Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 31 of 234 (536759)
11-24-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rrhain
11-24-2009 11:04 PM


quote:
This will require rewriting literally tens of thousands of laws across federal, state, and municipal jurisdictions. All currently "married" couples will need to be relicensed as the contracts refer to "marriage," not "civil union." Too, this will mean that no federally recognized contract will be recognized outside of the United States because other countries recognize "marriage," not "civil union." If you were to try to provide your old "marriage" license, you would be engaging in fraud because you no longer have a "marriage" contract.
I hate to pick nits because you and I are of one mind on this issue, but it actually wouldn't be that difficult to implement a change from marriage to civil union, and even easier to grandfather previous marriages into the new statutory scheme.
Other than that, you're ten out of the in this thread.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2009 11:04 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Taz, posted 11-24-2009 11:48 PM subbie has replied
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 11-25-2009 12:23 AM subbie has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 32 of 234 (536760)
11-24-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by subbie
11-24-2009 11:36 PM


And I have only been saying this a million times in the past. Killing marriage and putting civil union in its place is exactly what the fundamentalists want. They have been saying for many years that homosexuals want to destroy the institution of marriage. By literally destroying marriage as you people propose, we would lose any hope of gaining the support of moderates. Imagine fox news headline for the next 10 years "homosexuals destroyed marriage!"
Again, I really am quite puzzled how you people could say you support gay rights but then would propose something so ridiculous as civil union. Not accusing anyone of anything, but are you sure you're as tolerant as you say you are?
If instead of allowing interracial marriage the justices decided to throw out marriage completely and put civil union in its place in order to keep the "traditional marriage of one man and one woman of the same race", there would have been riots, mass killings, and possibly a civil war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by subbie, posted 11-24-2009 11:36 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by subbie, posted 11-24-2009 11:54 PM Taz has seen this message but not replied
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2009 11:19 AM Taz has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 33 of 234 (536761)
11-24-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taz
11-24-2009 11:48 PM


