Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 6:35 PM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, jar (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,868 Year: 8,904/19,786 Month: 1,326/2,119 Week: 86/576 Day: 86/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
48495051Next
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
saab93f
Member (Idle past 875 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(1)
Message 691 of 759 (761051)
06-27-2015 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 690 by ringo
06-27-2015 1:04 PM


Re: Love reign o'er Everyone!!!
I think it's mostly the LOUD Christians who are protesting. If it wasn't gay marriage, they'd find something else for their doom-and-gloom-saying. It has nothing to do with religion, morality, etc. It's just a pathological need to be LOUD.

Could be - OTOH their religion nor the presumed morality doesn't seem to set any boundaries to how vile a human being can be towards another. Au contraire - the fact that they have for so long been the bullies and told others how to live their lives just goes to show, if nothing else, that faith nor religion do not make a better man.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by ringo, posted 06-27-2015 1:04 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 692 of 759 (761054)
06-27-2015 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by Jon
06-27-2015 8:50 AM


Re: Love reign o'er Everyone!!!
This was not that big of a deal when the Supreme Court ruled; politicians and the media just made it seem as though it was so they could continue to pull food off your plate and shingles off your house.

God damn it, Joe Biden's on the roof again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by Jon, posted 06-27-2015 8:50 AM Jon has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2027
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 693 of 759 (761096)
06-28-2015 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 688 by anglagard
06-27-2015 12:18 PM


Re: Love reign o'er Everyone!!!
Me too. I guess that American companies send out the top crop to work and lead their endeavours overseas.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by anglagard, posted 06-27-2015 12:18 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


(4)
Message 694 of 759 (761132)
06-28-2015 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by NoNukes
06-26-2015 5:38 PM


Re: Love reign o'er Everyone!!!
In the US, love is officially for everyone!
Only hate lost today!

or as said here on "Cyanide & Happiness"

http://explosm.net/comics/3970/

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by NoNukes, posted 06-26-2015 5:38 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3110
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 7.7


(6)
Message 695 of 759 (761178)
06-29-2015 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 667 by Faith
06-26-2015 4:50 PM


I call them like I see them. Frankly, the conservative fundamentalist Christian does not follow the bible or Jesus, but follows hate instead, and cherry picks from the bible to justify their bigotry
This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 06-26-2015 4:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18476
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 696 of 759 (768564)
09-12-2015 9:14 AM


Redefining Marriage
Omnivorous posted this image over at Humour VIII in Message 362:

I couldn't find where in the Bible it says anything about selling daughters into marriage. It does mention selling daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and I suppose buyers could marry them, but how is barring the practice a redefinition of marriage?

I'm curious. Marriage in the Old Testament used to be between one man and many women (e.g., Exodus 21:10). Where in the Bible was it redefined to be between one man and one woman? Poking around on the Internet, this seems to be a complicated subject, but it does feel like there is at least some basis for arguing that modern religions in western-style countries, and probably in much of the world, have redefined marriage by ruling out the multiple wives option, and probably most countries have laws against bigamy.

In any case, there's a long tradition of marriage between one man and one women. Allowing marriage between two men or two women does seem a redefinition, and when Kim Davis signed up for her job marriage was between one man and one woman, so redefining marriage seems to have also redefined her job.

The Supreme Court cannot create law, only interpret it, so the only way they could allow gay marriage was to redefine marriage, and they did. But I believe it would have been better if a new category of union had been created by Congress that had all the rights of marriage but was only civil in nature and not called marriage. This union could later be blessed as marriage by any religion willing to do so. Kim Davis could in good conscience sign these licenses for civil unions that are not marriage.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 697 by AZPaul3, posted 09-12-2015 10:15 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 698 by herebedragons, posted 09-12-2015 10:44 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 699 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2015 12:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 702 by nwr, posted 09-12-2015 2:00 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 703 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2015 4:02 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 704 by Omnivorous, posted 09-12-2015 4:25 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 705 by Omnivorous, posted 09-12-2015 5:21 PM Percy has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4088
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 697 of 759 (768567)
09-12-2015 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 696 by Percy
09-12-2015 9:14 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
when Kim Davis signed up for her job marriage was between one man and one woman, so redefining marriage seems to have also redefined her job.

