Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.

You act like these two are mutually inclusive ,but I assure you that they are not. One can stretch Christian beliefs to decry homosexuality but not everyone does.

Melissia wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.

You act like these two are mutually inclusive ,but I assure you that they are not. One can stretch Christian beliefs to decry homosexuality but not everyone does.

I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.

I do understand that sex is necessary for people to exist, but I believe reproduction isn't the purpose of life. Many parts of modern culture make it seem like life isn't worth living without sex, something I would say could not be further from the truth.

Rabtorian wrote:the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.

The point of it isn't to provide you loopholes to justify any preconceived prejudices either.

Melissia wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.

The point of it isn't to provide you loopholes to justify any preconceived prejudices either.

if you don't like it, don't be a member of the sect he belongs to. Problem solved.

I hear Episcopals and Lutherans are hiring. Of course we'll take anyone that brings booze or baked goods.

Frazzled wrote:if you don't like it, don't be a member of the sect he belongs to. Problem solved.

I prefer my weird combination of agnosticism and deism, myself. But that doesn't stop me from....

Rabtorian wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.

You act like these two are mutually inclusive ,but I assure you that they are not. One can stretch Christian beliefs to decry homosexuality but not everyone does.

I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.

baa baa.

AustonT wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.

You act like these two are mutually inclusive ,but I assure you that they are not. One can stretch Christian beliefs to decry homosexuality but not everyone does.

I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.

baa baa.

You bastard. Now I have this in my head.

Rabtorian wrote:
I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.

Oh man, I haven't heard that one in a while.

"I don't interpret the rules, I just follow them." is pretty high up there on the "Lies we tell ourselves." totem pole.

Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.

For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.

How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?

Kilkrazy wrote:Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.

For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.

How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?

Substitute "marriage" for "spousal contract" or "domestic partner contract" and there you go.

Child adoption is separate as its the interests of the children.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.

For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.

How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?

Substitute "marriage" for "spousal contract" or "domestic partner contract" and there you go.

Child adoption is separate as its the interests of the children.

So long as you attach ALL of the benefits, especially the tax ones and medical ones, this is fine.

Like, right now you can write all the contracts you want, the IRS is just going to laugh and tax the crap out of your inheritance.

<rude text redacted; be polite, or be quiet --Janthkin>

Kilkrazy wrote:Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.

For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.

How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?

As always I don't get what the problem is. Marriage is a business contract between two people that makes them a unified legal entity and creates joint ownership for anything produced through that union; money, children, property. The debate against same sex marriage is idiotic to me (sorry if anyone here stands on that side of the issue). I can't think of any other way to say it.

What is the big deal does the fact that gay people could marry tarnish the marriage of straight people? Just because some people think it is wrong does not make it wrong. By not giving them the rights of heterosexuals you place them below heterosexuals. And i dont think anyone would want that

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.

For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.

How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?

Substitute "marriage" for "spousal contract" or "domestic partner contract" and there you go.

Child adoption is separate as its the interests of the children.

So long as you attach ALL of the benefits, especially the tax ones and medical ones, this is fine.

Like, right now you can write all the contracts you want, the IRS is just going to laugh and tax the crap out of your inheritance.

Agreed RT, agreed.

You can marry and boink your cousin, but wanting to marry boink someone who is the same sex, dat just nasty.



http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx


Cue the banjos.

I tried to find a map of marriage by age to go with you two above, but could not. I did find quite a bit about the subject, confirming what I thought I already knew. Minimum marriage age in the USA seems to be 14 in a few states, requiring permission from parents, then a bunch of states with a minimum of 15, 16, 17 and so on.

Interesting stuff.

Oh wait. 13 years of age for girls, and 14 years of age for boys is the minimum marriage age. Good ole New Hampshire.

13?!? How does that tie in with the age of consent? Can you be married to someone you can't legally have sex with? What are their rape within marriage laws like?

That's just all kinds of wrong.

Maybe I should put this in the 'things that confuse you thread' but the whole gay marriage debate confuses the hell out of me.

Kim Kardashian is destroying the sanctity of marriage, not Gays. You're in the land of the free, not Iran. Move on.

Wasn't Obama meant to be a progressive president?

I mean you'd think that allowing gay mariage would have been up there on his list of priorities, hell the rest of the western world is up for it. I guess its all due to the voters though, and hell failing a vote on that subject could really mess up his support (lot'sa conservatively minded individuals in the US). I kind of find the idea that laws on the suject of equality like gay marriage or allowing homosexuals/women (though as I recall the US isn't too bad with the later) into the military are rather silly in this day in age. =/

Wyrmalla wrote:I mean you'd think that allowing gay mariage would have been up there on his list of priorities

The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.

One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.

For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.

How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?

Substitute "marriage" for "spousal contract" or "domestic partner contract" and there you go.

Child adoption is separate as its the interests of the children.

Question. What is marriage? if they get all benefits why not just call it marriage. Then the only difference is a word.

Obama is against gay marriage?

....Like you said, how the hell can you be a progressionist and not support sexual equality?

But I think that, like I mentioned, the US is fairly conservative in its views, may have had an effect on his policies. You have to get rid of all the close minded hicks before you can start going about saying that two women can get married in Texas. Silly country. ^^

Government laws override state laws right?

Wyrmalla wrote:Obama is against gay marriage?

....Like you said, how the hell can you be a progressionist and not support sexual equality?

But I think that, like I mentioned, the US is fairly conservative in its views, may have had an effect on his policies. You have to get rid of all the close minded hicks before you can start going about saying that two women can get married in Texas. Silly country. ^^

Government laws override state laws right?

In essence yeah.
Also he didnt support prop 8. HE said he didnt support gay marriage but the constitution shouldnnt be used to limits "Rights"

=/

To me this subject is like whether you would allow people of any religion to their right of worship or those of another race to visit the same premises as those native to a given country (yes the later is rather silly as even though a person isn't the same race as you doesn't mean that they're family haven't been living in your country for generations). Its just really backwards that people shouldn't be allowed to marry the person that they love because of their sexual orientation. People have been having relationships like these for centuries. What's the difference between being married to your partner and not other than some paperwork really (yes there is a sentimental side to it, but that's not my argument)? That these people want the right to get married is a way of showing that they want to be acknowledged by the state that they are equal to everyone else.

And yet, Obama's still appointed more homosexuals to office than any other president, and abolished the DADT. Just saying.

More than likely I think his statements about gay marriage were meant to make sure he didn't offend independents considering how big a deal it was at the time. It's just a guess, but either way it's disappointing, yes.

Melissia wrote:And yet, Obama's still appointed more homosexuals to office than any other president, and abolished the DADT. Just saying.

More than likely I think his statements about gay marriage were meant to make sure he didn't offend independents considering how big a deal it was at the time. It's just a guess, but either way it's disappointing, yes.

Considering how much it would gridlock the congress maybe iits for the best he doesnt tuch it while there are more nation threatinging there are.

It's also far less big of a deal than it used to be for conservatives (or rather, pressing the issue isn't as good of an idea). More Americans now support legalizing gay marriage than ever before-- to the point where the ones supporting gay marriage are in the majority. The percent who support legalizing gay marriage has almost doubled in the past five years (going from 37% to 53%).

biccat wrote:
The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.

One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.

To my knowledge Obama doesn't have an explicit for or against stance on gay marriage. He basically tries to avoid the issue.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.

One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.

To my knowledge Obama doesn't have an explicit for or against stance on gay marriage. He basically tries to avoid the issue.

This may be informative:



eta: I'm not aware that his position has changed.

I could be wrong but that seems pretty explicit.