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.
2015/06/29 20:18:37
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
Frazzled wrote: What if they don't have a written wedding policy? (but have a wedding policy for members-aka members believe this)
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
This is the rub I see. it sounds stupid, but fanatics make things stupid.
I don't think it is fair and definitely not 100% correct to class churches as fanatics, but perhaps if they don't have a wedding policy they ought to get one written up now that gay marriage is real.
Frazzled wrote: What if they don't have a written wedding policy? (but have a wedding policy for members-aka members believe this)
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
This is the rub I see. it sounds stupid, but fanatics make things stupid.
I don't think it is fair and definitely not 100% correct to class churches as fanatics, but perhaps if they don't have a wedding policy they ought to get one written up now that gay marriage is real.
I meant fanatics who would try to force a ceremony at a church location they are not wanted.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/06/29 20:30:59
Subject: Re:Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
LGBTQIPA+
UW-Superior>Gender Equity Resource Center>GLBT
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, Pansexual/Polysexual, Asexual/Autoerotic/Ally Plus (+)
UW-Superior provides a safe and welcoming space for LGBTQ+ individuals in the Gender Equity Center. Student staff provide programs that educate campus and provide support to the LGBTQ+ community.
Definition of Terms:
LGBTQIPA: Acronym UW-Superior Gender Equity uses for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Pansexual, Polysexual, Autoerotic, Asexual, and Ally.
Lesbian: A woman who has emotional, physical, spiritual, and sexual/erotic attraction to other women.
Gay: Usually, but not always, refers to homosexual men. Also used on occasion as an umbrella term for LGBQ.
Bisexual: A man or woman who has emotional, physical, spiritual, and sexual/erotic attraction to men and women.
Transgender: An umbrella term to describe gender identities that stray from fitting into the male-female binary of dominant culture. 'Trans' meaning across or beyond gender, there are literally thousands of ways to be considered trans*.
Queer: An umbrella term to cover all GBLTQIPA identities as well as the movement for equal rights and equitable protection under law regardless of sexual orientation, sexual identity, gender display, or gender identity. This term was formerly derogatory towards GBLTQIPA, it was reclaimed and is considered a positive word by some in the community, but not all.
Questioning: The process of exploring one's own sexual identity, including but not limited to examining upbringing, expectations from others (family, friends, church, etc.) and inner motivation.
Intersex: The biological sex of those whose biological sex is neither completely male or completely female according to medical standards (usually having to do with the size or presentation of genitalia). This classification of sex is based on chromosomes, hormones, or primary and secondary sex characteristics. There are many different ways to present as intersexed (e.g. hermaphrodite).
Pansexual/Omnisexual: Refers to the potential for sexual attraction, desire, romantic love, an/or emotional attraction towards persons of all gender identities and biological sexes. Not to be confused with polysexuality, it means all instead of many.
Polysexual: A man or woman who has emotional, physical, spiritual, and sexual/erotic attraction to multiple genders/gender identities and/or sexes. Not to be confused with polyamory or pansexuality.
Autoerotic: Someone who is sexually stimulated only through internal stimuli.
Asexual: A person who has no sexual desire.
Ally: Anyone, straight or not, who support LGBTQIPA by learning about their issues and perspectives, and committing ourselves to work against heterosexism and homophobia.
Plus (+): an umbrella term/symbol used in order to be all-inclusive of anyone who desires to identify with this community
Additional Definitions
Advocate: This person identifies their own personal biases, and the biases of others. This is someone who actively works to make an accepting, welcoming, accessible, and equitable world for all.
Binary: The idea that only two options exist, as in two genders, two sexes.
Closeted: A figure of speech for one who has not disclosed, or chooses to keep private their sexual orientation, gender identity, or aspects thereof, including sexual identity and sexual behavior.
Coming Out: A figure of speech for one who is open and does not conceal their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
Cross-Dressing: A man who dresses in women's clothing, or a woman who dresses in men's clothing, not directly related to gender or sexuality in all cases.
