Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
30 online now:
Captcass, dwise1, GDR, jar, RAZD, Tanypteryx (6 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Maine legalizes gay marriage
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 61 of 92 (508024)
05-10-2009 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Stagamancer
05-09-2009 1:21 PM


Re: Missed it Taz
Stagamancer writes:


It's not totalitarian, it's to ensure no discrimination.
And I don't think it's right to allow someone to act as an agent of the state if they are going to be discriminatory.


And who is the one defining what is discrimination, and ENSURING that it doesn't happen? Leaving such broad terms to government officials is exactly what a totalitarian government is. I mean, if you can't even govern whom you want to perform your own marriage process, and the state view it as legal, then what is really left?

You can have a totalitarian view if you wish. I suppose this does suit your authoritarian predispositions as well. Just remember, if you give your power to another, don't be surprised if he uses it for his own good.

As have all things. Whether it has changed to some, doesn't change whether it has changed for others, or that it may not have changed for them at all.

Stagamancer writes:


If you can't separate the spiritual from the legal at all, that's a problem in a country that separates church and state.


See, the thing about the 1st Amendment is that it clearly states congress is not to endorse any religion... but it doesn't say no religion shall xxx. A religion can be it's own government within the united states if it so chooses, so long as it doesn't violate another human's basic rights.
________________
So please tell me how my plan is not a suitable alternative? I understand you don't want the state to authorize individuals to perform marriages who discriminate on whatever basis they choose.

Under my suggested act, no one is really state endorsed, as marriage is merely a registration made at the state level, for paperwork or tax purposes (paperwork purposes includes visitation rights, etc).

The Government would become completely unbiased as to who marries who, and the individuals that have specific religious practices that require clergy present for religious marriages can do so.

My act would allow more freedom, yours would clench that freedom down under government supervision. I don't know about you, but I think we have had enough of the government as a brooding overlord.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Stagamancer, posted 05-09-2009 1:21 PM Stagamancer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2009 9:48 AM Michamus has responded
 Message 65 by Stagamancer, posted 05-10-2009 4:25 PM Michamus has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 62 of 92 (508060)
05-10-2009 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Michamus
05-10-2009 1:29 AM


Re: Missed it Taz
quote:
but I think we have had enough of the government as a brooding overlord.

Of yeah, because it was too much regulation that has led to the crap that happened with the banks and wall street to force us into the financial mess we are in. Without federal government mandates don't you think the deep south would still be apartheid-like?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Michamus, posted 05-10-2009 1:29 AM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Michamus, posted 05-10-2009 1:44 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 63 of 92 (508086)
05-10-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Theodoric
05-10-2009 9:48 AM


Re: Missed it Taz
Theodoric writes:


Of yeah, because it was too much regulation that has led to the crap that happened with the banks and wall street to force us into the financial mess we are in.


How quickly we forget. Link
quote:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.


quote:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.


I find it saddening when people say it was a lack of government intervention that caused these failures. The truth of the matter is, these problems are a direct result of the failures of government intervention.

Theodoric writes:


Without federal government mandates don't you think the deep south would still be apartheid-like?


Was it the government, or was it great civil rights activists such as Dr. King, and Rosa Parks? (to name a few) Government is always behind, is always wasteful, and is always looking for "what's in it for them".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2009 9:48 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2009 3:16 PM Michamus has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 64 of 92 (508093)
05-10-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Michamus
05-10-2009 1:44 PM


Re: Missed it Taz
quote:
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Right wing talking point. Fannie and Freddie had little or nothing to do with the mortgage crisis. The fact they ;ended to lower income people has little or nothing to do with the mortgage crisis.

You should look at facts not right wing talking points

But here's the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.

Partly that's because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn't do any subprime lending, because they can't: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn't meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.


Source

Here is a conservative blasting the meme that the CRA was the cause of the mortgage crisis.