quote:
Again, I really am quite puzzled how you people could say you support gay rights but then would propose something so ridiculous as civil union.
Taz, take a deep breath and calm yourself. Then, please show me where you think I have ever said anything to suggest that I'm not 100% in favor of gay marriage.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Taz, posted 11-24-2009 11:48 PM Taz has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 34 of 234 (536764)
11-25-2009 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Hyroglyphx
11-24-2009 3:49 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:
quote:
Right, so let the church handle it and not the government is what I'm saying.
Indeed. The government has chosen the word "marriage." If the churches can't handle it, then they are perfectly free to come up with a new word or phrase to describe their "not legal marriage" ceremony.
Hey! They already have! "Holy matrimony."
So everything's settled. If you want to get "married," you go to the county clerk. If you want to be blessed in "holy matrimony," you go to church.
What's your problem?
quote:
And I'm saying that the government never had a right (at least in the US) to start butting its nose in the affairs of the church to begin with.
And this would be where you provide evidence that this has ever happened.
After all, when Loving v. Virginia was decided, was any church that was adamant about race-mixing forced to change anything about their practices?
No?
Then what makes you think that doing for sexual orientation what was done for race will be any different? If it's a crock of shit when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
The State should have never got involved in marriage to begin with, as it is a clear intrusion of the Establishment Clause.
This is where you show how the legal contract of marriage has any religious purpose of any kind. Just try to get married in a Mormon temple without being a Mormon or a Catholic church without being Catholic...and yet you can still get married despite your complete and utter failure to meet the religious requirements.
If atheists can get married, then clearly there is no religious foundation to marriage.
quote:
Right, so let the ceremony of whatever religion determine how to marry someone, not the State.
That's already the case. You can have whatever ceremony you wish. You're not married until you sign the paper. That's a lovely service you just had, but that couple is still "living in sin" until they go back to the priest's office and sign the marriage contract.
quote:
Right, so it would be about respecting the wishes of the church and the wishes of its congregation.
Right, and we certainly learned our lesson after the Loving v. Virginia decision, didn't we. I mean, all those priests were forced to marry interracial couples in complete violation of all their religious dogma. Don't you remember the great riot of '71 when 34 interracial couples stormed a church in Mobile and forced the priest there to marry them in front of the entire white congregation?
What's that? You mean not one church had to change its proscriptions and teachings when interracial marriage was made the law of the land?
Hmmm...then why would it be any different this time? If your argument is a crock of shit when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
So it all comes down to a word, instead of a principle?
The word is the principle. Everybody knows what "marriage" is. There is absolutely no confusion anywhere when Jane and June say that they got "married." There is an entire legal framework that is in place for dealing with that legal contract.
If anybody's religious concept cannot handle this, then they are perfectly free to come up with a new word or phrase to describe their ceremony.
Hey! They already have! "Holy matrimony."
So everything's settled, then. If you want to get "married," you go to the county clerk. If you want to be blessed in "holy matrimony," you go to church.
quote:
If homosexuals want to be married (as in legal recognition of their union) what difference does it make if we call it apple pie?
Because the contract is called "marriage" and there are literally tens of thousands of laws that are connected to that word. Is your argument seriously that it is better to attempt to get the feds, all 50 states plus the territories and other possessions, and every county and city to rewrite their laws rather than to just repeat the same process that we did with Loving v. Virginia?
If your argument is a crock of shit when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
A word is designed to fit the definition, not the other way around.
Indeed. And everybody knows what the word "marriage" means and there is absolutely no confusion when we here that Jane and June are "married." The only confusion comes in with the religious conceptualization of a committed couple since each religion has their own requirements as to what that means. For some, you have to be of the same religion. For some, you have to be of the same race. For some, you can't have ever been married before and walked away from it.
And yet, if we hear of an interracial divorced couple where he's a Buddhist and she's a Jew claiming that they're "married," nobody bats an eye. We all know what that means.
Therefore, it is clear that it is the religions who have abandoned the definition of "marriage," not the government. Therefore, it is the duty of the religions to come up with a new word or phrase to refer to their ritual.
Hey! They already have: "Holy matrimony."
That's settled, then. If you want to get "married," you go to the county clerk. If you want to be blessed in "holy matrimony," you go to church.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2009 3:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 35 of 234 (536766)
11-25-2009 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by subbie
11-24-2009 11:36 PM


subbie responds to me:
quote:
I hate to pick nits because you and I are of one mind on this issue, but it actually wouldn't be that difficult to implement a change from marriage to civil union, and even easier to grandfather previous marriages into the new statutory scheme.
And when the newly "civilly united" (heterosexual) couple tries to emigrate to a country that doesn't recognize "civil unions," what then? We should remove the United States from international reciprocities simply because some people have a problem with the word "marriage" being applied to Jane and June?
And no, it's not that easy to rewrite terminology in the law. That's why the law is so anal about specific terms. And all it takes is some rogue group to pass a law about "marriage," and we're right back in court having to fight this battle all over again.
The only sane solution is to do for sexual orientation what we did for race: Keep the entire structure in place and recognize that it applies to gay people as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by subbie, posted 11-24-2009 11:36 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 11-25-2009 1:05 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 36 of 234 (536775)
11-25-2009 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rrhain
11-25-2009 12:23 AM


quote:
The only sane solution is to do for sexual orientation what we did for race: Keep the entire structure in place and recognize that it applies to gay people as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
With this I agree without reservation. As for the rest of it, our disagreement isn't particularly important, and I'd hate to run the risk of Taz giving me another tongue lashing, so I'm content to agree to disagree.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 11-25-2009 12:23 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 37 of 234 (536788)
11-25-2009 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rrhain
11-24-2009 11:04 PM