Drag: Queen- a person who consciously performs femininity, sometimes in an exaggerated/theatrical manner, usually in a show or theatre setting. King- a person who consciously performs masculinity, sometimes in an exaggerated/theatrical manner, usually in a show or theatre setting.
Gender-queer/gender neutral/: Any person whose gender presentation is an intentional mixture of gender signifiers. This is sometimes a political identity in support of transgender persons, and against the binary gender system.
Gender status: The societal and cultural expectations of people based upon their biological sex.
Gender: A guise, a role, a social construction and performance through which we learn to associate certain characteristics with maleness or femaleness.
Gender Identity: Our innermost concept of self as male, female, or transgender.
Gender Reaffirmation Surgery: Originally known as sex change surgery, or sex reassignment surgery. This surgical construction/reconstruction of sex organs and primary/secondary sex characteristics is sometimes sought out by transgender or transsexual individuals. It also can be performed without consent on intersex children.
Heteronormativity: The belief that all people are heterosexual, the assumption and/or belief that heterosexual relationships and behavior are superior, the norm, correct, and the actions based on this assumption.
Heterosexual: A man whose sexual/erotic attraction, emotional attraction, and affection are directed toward women, or a woman whose sexual/erotic attraction, emotional attraction, and affection are directed toward men.
Homophobia: A fear, anger, discomfort, intolerance of, lack of acceptance of, and/or hatred of homosexuality, especially rooted in the heterosexism.
Oppression: The exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. It can be defined in a social context as socially supported mistreatment and exploitation of a group or category of people by anyone.
Outing: To declare a person's identity publicly; people can out themselves, or someone can out them with or without their permission (though in most cases, permission is preferred).
Polyamory: The practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Not to be confused with polysexuality.
Pride: Not being ashamed of oneself and/or showing your pride to others by coming out, marching, attending events, etc. Being honest and comfortable with yourself.
Privilege: A set up unearned, sometimes unrealized entitlement or immunity that is granted either by birth or a conditional basis. Contrasted by a right, which is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or human beings from the moment of birth.
Sex: The common, but imperfect sorting of people into biological categories of male or female, usually based on anatomy, chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genitalia, and appearances.
Sexuality: A capacity for sexual feelings, a person's sexual orientation or preference for sexual activity.
Sexual identity: How a person identifies their own sexuality. This may or may not relate to their actual sexual orientation. (only 16% of women and 36% of men who reported some level of same-sex attraction had a homosexual or bisexual identity). More closely related to sexual behavior than sexual orientation in most cases.
Sexual orientation: Describes whether we are sexually, erotically, meaningfully, and emotionally attracted to certain genders/sexes.
Tolerance: The practice of permitting a thing of which one disapproves, such as social, ethnic, sexual, or religious practices.
Trans*: The shortened version of transgendered.
Transition: A term to describe the process of changing one's gender presentation to accord with one's internal sense of their gender. This process differs for all who go through it, and is not an event, but takes anywhere between several months to several years to complete. Some people spend their entire lives transitioning as they redefine and reinterpret their gender. This process may or may not involve hormones or gender reaffirmation surgery.
Transsexual: An individual's identification with a gender that is inconsistent or not culturally associated with their assigned sex (Their gender identity conflicts with their assigned sex).
FtM: Describes an individual who is female to male transitioning.
MtF: Describes an individual who is male to female transitioning.
Zhe/Hir: Gender neutral pronouns used to replace she/her, he/him, and create gender neutral language. (Example: "Zhe said hir name was Blake," instead of "He/she said his/her name was Blake."
I'm all for acceptance (again, I voted for this) but I am honestly sick of hearing about this. In particular, in my view the main interest the government should have in marriage is the benefit it brings to society. Some of the comments in this thread regarding having multiple partners would seem to go against that. I.e. that households, and particularly households with children, who have two consistent parents are much more conducive to a healthier / better behaved and educated society.