Davis' job is to issue validated marriage licenses. Her job does not involve defining marriage to any extent whatsoever. There has been no redefinition of her job.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Percy, posted 09-12-2015 9:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1508
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 698 of 759 (768575)
09-12-2015 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 696 by Percy
09-12-2015 9:14 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
But I believe it would have been better if a new category of union had been created by Congress that had all the rights of marriage but was only civil in nature and not called marriage. This union could later be blessed as marriage by any religion willing to do so.

I completely agree. However, I don't think same sex advocates would have been satisfied. It does seem as they were determined to have marriage redefined and this does seem as if it was meant to be a direct confrontation with the Christian position rather than an attempt to find a working solution that satisfied both groups.

My concern is that now that marriage has been redefined that churches and clergy will be unable to refuse to perform or allow same sex marriages in their buildings. It has been stated that churches will still have the right to refuse to perform same sex marriages, but on what grounds? They would not be able to refuse to perform inter-racial marriages or marriages to other protected classes of persons and now same sex couples are considered a protected class.

I am just not sure how much of a difference allowing same sex civil unions rather than marriages would really make in some people's minds. It is really just giving a different name to the same thing.

Kim Davis could in good conscience sign these licenses for civil unions that are not marriage.

The way I understand it, the county clerk's job it to certify that the applicants have met all the requirements of the state for marriage. It is not an endorsement of the marriage as such, but a recognition that the applicants have a legal right to enter into a marriage contract, which under the law, same sex couples do have a legal right. To me this is essentially a civil union. It is a contract between a couple and the state; it is not a religious agreement at all.

The difficultly is that churches recognize those state contracts as valid marriages. In other words, if I were to get married at the court house and never have a church sponsored wedding, the church would still recognize the marriage as valid. There really is no distinction between the secular contract and the religious contract. So if there were to be a new category of "civil union" and when you submitted an application you had to choose either "civil union" or "marriage" and a heterosexual couple chose "civil union" would the church not recognize them as married? Or would marriage then be a two step process... civil union at the courthouse and a marriage if a church sanctions it?

Bottom line... would it be "OK" to bake a cake for a same sex civil union celebration? Probably not. So I am not sure this would solve the problem. Personally I oppose same sex marriage and I do believe it is a violation of what God intended for marriage. BUT I recognize that it is a serious social issue that we need to address and accept that there are a significant group of people who do not agree with my position. So I suggest that maybe it is the church that needs to make some changes... not necessarily approving of same sex marriage, but determining how to accommodate and respond to new and changing social norms. So far, the church's response isn't working so well.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Percy, posted 09-12-2015 9:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2015 12:19 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 701 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 12:37 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 699 of 759 (768599)
09-12-2015 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by Percy
09-12-2015 9:14 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
The Supreme Court cannot create law, only interpret it, so the only way they could allow gay marriage was to redefine marriage, and they did.

I think the idea that the SC 'redefined marriage' is total BS and accepting that is essentially yielding ground to bigots. Did we redefine the meaning of 'polite society' so that colored folks could participate? Does accepting Chinese people mean that we have redefined the meaning of 'human being'. I can imagine that some people might have wanted to phrase it that way back in the 1950s or even in 1865.

The commitment and meaning of marriages between opposite sex couples is exactly the same as it was last year. The fact that other combinations of people can also get married changes nothing for previously married people.

But I believe it would have been better if a new category of union had been created by Congress that had all the rights of marriage but was only civil in nature and not called marriage.

Yet another 'separate but equal' solution, right? I disagree. Creating a new category of union would not have been better. Which one of Congress' enumerated powers do you think would allow such a thing, anyway? Tax and Spend?

And then would bigots be willing to make a 'union cake' rather than a 'wedding cake'? I doubt it.

If in fact, the past state of the law represented states legislating Biblical views of marriage, why would that be constitutional? Only because it was traditional rather than merely Biblical, and tradition that discriminates and hurts other people is not worth preserving; at least in my view.

Eventually the butt hurt people who are outraged and worried about what other people are doing will die off and get out of the way of the happiness of everybody else. Screw 'em.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Percy, posted 09-12-2015 9:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 700 of 759 (768602)
09-12-2015 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 698 by herebedragons
09-12-2015 10:44 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
My concern is that now that marriage has been redefined that churches and clergy will be unable to refuse to perform or allow same sex marriages in their buildings. It has been stated that churches will still have the right to refuse to perform same sex marriages, but on what grounds?

