshua ben Yosef ivrim Messiah(Yeshua son of Yosef the Messiah).
As to the slaves thing, Big difference in saying "you may" and "you shall". Difference between simple permission to engage in the realities of the time and a commandment that makes is a must do
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:You see, to those that have never read the bible, they think that it is this big book of don'ts because of all of the crappy tv evangelists. Honestly, there are very few things strictly proscribed in the bible. The Ten Commandments, cleanliness violations, don't eat the apple and who not to have sex with are pretty much it. The old and new testament are books much more about "doing" the right thing than they are about the "don't do this".
This is why many Judeo-Christians and also Muslims are dead set against the idea, this is one of the few specific no-no's.
Actually, the exact same reason that Christianity is not a list of rules is why that particular verse can't be accepted at face value. Go and read the Apostles. Read about Peter's vision, understand that while his vision was literally just about food, afterwards he reacted by inviting a Roman in to his home. Because the line "You must stop calling unclean what God has made clean" is an extraordinary powerful, great line.
And Peter got it. He understood that it meant he doesn't get to chase some false purity anymore, he doesn't get to moralise and place himself above others. When he awoke from his vision he welcome Cornelius, the gentile, the roman, in to his home.
But of course, Peter is a Saint so he understood the truth of things in a way that others don't. Most of the people who followed were just regular folk, and they missed the point rather terribly. Those regular folk figured that story just meant that now they were allowed to eat bacon and shrimp, but to carry on shunning people. Even when it meant they were calling unclean those people that God had made clean.
It's a shame that all Christians can't be as great as Peter.
Peter was an idiot, as the story goes, he is proof that Jesus and God had a sense of humour. There is one point where Peter screws up yet again and "Jesus" consoles him by saying "Peter, You are my rock". When read as a whole, the morale that could be taken from "Jesus's" counsel is that while Peter is dumb as a rock, a rock does have the virtue of stability. Basically, it is what it is and that Peter was what he was.
Again, it is interesting that you quote from a section of Paul rather than from one of "Jesus's" quotes. The difference is night and day when you focus on "Jesus's" actual teachings versus Paul's contradictions.
But hey, to each their own. I found the book to be an interesting story with some points of wisdom and a moral of how in idea is pure but once you try to build a man made structure around it the idea gets corrupted. Others find it to be the word of god verbatim(despite it having been translated) and others will hate the book for even existing. We each have our own interpretation and idea that should be respected.
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Really, the smart move is to just let go of a word whose definition and imagery has become so intermingled with the religious ritual that takes place in a house of worship.
Giving in to bigots is never the smart move. Especially when the bigots are losing. Then it is both the dumb move, and the pissweak move.
Sooo, in essence, your statement could also be read as-......" Now the Various opposition groups have gotten their legal act together and have start to push back against these intrusions by the secularists they would be crazy to offer compromise". Especially when the pendulum of American politics is starting to swing back their way.
You see, I am old enough to have seen the country swing several times and each time it goes back the opposite way a little harder. I attribute this to the extremists on each side trying to shove hard enough to break the system while it is weighted in their sides favour. Thing is if they can't get it stuck in their favour then the backlash is horrible to behold. I am as against the idealized McArthy-esque fascist mindset as I am against an Orwellian(1984) fascist mindset. Any future that mandates that we all march to the same drum beat is not a good one imo. I'd much prefer that we started acting with the maturity of our fore fathers and learned to compromise. Compromise takes care of the vast majority, slows the pendulum swing and stops the shoving match before anyone gets hurt to badly.
For everyone that doesn't want to read through massive walls of Text. Simply this:
Sebster contends that Marriage has never been the sole purview of the religious. My counter is that in the case of the Christians there is one very strong bit of evidence from European history that argues otherwise. The reformation period.
More accurately the initial reason for the Creation of the Anglican Church/Church of England. It was Henry VIII that wanted to annul his marriage and remarry yet again in order to try and produce a male heir. Seems easy. Right? I mean he was the King after all. Between him and Parliament it should be done in a couple days.
Nope, He had to petition the Catholic Church and when they said no, He went and created a whole religion. If Marriage was "never the sole purview of the Church, "Then why did Henry VIII create a new religion just in order to divorce and remarry?".
Now yes, things have changed over time in some areas but not so much in religious beliefs. My stance is that those beliefs deserve the same respect regardless of denomination or faith ("the religious" in general) and the same respect as secular philosophy, ideas and beliefs.
That's a pretty specific anectdotal example, given from a place and time where Church and State were much more intertwined than they are in present and past periods of Western civilization.