I understand that there is a strong issue of rights and discrimination connected to this issue as well, but I also think that the legalization (and normal anti-discrimination policies) is where this should end. People have absolutely every right to disagree with a lifestyle choice, and obviously with the freedom of religion allowed in most societies, the vast majority of religions view non-heterosexual behavior as inappropriate. People are also free to disagree with that, but protection of religious freedom is also a key tenet of modern society (i.e., you don't have to believe what the king does, or change your views on his whims).
So, I'm glad this passed, I voted for it years ago locally, and I am ready to move on in discussions with friends about perhaps why someone should or should not behave a certain way, rather than just, are they allowed to do it (since the answer is a resounding yes).
2015/06/29 20:37:21
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
I would disagree that the vast majority of religions finds homosexual relations inappropriate. You just have the loudest bunch of fanatics against them.
2015/06/29 20:38:27
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
Frazzled wrote: What if they don't have a written wedding policy? (but have a wedding policy for members-aka members believe this)
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
This is the rub I see. it sounds stupid, but fanatics make things stupid.
I don't think it is fair and definitely not 100% correct to class churches as fanatics, but perhaps if they don't have a wedding policy they ought to get one written up now that gay marriage is real.
I meant fanatics who would try to force a ceremony at a church location they are not wanted.
So if county clerks actually listen to the AG in texas and refuse to issue marriage licenses still, what sort of penalties/repercussions would happen to them?
3000
4000
2015/06/29 20:41:15
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
skyth wrote: I would disagree that the vast majority of religions finds homosexual relations inappropriate. You just have the loudest bunch of fanatics against them.
It is hard to separate religious attitudes from social attitudes towards sexuality in many cases.
RiTides wrote: I'm all for acceptance (again, I voted for this) but I am honestly sick of hearing about this.
It's nice to have the privilege of not caring much about these issues. Other people aren't that lucky.
Some of the comments in this thread regarding having multiple partners would seem to go against that. I.e. that households, and particularly households with children, who have two consistent parents are much more conducive to a healthier / better behaved and educated society.
What exactly is the problem with having 3+ parents? Is there a credible argument (supported with evidence) that isn't just the same old "that's how traditional marriage has always worked" nonsense that has been used to argue against gay parents? If anything I would expect it to be better for children, since there are more adults around and fewer problems with all of the parents being busy away from their kids. And since living expenses do not increase to match the number of people living in a house a group of 3+ parents would likely be able to provide a higher standard of living for their children.
I understand that there is a strong issue of rights and discrimination connected to this issue as well, but I also think that the legalization (and normal anti-discrimination policies) is where this should end. People have absolutely every right to disagree with a lifestyle choice, and obviously with the freedom of religion allowed in most societies, the vast majority of religions view non-heterosexual behavior as inappropriate. People are also free to disagree with that, but protection of religious freedom is also a key tenet of modern society (i.e., you don't have to believe what the king does, or change your views on his whims).
Fortunately there is no (credible) threat to religious freedom here. The people talking about how they're afraid of losing their religious freedom or the ability to disagree with behavior their religion doesn't approve of are tinfoil hatters on the same credibility level of the people screaming about black helicopters and mind control in the chemtrails.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/06/29 20:44:02
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
WrentheFaceless wrote: So if county clerks actually listen to the AG in texas and refuse to issue marriage licenses still, what sort of penalties/repercussions would happen to them?
Well they could sued, and then would be forced to comply by the courts, but they might just loose their jobs in an effort by the county governments to not get sued.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2015/06/29 20:46:51
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
WrentheFaceless wrote: So if county clerks actually listen to the AG in texas and refuse to issue marriage licenses still, what sort of penalties/repercussions would happen to them?
They will be sued. Courts were order them to perform their job function or they will face sanction from the court. RuPaul may have a reality show competition in their front yard.
I would expect no court official to comply with the AG's suggestion, not once they get some sort of real warning letter from counsel prior to suing the out of them.