What happens today when churches refuse to perform interracial marriages, or elect only to perform marriages for church members, or when the pastor requires that the couple undergo his counseling before marrying them?

Nothing. Churches currently have complete discretion on whom they marry and whom they bury and they don't have to state any grounds for refusal. If there is an issue in this regard it will be on state officials that perform civil marriage ceremonies.

Complete red herring. Stop parroting the bigots.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by herebedragons, posted 09-12-2015 10:44 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 701 of 759 (768607)
09-12-2015 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 698 by herebedragons
09-12-2015 10:44 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
They would not be able to refuse to perform inter-racial marriages ...

Yes they are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by herebedragons, posted 09-12-2015 10:44 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(7)
Message 702 of 759 (768630)
09-12-2015 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by Percy
09-12-2015 9:14 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
But I believe it would have been better if a new category of union had been created by Congress that had all the rights of marriage but was only civil in nature and not called marriage. This union could later be blessed as marriage by any religion willing to do so. Kim Davis could in good conscience sign these licenses for civil unions that are not marriage.

I don't object to the principle. But, in order to do this, you would have to change thousands of laws so as to include these civil unions. I'm pretty sure that the conservatives would be attempting to block those changes.

But why is this even needed? Marriage is already a civil union. That's why the state issues marriage licenses. The Churches already use their own special terminology of "holy matrimony" for the cases that they endorse. Nobody is attempting tell the Churches how they should define "holy matrimony".


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Percy, posted 09-12-2015 9:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 703 of 759 (768635)
09-12-2015 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by Percy
09-12-2015 9:14 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
I couldn't find where in the Bible it says anything about selling daughters into marriage.

Genesis 29:

Jacob agreed to work for seven years to earn Rachel for his wife, and was cheated and tricked into sleeping with Leah. Jacob then worked a second seven years in order to receive Rachel.

More along similar lines...

quote:

Biblical marriage is a man arranging to buy a girl from her father for an agreed upon purchase price (Genesis 29:18).

Biblical marriage is a wife giving, regardless of her maid servant's wishes, her servant to her husband as a wife for sex and procreation (Genesis 16:2-3, Genesis 30:3, Genesis 30:9, etc.)

Biblical marriage is a raiding party murdering the fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters of a people but saving the young virgins because they want wives [i.e. women to capture and rape, legally] (Judges 21:10-14)

Biblical marriage is a raiding party lying in wait to capture more women as wives to legally rape (Judges 21:20-24)

Biblical marriage is a victim being forced to marry her rapist with no hope of divorce [but don't worry her father is suitably compensated in cash for the trouble, and this is only valid if the woman is not already another man's property...so relax, no property rights are violated by this arrangement!] (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Biblical marriage is selling your daughter as a slave to be given to her owner or owner's son for sexual exploitation as a wife [though denied the minimal protections of a wife] (Exodus 21:7-11)

Biblical marriage is one man taking multiple, even hundreds, of wives and concubines (see: David, Solomon, Jacob, Abraham, etc.)
Biblical marriage is a woman as property whose own happiness is inconsequential, but whose property status is absolute (see: David and Michal)


http://www.dailykos.com/...ecause-it-isn-t-Biblical-marriage#


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Percy, posted 09-12-2015 9:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1130 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 704 of 759 (768636)
09-12-2015 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by Percy
09-12-2015 9:14 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
I stand by my cartoon.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
-Terence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Percy, posted 09-12-2015 9:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1130 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(2)
Message 705 of 759 (768643)
09-12-2015 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by Percy
09-12-2015 9:14 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
Percy writes:

This union could later be blessed as marriage by any religion willing to do so. Kim Davis could in good conscience sign these licenses for civil unions that are not marriage.

If you mean all future couples, straight and gay, would involve the state only in obtaining licenses for legally identical civil unions, I am confident Ms. Davis would not sign. Her visceral objection is essentially contagion by equal treatment. That wouldn't change.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
-Terence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Percy, posted 09-12-2015 9:14 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by Percy, posted 09-13-2015 7:38 AM Omnivorous has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
48495051Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019