I don't think that anyone would contend that for people that are compelled or volunteer to be part of this or that given religious intitution, that there aren't rules about marriage within those institutions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
focusedfire wrote: My stance is that those beliefs deserve the same respect regardless of denomination or faith ("the religious" in general) and the same respect as secular philosophy, ideas and beliefs.
As the old saying goes, respect is earned, not given away. If marriage was defined by a particular institution as between an adult and a child (present and past examples are plentiful), should we respect those beliefs, too? Of course not, and legally, we do not (at least in the US).
For everyone that doesn't want to read through massive walls of Text. Simply this:
Sebster contends that Marriage has never been the sole purview of the religious. My counter is that in the case of the Christians there is one very strong bit of evidence from European history that argues otherwise. The reformation period.
More accurately the initial reason for the Creation of the Anglican Church/Church of England. It was Henry VIII that wanted to annul his marriage and remarry yet again in order to try and produce a male heir. Seems easy. Right? I mean he was the King after all. Between him and Parliament it should be done in a couple days.
Nope, He had to petition the Catholic Church and when they said no, He went and created a whole religion. If Marriage was "never the sole purview of the Church, "Then why did Henry VIII create a new religion just in order to divorce and remarry?".
Now yes, things have changed over time in some areas but not so much in religious beliefs. My stance is that those beliefs deserve the same respect regardless of denomination or faith ("the religious" in general) and the same respect as secular philosophy, ideas and beliefs.
In case you missed it earlier:
In the 12th and 13th Century, the common man didn't have to really do ANYTHING to show he was married within the Church. It simply didnt exist. What started happening was that various nobles, starting with kings, queens and emperor types would contact the local priest, bishop or archbishop to have a ceremony done so that God would look upon them favorably, and show the masses that God approved of their marriage (and by extension, their rule) Gradually, this washed down to the lesser nobles, and eventually the commoner could do this as well. It didn't take long for the Church to realize they had a good racket going on, and began "charging" for the privilege of a wedding ceremony in the church.
It was also about this time that Religion and The Church began to change it's views on divorce... Prior to this time a man could divorce his wife if she failed to provide any offspring. The Church came out with declarations that, basically so long as the couple could consumate their relationship, there was no divorce (unless of course, the wife slept with another man.... but the man can sleep with whomever he damn well pleases)
Yeah, we can nitpick very specific instances within Western culture where religion gained more domination of aspects of life like marriage, but Seb, and others are correct in saying that it has NEVER been the SOLE purview of the Church (especially where Western culture is concerned)
KelseyC wrote: It is impossible to date around here, most people see trans people as a fetish type thing but not a person they would want to spend their life with. Kind of sucks really.
IMO, from a heterosexual male's point of view you, the reason I am not attracted to transexuals isn't simply because it's a "fetish". It's the fact i'm heterosexual.
I don't view the post-op orifice to be the same as a vagina. I get that you might identify it as being the same thing, but it's not to me and a pretty large segment of heterosexual males. I think it's kind of ridiculous to expect people to think of it as being the same thing tbh.
KelseyC wrote: I think marriage is sort of silly itself, kind of dumb to limit who can and can't get married by sexual orientation. Makes no sense.
Indeed. It shouldn't be regulated and people should be able to call it whatever they want.
KelseyC wrote: It is impossible to date around here, most people see trans people as a fetish type thing but not a person they would want to spend their life with. Kind of sucks really.
IMO, from a heterosexual male's point of view you, the reason I am not attracted to transexuals isn't simply because it's a "fetish". It's the fact i'm heterosexual.
I don't view the post-op orifice to be the same as a vagina. I get that you might identify it as being the same thing, but it's not to me and a pretty large segment of heterosexual males. I think it's kind of ridiculous to expect people to think of it as being the same thing tbh.
I think you misunderstood. I know that there are some people who just aren't interested in any way at all. There are some who consider themselves hetero but are attracted for sexual reasons and would never date a trans woman (the debate of being attracted to a trans women being homo or hetero is probably best saved for another thread though). So with already the majority of men seemingly in one of those two categories it is super difficult to find someone who isn't. I never said I think people should think a surgically constructed vagina should be considered to be real to everyone.
To somewhat try to stay on topic; I also think it is a bit silly that marriage has tax type benefits these days, maybe it isn't even about the fact a couple can say they are married, they just want to have the same tax benefits everyone else can have by getting married.
KelseyC wrote: I think you misunderstood. I know that there are some people who just aren't interested in any way at all. There are some who consider themselves hetero but are attracted for sexual reasons and would never date a trans woman (the debate of being attracted to a trans women being homo or hetero is probably best saved for another thread though). So with already the majority of men seemingly in one of those two categories it is super difficult to find someone who isn't. I never said I think people should think a surgically constructed vagina should be considered to be real to everyone.