The AG is grandstanding. The question I have is why we have a foreign devil elected as AG (he's from Virginia).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fortunately there is no (credible) threat to religious freedom here. The people talking about how they're afraid of losing their religious freedom or the ability to disagree with behavior their religion doesn't approve of are tinfoil hatters on the same credibility level of the people screaming about black helicopters and mind control in the chemtrails.
You say its tinfoil hat, but in the real world example given-two out of three scenarios given involved defending a major suit with a good chance of losing. I was actually expecting the answer to be none, so you surprised me. In general I agree, but again, its the flag waivers of all sides that make it difficult for the rest of us to just get along.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/29 20:53:30
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/06/29 20:51:10
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
Of course there are also examples of polyandrous marriages, however they are really rather rare.
But if 11 people want to shack up together there is nothing to stop them. They won't get the legal advantages/protections of marriage, but this is an issue that I suspect almost no-one cares about and that's all she wrote.
Frazzled wrote: What if they don't have a written wedding policy? (but have a wedding policy for members-aka members believe this)
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
This is the rub I see. it sounds stupid, but fanatics make things stupid.
I don't think it is fair and definitely not 100% correct to class churches as fanatics, but perhaps if they don't have a wedding policy they ought to get one written up now that gay marriage is real.
I meant fanatics who would try to force a ceremony at a church location they are not wanted.
I highly doubt it, so much so that I'd bet it would never happen. Think about it, 2 people are planning their big day. Are you really just going to pick a random church to try and force them to do anything? Do you really want to spend your happy day by talking to cops & lawyers and having your guests fill out witness reports? then at the end of the day still not be married? On your wedding day, did you ever think for a minute, now who's day can we mess with, and cause a legal battle with?
Odds are the 2 people in question might belong to a church that is already ok with the idea. What I suggest to everyone have a friend get ordained and marry you. It's a few bucks and a little bit of time online to get legally certified to perform marriages.
sure there could come 1 nut job who really wants to try and get the phelps to perform his marriage, But I highly doubt there would be anyone else trying it with any random church. It's their happy day, and who would want to use that day to pick a legal fight that could drag on for years trying to force someone to perform your ceremony?
But I bet any same sex ceremony would be filled with tasty treats.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/29 21:36:57
2015/06/29 21:40:02
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.
You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.
But I bet any same sex ceremony would be filled with tasty treats.
Cake baby. cake!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/29 21:40:43
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/06/29 21:42:09
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
Frazzled wrote: A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.
You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.
I'm fairly certain that shooting people is a tad more extreme than wanting someone to bake you a cake.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2015/06/29 21:47:42
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
Frazzled wrote: A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.
You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.
I'm fairly certain that shooting people is a tad more extreme than wanting someone to bake you a cake.
And, you know, the bakery was found to be in the wrong.
It's not really being fanatical to call out discrimination based on your sexuality.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2015/06/29 21:50:27
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
Peregrine - Note that I said "consistent parents" in the text you quoted. We could certainly have a discussion about why someone could benefit from having more than 2 parents, but it's undoubtedly the case that children benefit from having the same adults in their lives as they develop (we have several friends who are foster parents and it is very challenging for both parents and kids).
As for your other points - nowhere did I say I did not care about this issue, but you certainly beat that strawman to death! Rather, I said I'm sick of hearing about it, and by that I mean I'm hoping that this decision puts the "final nail in the coffin" of the current debate, and the discussion can move forward instead of spinning.
I think having a 9-letter acronym (for anything!) that even has to include a "+" is a little bit ridiculous, though . There's even IPA in the acronym, which I always thought was India Pale Ale
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/06/29 21:59:35
2015/06/29 22:00:22
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
Frazzled wrote: A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.
You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.
But I bet any same sex ceremony would be filled with tasty treats.
Cake baby. cake!
the forces of the free market work in mysterious ways. If there are laws against discrimination, don't break the law.
He wasn't planning a wedding, he was being a racist monster.