Rrhain writes:
This will require rewriting literally tens of thousands of laws across federal, state, and municipal jurisdictions. All currently "married" couples will need to be relicensed as the contracts refer to "marriage," not "civil union." Too, this will mean that no federally recognized contract will be recognized outside of the United States because other countries recognize "marriage," not "civil union."
Hmm, yes that last part may cause a problem. Stupid legalese.
If you were to try to provide your old "marriage" license, you would be engaging in fraud because you no longer have a "marriage" contract.
Also a problem then. I hadn't thought of those consequences.
That's the problem with the argument that this is just a matter of semantics. It isn't. There is a whole structure of legal activity predicated around the contract of "marriage" that simply cannot be adjusted by later writing, "Well, we really mean 'civil union,' instead." Legal precedent is that words have specific meanings. That's why the warnings say, "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." You'd think that "mutilate" would cover the first two, but it doesn't. They are different things and thus different words are used.
Bah, I hate these stupid things. Like the story I keep hearing about a woman that supposedly put her cat in the microwave to dry it and it died, ending up sueing the company and won, because they hadn't put it in the manual that drying cats isn't a function of the microwave oven (no idea if that is true). I mean how fucking stupid do these things need to be?
It isn't a question of people. It's a question of the law.
So the law's retarded? Yeah I guess, it's probably more trouble then it's worth. Any idea what the current text in the law syas regarding marriage? Is it defined as between two people, or as between man and woman? Or something else?
Your "civil union" isn't recognized here because it isn't a "marriage." That's the law. If it were a marriage, you'd call it a "marriage." Since you're calling it something else, that means it is something else and thus cannot be a "marriage."
Hmm... Seeing all the trouble that could ensue with this different name, because laws are stupid that way, then the easiest would indeed be to call it marriage.
That's pretty much how it works in the US, too: A church marriage means absolutely nothing. The only way to get a legal marriage is to go to the clerk and sign a marriage contract. Now, priests, captains of ships, and various other people are commonly given authority by the state to fill in the appropriate paperwork on that contract, but it's still a legal contract, not a religious one.
And that's impossible here. The only ones that are able to fill out the legal document are the civil servants in the local "governments"(not sure what to call them at county level)
That was a lovely ceremony, but the couple didn't actually get married standing in front of the altar.
Well they did, in the eyes of the church. There's absolutely no legal consequence, but I'm guessing the church will view them as "married", right?
They got married when they signed a piece of paper back in the priest's office.
Yes, for the law, that's when they got married.
The priest may decide not to sign it unless they went through the ceremony, but the ceremony has no legal standing.
Yep, that's the way it is here, except that a priest can't sign the document.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2009 11:04 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 11-25-2009 4:13 PM Huntard has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 38 of 234 (536807)
11-25-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rahvin
11-24-2009 2:32 PM


Re: Civil Unions for all!
Rahvin writes:
And yet the word "marriage" does not have to be taken away from the secular. If I get married, I want to be married. I don't want a civil union and a partner - I want a fucking wife.
I imagine that gay couples, by and large, feel the same way.
I take it you mean to say that a gay couple would desire that one of the "married" party be called "a husband" and the other "a wife" (assigned by mutual agreement rather than by virtue of their sex+traditional understanding)
I don't mean to be facetious (rather: I mean to illustrate the can of worms opened when we demand the right to redefine words to suit our own ends) but does this mean a male 'husband' could demand the right to call his male 'wife's anus .. a 'vagina'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 11-24-2009 2:32 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2009 7:56 AM iano has not replied
 Message 41 by onifre, posted 11-25-2009 9:31 AM iano has not replied
 Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 11-25-2009 12:50 PM iano has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 39 of 234 (536813)
11-25-2009 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by iano
11-25-2009 7:06 AM


Re: Civil Unions for all!
Seems rather weird. Why not simple let them call eachother "husband". What's wrong with that?
And it's got nothing to do with "demanding rights". I expect two adult people that love eachother to find a mutual agreement on what to call eachother and their private parts. (For your information, there are gays that actually call the anus a "male vagina").