To really prove that CRA was an insignificant factor, what one really needs to do is identify those areas most helped by the real estate boom and also those areas with the most foreclosures. If all these Conservatives are correct, then the real estate boom would have centered most of all in most of the poorest areas of the country and the current crisis in foreclosures would also be the same. In other words, the years 2003-2007 should have then seen an explosion in areas like Bedford Stuyvesant in New York, Englewood in Chicago, and Compton in California, and on the flip side those areas should be leading the pack for foreclosures now.

Instead, the biggest concentrations of foreclosures can be found in well to do areas like Boca Raton, Riverside County near San Diego, and of course Las Vegas. Does anyone really believe that there was an explosion of lending in Vegas because banks were attempting to meet some sort of quota of lending to poor folks? In fact, the real estate boom had a fairly negligible effect on the poorest areas of the country. In fact, the same areas Boca, Phoenix, Miami, and Vegas that boomed the most during the height of the real estate market are also now the ones suffering the most now that it is over. We aren't have a mortgage meltdown because there is an explosion of foreclosures in Englewood, though foreclosures likely exploded there, but in Phoenix and Las Vegas. To attributed the mortgage meltdown to the CRA is to assign altruism to the mortgage meltdown. We don't have a crisis because banks were trying too hard to lend to the downtrodden. We have a mortgage crisis because banks were trying too hard to lend in booming areas.

quote:
Was it the government, or was it great civil rights activists such as Dr. King, and Rosa Parks? (to name a few)

They made noise but without government action it would have stayed the same. Black were a minority, there is no way they could get the majority to implement the changes. The changes were implemented by the executive branch and the judiciary. TO say Dr. King and Rosa Parks were the ones that implemented the changes is a specious argument at best.

quote:
Government is always behind, is always wasteful, and is always looking for "what's in it for them".

This is an opinion not fact. Speaking in absolutes is a dangerous thing. So we should privatize police protection, disaster relief, all education? So if people are wealthy enough to have a voice and afford services, good for them? Let the rest suck eggs?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Michamus, posted 05-10-2009 1:44 PM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Michamus, posted 05-10-2009 4:30 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 65 of 92 (508099)
05-10-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Michamus
05-10-2009 1:29 AM


Re: Missed it Taz
You can have a totalitarian view if you wish. I suppose this does suit your authoritarian predispositions as well.

Says the guy who lets his life be run by an unseen deity because a couple of books told him he should.

See, the thing about the 1st Amendment is that it clearly states congress is not to endorse any religion... but it doesn't say no religion shall xxx. A religion can be it's own government within the united states if it so chooses, so long as it doesn't violate another human's basic rights.

Agreed, which is why religious ceremonies are not actually binding legally, so that the state and federal governments do not actually endorse any religious ceremonies.

The Government would become completely unbiased as to who marries who, and the individuals that have specific religious practices that require clergy present for religious marriages can do so.

That's the same as mine. You would register the marriage with the state during the civil "marriage" (it wouldn't have to be a formal ceremony, just signing the paperwork) and then you get which ever religious figure you want to perform the spiritual ceremony. The state representative would be legally bound to not discriminate based on sex, creed, or race. It's not that hard, and I don't see how that's at all totalitarian. It would basically be the exact same system we have now, except the civil and religious versions of the marriage would be separated.

A religion can be it's own government within the united states if it so chooses, so long as it doesn't violate another human's basic rights.

Well, not really. They cannot convict anyone of a crime, nor can, for example, a catholic priest pardon someone by absolving them of their sins. The "government" of the church has no standing in the government of the united states. Why should that be different for marriage? Should catholic confession get people off the hook for their crimes because their sin has been washed away? Or should baptism in an american church confer american citizenship?


We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Michamus, posted 05-10-2009 1:29 AM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Michamus, posted 05-10-2009 4:38 PM Stagamancer has responded

    
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 66 of 92 (508101)
05-10-2009 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Theodoric
05-10-2009 3:16 PM


Re: Missed it Taz
Theodoric writes:


Right wing talking point.