Why was the priest being called a liar? that could very well be something he brought upon himself, but again, no one was getting married.
Yes there are fanatics, but as far as the church is concerned, this is the person who is performing your marriage ceremony. It could be funny to try and force phelps into doing it, but then if you win, you get to live out your happily ever after knowing phelps was there for your happy day. In the video of your ceremony you could see the hatred in his eyes as he performs the ceremony.
I just don't think it would ever happen.
2015/06/29 22:25:53
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
Kilkrazy wrote: What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
Of course there are also examples of polyandrous marriages, however they are really rather rare.
But if 11 people want to shack up together there is nothing to stop them. They won't get the legal advantages/protections of marriage, but this is an issue that I suspect almost no-one cares about and that's all she wrote.
Just so we understand this, people are excommunicated from the LDS church if they practice polygamy.
2015/06/29 22:31:29
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
IMO, it depends greatly on the size of the church.
The church that I practically grew up in:
At least one person had to be a "member" of the church
Both parties had to undergo "counselling" type classes, I forget now if it was 6 weeks or 6 months, before a pastor of the church would do a ceremony.
If the church facility was used, A currently sitting, former, or "approved" pastor must be the officiant.
If the church facility was used, a "religious message" must be read (as in, if you got married at the church, there was a "sermon" about the sanctity of marriage... In all the weddings I saw there, that "sermon" was really a 2 minute spiel)
For my younger brother's funeral, we found out that the pastor we wanted to read a eulogy wasn't allowed to (he had burned some bridges in the past, yet he was still one of the most beloved people in the church as a whole), because my family got the use of the church facilities, basically for free, the one caveat is that the church "required" a sitting pastor to read a "salvation message" again... it was only like, 5-10 minutes long so that it didn't detract too greatly from the reason people were there.
All those things, because the church I grew up in was 3-6,000 people, were included in bylaws and other written standards that nearly all staff knew, if not by heart, then they knew exactly where to look.
Kilkrazy wrote: What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
Of course there are also examples of polyandrous marriages, however they are really rather rare.
But if 11 people want to shack up together there is nothing to stop them. They won't get the legal advantages/protections of marriage, but this is an issue that I suspect almost no-one cares about and that's all she wrote.
Just so we understand this, people are excommunicated from the LDS church if they practice polygamy.
And only because politics of the day demanded that the "official party line" is no polygamy. Brigham Young himself was a polygamist. Regardless, the people who practice it in the SW US call themselves LDS, and so we have no other real name for them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/29 22:34:49
2015/06/29 22:45:32
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
Kilkrazy wrote: What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
Of course there are also examples of polyandrous marriages, however they are really rather rare.
But if 11 people want to shack up together there is nothing to stop them. They won't get the legal advantages/protections of marriage, but this is an issue that I suspect almost no-one cares about and that's all she wrote.
Just so we understand this, people are excommunicated from the LDS church if they practice polygamy.
That is correct, however there are heretic -- or traditional, depending on viewpoint -- LDS members who still cleave to the old ways and those are the ones about which I am talking.
Relapse wrote: Enris, you already proved in an earlier thread you don't know half of what you think you do about the LDS religion.
Tell me then, what is untrue about Brigham Young was a polygamist?
What is untrue about the politics involved in getting Utah, a predominately mormon state into the union... when we have written record that the US Congress expressly wrote to the members trying to create the state, that so long as they allowed, or practiced polygamy, they would remain a territory, and not become a state?
What is untrue about the Fundamentalist group calling themselves LDS?
2015/06/29 23:00:15
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
Kilkrazy wrote: What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
Of course there are also examples of polyandrous marriages, however they are really rather rare.
But if 11 people want to shack up together there is nothing to stop them. They won't get the legal advantages/protections of marriage, but this is an issue that I suspect almost no-one cares about and that's all she wrote.
Just so we understand this, people are excommunicated from the LDS church if they practice polygamy.