Yeah I completely misunderstood. I completely get how it could be very difficult to find someone to date but at least the internet exists now. I actually do have a friend that came out about a year ago saying that he was attracted to and would only date transexual women. Given that he's a black man it was very risky for him socially. He's happy now though.
KelseyC wrote: ITo somewhat try to stay on topic; I also think it is a bit silly that marriage has tax type benefits these days, maybe it isn't even about the fact a couple can say they are married, they just want to have the same tax benefits everyone else can have by getting married.
haha.. I was actually blasted for saying this a few pages back.
There is obviously 2 different issues. The social aspect and the legal.
Most people are mixing the two..
Purely from a legal standpoint I don't think the states should be able to regulate marriage. Whether it's the person you are banging or your BFF, you should be able to freely give people the same rights as if you were married and be able to call it whatever you want.
focusedfire wrote: My stance is that those beliefs deserve the same respect regardless of denomination or faith ("the religious" in general) and the same respect as secular philosophy, ideas and beliefs.
So you believe that the KKK's beliefs should be respected just as much as anyone who isn't a racist?
focusedfire wrote: I mean that we have already established by your own words that you are a religious individual and that you feel that all religious people are hateful bigots.
Wow. Are you really so bad at reading that you sincerely think I called all religious people hateful bigots, or are you just dishonestly making that claim with the knowledge that nobody is going to go back and read the previous pages of discussion to discover that you're lying?
And just to be clear, as if I haven't been clear enough already, some religious people support gay marriage. Claiming I think all religious people are hateful bigots is absolutely insane when you stop to think for a moment and realize that there are religious groups, even Christian churches, that are happily marrying gay couples and fighting for their rights.
A) Who determines when such story telling and warnings of punishment go from education and morality building to "torture"? You?
Shocking revelation: when I'm talking about my personal opinion yes, I am the one who determines when it crosses that line. And please don't quote "torture" as if I said it, because I didn't.
B)If you want me to stop thinking that you don't mean to apply your hatred to all religious groups then be more specific and stop using my general term. Go ahead, single out the group that you hate, Tell us what you would do with them if you had the chance. Is it the Christians? You keep trying to turn my general non-offensive blanket term for those with strong religious beliefs into being just about Christians. Go ahead, instead of trying to misuse my term, use your own words......or, "Would that be too revealing?".
No, I'm not going to let you turn "anti-gay religious people" into "Christians" just so that you can portray me as some kind of anti-Christian bigot. Nor will repeating "you hate all religious people" a million more times make it any less of a lie. Please stop trying to misrepresent my position like this, it's incredibly dishonest.
Well, one of us has to be. If you feel so strongly about business turning people away due to their ethnicity and culture then why aren't you raging against Nightclubs that don't let people in because they "fit" the clubs atmosphere.?
Sigh. So because I don't give a long list of every single thing that is wrong with society I must be ok with those things? By your ridiculous argument here if I had mentioned the nightclub issue you just would have found something else I didn't specifically criticize.
Let me guess, its only a problem when a white person does it to someone from another race
Do I need to explain basic concepts like privilege and power, and why it is in fact worse when a privileged group is discriminating against a less-privileged group?
I also find it amusing that you think that society would some how instantly revert back to 1950' america without these laws. I think such an assumption is incorrect.
I think you also have a very sheltered life if you don't think that there are places where a business posting a "no black/gay/etc people allowed" sign would get praise from all of their customers and the only outrage would be anonymous people on the internet who have never even been to the town.
Basically, let society and free enterprise handle the problem. If someone won't sell to you, there will be someone else who only sees the colour green(or rainbow monopoly money with the $100 bills.
Yeah, that worked really well in the 1950s, the free market fixed that whole "whites only" problem as open-minded businesses made more money than the racists and drove them out of business. This is why we didn't have to have government intervention to fix the problem.
Now, lets play the, "Would you discriminate?", game.
Lets say you own an atheist themed nightclub and a group of people from a certain faith showed up with their holy books/texts in hand and sat down in your club. They order pay their two drink minimum and order sodas. They then stay to themselves while conversing and comparing notes. Your regular clients get upset. What do you do?
I tell the regular clients to STFU and stop bothering me? Not that I can really imagine this happening in the first place.
I am arguing a case of cause and effect.