Since when has a NY Times article been a "Right wing talking point"? I think you are simply accepting an opinion post as fact. (from the same paper no less) What's funny, is I'm not even a Republican or Democrat. In fact, to be completely honest I think both parties are inept, and my 3 year old daughter could do a better job than any of the candidates that were put forth as "presidential material" by either party.

Theodoric writes:


So we should privatize police protection, disaster relief, all education? So if people are wealthy enough to have a voice and afford services, good for them?


So you are saying rape is good, and murder is alright? What... you didn't say, or even infer that? Interesting... Perhaps you should save your capriciousness for your bathroom mirror, and stick to replying to what I actually say. Unless your argument is completely dependent on creating straw-man arguments?

When I have been talking about government, it has constantly been in reference to FEDERAL GOV'T. In Gov't 101 you should have learned that Police, Sheriff, Disaster Relief, and education are handled on a Local, or State level. Only when the state can't handle an extreme disaster does the Federal Gov't intervene. (As it so capably did in the case of Katrina)

Besides, 'Police Protection' is a joke. They are typically there after-the fact. The only time Police really have any effect is in preventive measures such as pulling over possible drunk/high drivers, and other things. I certainly hope you aren't currently depending on the police to protect you, when you should be quite capable of doing that yourself.

Theodoric writes:


TO say Dr. King and Rosa Parks were the ones that implemented the changes is a specious argument at best.


I would have thought you intelligent enough to understand the (among others) as my not placing the civil rights movement exclusively to the credit of those two individuals. Let's face it, the government was satisfied with the status quo until the populace spoke up, and put pressure on them. That's how it works.

Theodoric writes:


Speaking in absolutes is a dangerous thing.


As is dependence on any government. I remember a saying that goes along the lines of "A gov't that can give you everything, can also take it away"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2009 3:16 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2009 4:50 PM Michamus has responded

    
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 67 of 92 (508103)
05-10-2009 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Stagamancer
05-10-2009 4:25 PM


Re: Missed it Taz
Stagamancer writes:


Says the guy who lets his life be run by an unseen deity because a couple of books told him he should.


ROFL! There you go again, demonstrating your ignorance ;)

Stagamancer writes:


It would basically be the exact same system we have now, except the civil and religious versions of the marriage would be separated.


Well now, we have gone from my plan which is really the same as it is now, with the exception of removing any gender stipulation, to your plan which increases government oversight... Hmmm, and you describe this as not so different?

Why oh why do people so quickly abandon themselves to the shelter of government in hopes it will defend them?

Stagamancer writes:


Well, not really. They cannot convict anyone of a crime, nor can, for example, a catholic priest pardon someone by absolving them of their sins.


What part of "so long as it doesn't violate another human's basic rights" did you not understand?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Stagamancer, posted 05-10-2009 4:25 PM Stagamancer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Stagamancer, posted 05-10-2009 7:43 PM Michamus has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 68 of 92 (508105)
05-10-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Michamus
05-10-2009 4:30 PM


Re: Missed it Taz
quote:
Since when has a NY Times article been a "Right wing talking point"?

Your original link does not in anyway bolster your argument that Fannie Mae was responsible for the mortgage crisis. The article was written in 1999, just a few years before the crisis. Maybe you can find something post crisis, or at least from this century.

I think the repeal of Glass-Steagal had a much greater affect.

Oh and by the way. I love how you don't even bother to counter my arguments about Fannie Mae and CRA.

I believe the federal government does a lot of good. Evidently, you don't. That is fine. I like my interstate highways, I like that we have uniform commerce laws, I like that the government regulates the economy and corporations.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Michamus, posted 05-10-2009 4:30 PM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Michamus, posted 05-11-2009 6:41 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 69 of 92 (508124)
05-10-2009 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Michamus
05-10-2009 4:38 PM


Re: Missed it Taz
What part of "so long as it doesn't violate another human's basic rights" did you not understand?

How is convicting someone of a crime (i said nothing about punishment) or absolving one of a crime taking away basic human rights? How is granting citizenship violating human rights? My point is that churches are not recognized in any way as a government and nothing they do sacrament-wise has any legal standing. So why should marriage be different?