That is correct, however there are heretic -- or traditional, depending on viewpoint -- LDS members who still cleave to the old ways and those are the ones about which I am talking.
Those are the reorganized LDS, or as they now call themselves, The Community of Christ.
Relapse wrote: Enris, you already proved in an earlier thread you don't know half of what you think you do about the LDS religion.
Tell me then, what is untrue about Brigham Young was a polygamist?
What is untrue about the politics involved in getting Utah, a predominately mormon state into the union... when we have written record that the US Congress expressly wrote to the members trying to create the state, that so long as they allowed, or practiced polygamy, they would remain a territory, and not become a state?
What is untrue about the Fundamentalist group calling themselves LDS?
As in the last thread we had this conversation you have a lot of half truths:
Kilkrazy wrote: What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
I think for this kind of discussion we need to draw a clear line between conservative/extremist religious polygamy and secular polygamy/polyamory. There are plenty of good arguments against the former, there aren't any (as far as I've seen) against the latter.
RiTides wrote: Peregrine - Note that I said "consistent parents" in the text you quoted. We could certainly have a discussion about why someone could benefit from having more than 2 parents, but it's undoubtedly the case that children benefit from having the same adults in their lives as they develop (we have several friends who are foster parents and it is very challenging for both parents and kids).
You said "two consistent parents", not just "consistent parents", which is a pretty big difference. Are you now saying that having 3+ parents is ok, as long as there's a stable and consistent family for those children to grow up in?
(And for the record, I agree that having a stable family situation is good. This is one of the reasons why recognizing gay marriages and hopefully multi-person marriages is important, if there's formal recognition of a relationship it's more likely to last.)
As for your other points - nowhere did I say I did not care about this issue, but you certainly beat that strawman to death! Rather, I said I'm sick of hearing about it, and by that I mean I'm hoping that this decision puts the "final nail in the coffin" of the current debate, and the discussion can move forward instead of spinning.
Ok, correction acknowledged. Your original statement sounded like you were saying something like "we gave you gay marriage, just shut up and stop making demands already". But I guess that's clearly not the case.
Frazzled wrote: You say its tinfoil hat, but in the real world example given-two out of three scenarios given involved defending a major suit with a good chance of losing. I was actually expecting the answer to be none, so you surprised me. In general I agree, but again, its the flag waivers of all sides that make it difficult for the rest of us to just get along.
The "tinfoil hatters" I was referring to there are the ones who are claiming that legalizing gay marriage is the first step towards throwing all Christians in jail and/or reeducation camps, which is obviously paranoid insanity.
And in your example it's more of a matter of contract law than beliefs. I think the clearly has a right to conduct weddings according to their own beliefs (and if they don't, the law should be changed), including limiting those weddings to couples that their religion approves of. The issue is whether or not they've made that policy clear to new members, or if they've promised potential new members "you can have your wedding here" without saying "unless you're gay" until that member has contributed money/become part of the community/etc. There's only a problem if they've decided not to honor their promises just because they don't feel like it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/06/30 01:38:55
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
I think for this kind of discussion we need to draw a clear line between conservative/extremist religious polygamy and secular polygamy/polyamory. There are plenty of good arguments against the former, there aren't any (as far as I've seen) against the latter.
I agree with you on the former. For the latter, and I've personally used the arguments many times in these forums: the legal issues of property dispersal in the event of a divorce.... Yes, it's an issue that can be fixed, the question then remains (in my mind) how much money will it cost us to sit down and hash out those issues (by us, I of course mean trained lawyers, who I would hope be the ones writing the change to legislation), how much time are we talking in that "fix", and of all that money spent "solving" the problems of a messy "poly-[xxxx]" divorce, how much could be spent fixing infrastructure on local, state and federal systems? How much could be spent on schools? Basically, how much could be "better" spent elsewhere?
Also, how would such a law determine a "chain" of marriages? Ie, we have person A, B, C, D, E,
A is currently married to B, but "when" polygamy/polyamory is legalized, wants to marry C and D. Now, D, is already married to E.