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 11-25-2009 7:06 AM iano has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 234 (536818)
11-25-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taz
11-24-2009 3:54 PM


Re: Civil Unions for all!
For the millionth time, this is another way of saying "I'm too bigoted to allow gays to marry, so let those faggots have civil union and drink out of a different drinking fountain than I am..."
There is a reason why gay people in general don't accept this bullshit proposal that you and other bigots (yes, I'm accusing you of bigotry) always seem to propose. Separate can never be equal.
Taz, for your own comfort please go back and read what I actually wrote before you unleash your scathing criticism.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 11-24-2009 3:54 PM Taz has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 41 of 234 (536821)
11-25-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by iano
11-25-2009 7:06 AM


Re: Civil Unions for all!
but does this mean a male 'husband' could demand the right to call his male 'wife's anus .. a 'vagina'?
I think that's the first time you've made me lol.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 11-25-2009 7:06 AM iano has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 234 (536826)
11-25-2009 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taz
11-24-2009 4:18 PM


Catching more flies with honey than with piss and vinegar
This argument is bullshit because legally recognized religious marriage seized to exist once the constitution was written and ratified. The legal marriage is a secular institution and has nothing to do with religious ceremonies. Sure, it originated from a religious institution, but this country was also originated from a slavery institution. Do we really want to bring back slavery?
Non-sequitor, as that's got nothing to do with the topic. Marriage started out as a religious institution and LONG before you become married by a justice of the peace, you had to be married by a pastor, priest, etc.
What precisely is wrong with the way Dutch handle it, according to Huntard? It sounds like they've got their affaris in order. More to the point, everyone is happy with the results! Religion is not infringed upon, homsexual rights are respected, secular and religious institutions don't step on each other, etc.
The Ugandan Parliament is about to pass a bill that will give the death penalty to homosexuals. Let's compromise. Let's put them in jail for 30 years instead.
Immaterial. Non-sequitor.
Argument from tradition is almost always bullshit. It was always been the case that women were inferior and therefore incapable of voting or making political decisions.
Any way you cut it, without adhering to my proposal somebody's rights are going to be infringed upon. I am trying to alleviate that. Wouldn't it be optimal to allow all parties to be satisfied with the results?
We're trying to die on a hill over a word rather than the vastly more important principle that the word is supposed to represent. I personally think it is wrong to try and stop two people, regardless of sexual orientation, from entering in to a bond and having that bond formally and legally recognized.
If you want to call that "marriage" I don't have a problem with it. I am simply saying that the government needs to get out of the affairs of the church, and the church has to stop expecting everyone to bend to their conformity. We don't live in a theocracy, praise the Lord!
Let's call it something else to let the religious be happy and keep the tradition.
What's wrong with that if it is proven to work in other nations? Is it that you just want the religious to suffer the way homosexuals have as a sort of retribution? Because that's often what I see from the tolerance police. They're so busy being tolerant to one group that they can no longer see how intolerant they are behaving towards another.
The heart of the matter for me is the maximization of rights in accordance with the Constitution. By keeping a wall between church and state, both are free to do as they wish. Religion can have its form of marriage, and secular society can have its version of marriage.
You guys can try to make arguments on top of arguments all you want. No matter how much perfume you pour onto it, it's still a pile of shit.
What exactly is so egregiously wrong about my proposal that you're referring to it as a pile of shit? I am attempting to give everyone the rights they wish. Religion can worship freely, homsexuals get to be unified, secularists can be separte from religion, etc, etc.
Why is that so tragic?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 11-24-2009 4:18 PM Taz has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by subbie, posted 11-25-2009 10:31 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 43 of 234 (536835)
11-25-2009 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2009 10:07 AM


Re: Catching more flies with honey than with piss and vinegar
quote:
Any way you cut it, without adhering to my proposal somebody's rights are going to be infringed upon.
quote:
The heart of the matter for me is the maximization of rights in accordance with the Constitution.
quote:
I am attempting to give everyone the rights they wish.
You are going to have to explain to me whose rights are violated, and how, by calling gay marriage "marriage." Please use small words, because I've asked this question of lots of people and not one of them has given an answer that comes close to making sense.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2009 10:07 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2009 12:17 PM subbie has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 234 (536842)
11-25-2009 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by onifre
11-24-2009 4:32 PM