Well now, we have gone from my plan which is really the same as it is now, with the exception of removing any gender stipulation, to your plan which increases government oversight... Hmmm, and you describe this as not so different?

My plan in no way increases government oversight, it only takes to power to grant a civil marriage from the clergy. The paperwork involved would not change. You plan gives legal power to religious rites, which is not constitutional.

Why oh why do people so quickly abandon themselves to the shelter of government in hopes it will defend them?

Why oh why do people so quickly abandon themselves to the shelter of God/religion/corporations in hopes it/they will defend them?


We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Michamus, posted 05-10-2009 4:38 PM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Michamus, posted 05-11-2009 6:54 AM Stagamancer has responded

    
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 70 of 92 (508177)
05-11-2009 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Theodoric
05-10-2009 4:50 PM


Re: Missed it Taz
Theodoric writes:


Your original link does not in anyway bolster your argument that Fannie Mae was responsible for the mortgage crisis.


Perhaps you should read the second part of the article I quoted?

Theodoric writes:


Oh and by the way. I love how you don't even bother to counter my arguments about Fannie Mae and CRA.


LOL! Hmmm, perhaps you should read that article I provided again? If you can't connect the dots on your own, by doing your own research. and going where the evidence leads you, all while leaving your bias at the door, then there is nothing I can do for you.

Theodoric writes:


I believe the federal government does a lot of good. Evidently, you don't. That is fine. I like my interstate highways, I like that we have uniform commerce laws, I like that the government regulates the economy and corporations.


Keep living in your dreamland. You act as thought the federal government spearheaded all those endeavors.

"How pleasant it must be to live as a slave, never having to think for yourself."
-Pompeii

Perhaps the best place for further discussion on this topic would be a new thread?

Edited by Michamus, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2009 4:50 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 05-11-2009 8:47 AM Michamus has responded

    
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 71 of 92 (508179)
05-11-2009 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Stagamancer
05-10-2009 7:43 PM


Re: Missed it Taz
Stagamancer writes:


How is convicting someone of a crime (i said nothing about punishment)


Hmmm, Probably because it violates the 6th Amendment. What are the first 10 amendments in the US Constitution again?

Stagamancer writes:


or absolving one of a crime taking away basic human rights?


Why the heck would a religious institution want to grant pardons for offenses against the United States? You are certainly reaching.

Stagamancer writes:


My plan in no way increases government oversight, it only takes to power to grant a civil marriage from the clergy.


and gives it to... oh that's right, the government. So you now have effectively given the government complete oversight on marriage.

Stagamancer writes:


You plan gives legal power to religious rites


It gives no legal power which does not already exist.

Stagamancer writes:


which is not constitutional.


Please explain what part of the constitution this would violate? I certainly hope you don't try and say the first amendment, because I would probably die from laughter. Now that I think about it, that would be quite ironic that I died from something so harmless as laughter, considering I am almost a month away from coming home.

Stagamancer writes:


Why oh why do people so quickly abandon themselves to the shelter of God/religion/corporations in hopes it/they will defend them?


I don't know why people do that, seems you are more qualified than I to answer that.

Edited by Michamus, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Stagamancer, posted 05-10-2009 7:43 PM Stagamancer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Stagamancer, posted 05-11-2009 12:29 PM Michamus has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 72 of 92 (508187)
05-11-2009 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Michamus
05-11-2009 6:41 AM


Re: Missed it Taz
quote:
Perhaps you should read the second part of the article I quoted?

So how does an article from 1999 prophecize the economic problems of 2009?

You keep saying this article shows that Fannie Mae is responsible for the economic crisis. It is a ten year old article. Yes it highlights some of the risks involved but it cannot show that it was the cause of a crisis in 2009. That would be magic.