I know you are. And, as I've pointed out, your argument is a terrible one. The fact that I don't think you've established any connection between the effect and its supposed cause doesn't mean that I just don't understand your argument
My point is that with no same sex marriage there would have been no need for a cake to celebrate such, No cake means the baker/bakery doesn't get asked to support something that she/they believe is against her/their religious beliefs. Thus no lawsuit that amounts to you believe different so you should be punished.
Err, lol? Do you really believe that if gay marriage isn't legally recognized all those couples aren't going to have any celebration at all? Here's a hint for you: gay couples have been having marriage ceremonies (complete with cakes/flowers/etc) for a long time, they just haven't been given legal recognition. This case would have happened exactly as it did even if gay marriage was explicitly banned by the state constitution.
And that's what gets me. For people screaming about intolerance, you and others with your position seem to have very little tolerance your selves. The Bakery wasn't rude nor did they engage in any form of homophobic speech. They just said it wasn't something they could support.
And violated state anti-discrimination laws. Seriously, this isn't complicated. State law says you can't refuse service based on sexual orientation. The bakery refused service based on sexual orientation, and proudly admits that they did it. Pointing out that this is an incredibly straightforward case that shouldn't last more than five minutes in court isn't even close to "screaming about intolerance".
From what information I can glean it was a case of Defeasible Fees. But that the city claimed that they could enforce the zoning that came from paying the fees after they stopped paying, even though the history in these cases have been pretty clear that once payments stop the property and its uses revert entirely back to the owner.
So now we've gone from "gay couples are going to sue anyone who doesn't give them a religious marriage ceremony in their church" to "the church and the town disagree about the correct interpretation of zoning laws for a piece of property that happened to be owned by the church". I take it you're going to abandon your slippery slope argument that this will somehow lead to churches being abused in any meaningful way?
I'd just like to point out a couple of reasons Henry 8 took control of the church in England other than religion: the immense wealth of the church became his to fund his wars with France, build himself palaces and buy food to feed his belly, and to ezpand his power.
Oh, wait, power and money ARE religious reasons...
The rest of your post has about as many flaws in it in pretty much every point you make.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I am against SSM because at the wedding reception i will cause a fight, if i say; " i want to dance with the bride" (<-).
Well religious people of certain faith have to be against it because it is in the bible.
That is an interesting question- for those of you in relationships that don't fit the standard nomenclature, what will you and our significant other call yourselves on your wedding day? Is it 2 grooms, 2 brides, does one person play the other role, or are there some other terms you'd like applied?
Peregrine wrote: So you believe that the KKK's beliefs should be respected just as much as anyone who isn't a racist?
You are misrepresenting his use of "respect". I don't think he means it as a personal "I admire" type of meaning. I think he means legally. With regard to the law, it should be treated the same as any other fringe idea. Gay marriage was a fringe idea for decades too. If you silence the fringe elements in your society, you are an oppressor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Now here's an interesting question. If two women marry, does that mean their Dad's don't have to pay for it?
I hidden additional bright side!
That is an interesting question- for those of you in relationships that don't fit the standard nomenclature, what will you and our significant other call yourselves on your wedding day? Is it 2 grooms, 2 brides, does one person play the other role, or are there some other terms you'd like applied?
Usually with Lesbians (at least that I've seen) one of them is clearly the "male" of the relationship Actually, come to think of it.... I don't think I've ever seen the movie "ideal" lesbian couple, has anyone else?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Usually with Lesbians (at least that I've seen) one of them is clearly the "male" of the relationship Actually, come to think of it.... I don't think I've ever seen the movie "ideal" lesbian couple, has anyone else?
Are you trying to say stereotypical?
I've seen the masculine lesbians with feminine lesbians almost excusively. I've also seen two masculine lesbians together. Never seen 2 feminine lesbians.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Usually with Lesbians (at least that I've seen) one of them is clearly the "male" of the relationship Actually, come to think of it.... I don't think I've ever seen the movie "ideal" lesbian couple, has anyone else?
Are you trying to say stereotypical?
I've seen the masculine lesbians with feminine lesbians almost excusively. I've also seen two masculine lesbians together. Never seen 2 feminine lesbians.
Basically yeah... It probably doesn't help ANY at all that the vast majority of lesbians that I personally know are also rugby players ... and by using the term "ideal" i was trying to say the "porno lesbian" without saying "porno lesbian"
Frazzled wrote: Now here's an interesting question. If two women marry, does that mean their Dad's don't have to pay for it?
I hidden additional bright side!
. It is a fair point, I think!
Even allowing for a few hundred years difference, it's still a pin prick of time compared to religion, in it's various forms.
just like the people threatening hell). Hell, on the other hand, is presented as a real thing that they have to worry about.