Now, in this "situation" let's just suppose for a moment that A and B are in agreement on marrying C and D, but D doesn't want to divorce E, and doesn't want to enter into any kind of relationship, peripheral or not with C.
You said "two consistent parents", not just "consistent parents", which is a pretty big difference. Are you now saying that having 3+ parents is ok, as long as there's a stable and consistent family for those children to grow up in?
(And for the record, I agree that having a stable family situation is good. This is one of the reasons why recognizing gay marriages and hopefully multi-person marriages is important, if there's formal recognition of a relationship it's more likely to last.)
IMO, just about any multi-parent household, provided that it is a stable one, is infinitely better than a single-parent household. The vast majority of statistics that I've personally seen reported show that kids in single-parent situations tend to generally do worse in just about every imaginable way (from grades, to legal issues, etc)
2015/06/30 02:31:06
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
I don't know. But I can't imagine that, as a percentage of total federal spending, it's a very large number. Much greater amounts of money are spent rather frivolously without any hesitation already, so what's a little more marginally-relevant debt?
Also, how would such a law determine a "chain" of marriages? Ie, we have person A, B, C, D, E,
A is currently married to B, but "when" polygamy/polyamory is legalized, wants to marry C and D. Now, D, is already married to E.
Now, in this "situation" let's just suppose for a moment that A and B are in agreement on marrying C and D, but D doesn't want to divorce E, and doesn't want to enter into any kind of relationship, peripheral or not with C.
That's very easy to deal with. You just require that all marriage contracts, regardless of how many people are involved or how they are structured, be signed by all of the people involved. And if any of them are already married then those existing marriages must be dissolved and replaced by the new one. In your example the marriage would not be possible because D would not sign the contract.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/06/30 02:31:54
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
IMO, just about any multi-parent household, provided that it is a stable one, is infinitely better than a single-parent household. The vast majority of statistics that I've personally seen reported show that kids in single-parent situations tend to generally do worse in just about every imaginable way (from grades, to legal issues, etc)
That's a interesting opinion, totally devoid of facts. So I'll just leave this here:
sociologists found family structure hardly matters.
Education: Family structure had no impact. Children were just as likely to graduate from college and university, regardless of family type.
Occupation: Kids who grew up with a stable single mom went on to better jobs than those who grew up in stable, two-parent families.
Income: There was no difference based on the type of family the child grew up in.
2015/06/30 03:13:33
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
Peregrine wrote: You said "two consistent parents", not just "consistent parents", which is a pretty big difference. Are you now saying that having 3+ parents is ok, as long as there's a stable and consistent family for those children to grow up in?
(And for the record, I agree that having a stable family situation is good. This is one of the reasons why recognizing gay marriages and hopefully multi-person marriages is important, if there's formal recognition of a relationship it's more likely to last.)
As others pointed out, I said two as opposed to one or (as some were implying) rotating partners. As you apparently agree with, having stable parents does wonders for kids. I really have no opinion one more than two... I haven't seen it in practice and it's kind of an oddball case. Single parents really struggle, kids without stable parents really struggle, and that's what I was referring to.
Why the hell are people who are anti-gay marriage speaking of homosexuals like they are monsters lying in wait to either steal or subvert children?
A gay couple are not bogeymen (or women), they are goddamn people who are consenting adults that love each other and should be treated fairly like all others.
If two gay people love each other for years and years, and finally can get married and legally protect each other from a big, bad mean world, I hope some of those old crones and wretches out there can someday find that kind of love.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/06/30 03:32:28
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
2015/06/30 03:30:19
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional Right, 5-4
And that was just the first page of a google search.
Now, if you'll note in that first link, they do state that the crime rates have improved since the early 90s, but those improvements come at nearly the same time as many other factors began kicking in, such as changes in the way law enforcement conducts their business, etc.
3000
4000 
out of them. 
. There's even IPA in the acronym, which I always thought was India Pale Ale 