I have shown current data showing that your premise is false. Again maybe you can find something current to back your belief.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Michamus, posted 05-11-2009 6:41 AM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Michamus, posted 05-11-2009 7:59 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 73 of 92 (508193)
05-11-2009 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by subbie
05-08-2009 7:41 PM


Re: What?!!!
subbie writes:

LinearAq writes:

Should a caterer be held accountable for refusing to provide service for an interracial wedding because of his personal religious objections?

Should a caterer be held accountable for refusing to provide service for an interfaith wedding because of his personal religious objections? In this case a pastor would probably be well within his rights to refuse to officiate at the marriage.

In both cases I think that the caterer in question would be vilified in the press. Do you believe that he should not?

Irrelevant to the topic. We all have the right to do innumerable things that would we be vilified in the press for doing.

Then should the caterers in the two instances above be held criminally liable or be judged liable in a civil suit? (Please forgive any inexact usage of legal terminology).

You seem to agree that the two instances proposed by me are the same as the issues involving services for gay weddings. Is it really a matter of public opinion? Shouldn't the laws that govern the issues of racial discrimination cover this situation equally as well?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by subbie, posted 05-08-2009 7:41 PM subbie has not yet responded

    
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 74 of 92 (508211)
05-11-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Michamus
05-11-2009 6:54 AM


Re: Missed it Taz
You're obviously missing my points completely. Most religious sacraments are not legally binding. The only exception is marriage, and that doesn't make sense. There's a difference between marriage the religious rite (which differs from religion to religion) and civil marriage, which is a legal contract (that is the same for all americans who are currently allowed to marry). My points about religions not being able to offer pardons or grant citizenship were to show how ridiculous it would be for religions to be able to do that. Obviously they're not, and it would be crazy to think they should. So why should any religious rite receive recognition by the US government?

Please explain what part of the constitution this would violate?

Recognizing a religious rite and giving it legal standing is endorsing a religion, whether you do it for all religions or not. Plus, how do you define a religion, are you going to let just anybody start marrying anybody else as long as they claim their a religion? It gets way to hairy. If you want something to be a legal contract, you need to leave religion out of it.


We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Michamus, posted 05-11-2009 6:54 AM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Michamus, posted 05-11-2009 7:58 PM Stagamancer has responded

    
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 75 of 92 (508246)
05-11-2009 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Stagamancer
05-11-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Missed it Taz
Stagamancer writes:


Recognizing a religious rite and giving it legal standing is endorsing a religion, whether you do it for all religions or not.


Let's look at the First Amendment
quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


"no law respecting an establishment of religion"
This sounds to me (and apparently our judiciary as well) that this is saying congress is not to adopt a specific religion. It says nothing about whether congress can allow rights to all religions without bias toward any.
Now, if the founders had put "Congress shall make no law respecting any religions", then you would have an argument.

Stagamancer writes:


Plus, how do you define a religion, are you going to let just anybody start marrying anybody else as long as they claim their a religion?


You are focusing on the wrong part of the First Amendment, the "an establishment of" should be what pops out, not the "religion". And sure, why shouldn't anybody be able to marry anyone else if they claim to be a religion so long as they are adults?

Stagamancer writes:

It gets way to hairy.


Heaven forbid anything should happen that would make Stagamancer uncomfortable.

Stagamancer writes:


If you want something to be a legal contract, you need to leave religion out of it.


You keep insisting that marriage need be licensed. Why is it necessary marriage be licensed at all? I understand the tax benefits of marriage, and the rights you have for visitation etc... but do you honestly think a hospital would refuse a spouse to be at their loved one's side if there wasn't a government overseer?

From what it appears (to me at least) you like things to be nice and neat, in tidy little compartments, with everything defined under control. I would prefer to allow people to be people, and let the government worry about what it was founded for... Tariffs, Managing a Navy, and any inter-state affairs.

I really find it ridiculous that some people feel they should be able to tell others how to live. This behavior doesn't seem to limited to just the religious fundamentalist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Stagamancer, posted 05-11-2009 12:29 PM Stagamancer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 05-11-2009 8:30 PM Michamus has responded
 Message 78 by Stagamancer, posted 05-11-2009 10:03 PM Michamus has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019