Re: Civil Unions for all!
Fuck the church, why should they have a say so?
The Church should have say over the affairs of the church, and the government should have say over the affairs of civil matters the way it is penned in the Constitution.
What is it about that institution that makes them above the laws of equal rights?
They're not above the law. The Church should have the right to say they don't want to marry homosexuals if it goes against their beliefs. That said, the Church doesn't get to speak for all of America and try to force secular society to conform to their beliefs.
I say, if the church holds marriage ceremonies, then they should honor anyone that wants to get married. If the don't, then fuck 'em, they don't have the right to marry anyone.
Oh, now you're starting to get it. Religion can have their marriage ceremonies and let God consecrate a marriage or refuse to marry homosexuals. Their marriages just shouldn't have any legal authority, Rather, in order to be legally married, one must get a civil union. And civil unions would be open to all regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc. Everything but age would factor in.
quote:
Yes they are because it is defiling the sanctity that God instituted.
That who instituted?
God. I believe it is important to honor religious beliefs, just like the Founding Fathers did. I just don't want religionists intruding in my affairs. If their God says that homosexuality is an abomination, fine whatever. I don't care as long as the State recognizes their union.
Why give the church any precedence or power? If you can't tell, I am stripping them of ANY legal power. Hello?!?!?! Why am I the enemy here?
What makes the church above the laws of equal rights? Because they claim an invisible man wrote a book that claims certain people shouldn't get married? That's superstitious bullshit, and they have no right to claim it in a modern society.
Every human being is afforded their right to believe whatever the fuck they want.
If they perform marriage ceremonies, then they need to be equal to everyone. If not, then the government doesn't recognize their marriages.
You seriously can't see how I am alleviating all of that in my proposal?
Who gives you the right to smear your secularist beliefs all over thousands of years of tradition by forcing them to conform to society rather than Almighty God? Answer: you don't.
What gives them the right to smear their antiquated, superstitious nonsense all over a society who does not want to participate in their beliefs? Answer: they don't.
SO.... Why not let religion marry whoever they want in accordance with their beliefs BUT strip them of any and all legal authority to officially recognize people in unions?
Why not give only justices of the peace the authority to legally marry people?
Do you understand what I am saying?
Because, the "traditional" church marriages want the same rights as the "secular" marriages. Rights that are governed by the state. Therefore, the state has a say so.
No, the State does not get to control what religion does and religion does not get to dictate what the State does. Jesus fucking Christ, has anyone heard of a little document called the Constitution?!?!
However, if they want to have mock weddings that are not recognized by the state, then sure, exclude anyone you want. But if the state needs to recognize the marriages, then the church gives up its right to be an independent institution.
Exactly!!!! Now we're on the same page.
Clearly you can see how it infringes upon others, right? Aren't homosexuals "others"?
They infringe upon each others beliefs without my proposal in place. My way lets them all have their cake and eat it too!
The state should step up and say, you are excluding a portion of our society who have the same rights as everyone else, so, as long as you do this, your marriage ceremonies are not going to be recognized by us, the state.
Exactly. Marriages were intended to be unions under God anyhow, right? So they still get to have their god marry who it wants to marry. But as far as legality goes in civil matters, the government handles that. Religious marriges shall have no legal authority. Civil unions (secular marriages) will.
So the people who are making it an issue should be ignored. And the institutions that exclude people based on sexual preference should not be given any credibility, or allowed to dictate any social policy.
That's silly. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by onifre, posted 11-24-2009 4:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by onifre, posted 11-25-2009 11:44 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 234 (536847)
11-25-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Rrhain
11-24-2009 11:22 PM


Read what I wrote, don't read in to it.
Child abuse. Of course, I'm not surprised that the moment you thought about having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately jumped to considering molesting a child.
Apparently it's you having thoughts of performing sexual acts with a minor if that's what you extracted from post!
I suspect that's one of your canned responses. It's a reflexive reaction you have, isn't it?
At any rate, it would behoove you to do some research on what the Supreme Court has ruled regarding the rights of children.
Would it now?
At any rate, back to the real topic rather than your pathetic attempt to derail it with a "gay people are equivalent to child molestors" sidetrack
There is a reason why I generally avoid conversing with you. Your flair for the dramatic and outrageous assertions prevent you from having a decent conversation. Let me spell it out for you: I am FOR homosexual rights, Rrhain, as in, PRO homosexual rights.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2009 11:22 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 11-25-2009 4:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024