Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
26 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, PaulK (3 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3122
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 721 of 759 (768776)
09-13-2015 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by Faith
09-13-2015 7:49 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
I don't see how. How does a gay person getting married effect your marriage?

Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by Faith, posted 09-13-2015 7:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 723 by Rrhain, posted 09-14-2015 12:17 AM ramoss has not yet responded
 Message 757 by saab93f, posted 09-17-2015 7:11 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(9)
Message 722 of 759 (768782)
09-14-2015 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 706 by Percy
09-13-2015 7:38 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
Percy writes:

quote:
I was proposing two different types, one called a "union" (or any agreed upon label) and the other called a "marriage."

Let's ignore the unconstitutional and patently offensive suggestion that "separate but equal" should be given to gay people. Let's actually go with it.

OK: If there are people out there who cannot handle the concept of equality under the law, they are free to come up with a new word to describe their special friendships. I know! "Holy matrimony." It has lots of benefits: People already know the phrase, it points out their religious objection to equality, and it emphasizes the difference between the legal contract of marriage and the religious ceremony.

Of course, there's the problem that "holy matrimony" has no legal meaning, no legal recognition, no legal significance, but that's the price those who cannot handle equality have to pay. They were the ones who decided to separate themselves from marriage. They will need to fight to justify their need for a "separate but equal" contract.

Of course, there are plenty of churches that provide ceremonies for same-sex couples, so even "holy matrimony" will have some trouble.

If this is truly a question of semantics, then it's the people who are confused about marriage who need to come up with a term to describe what it is they're in so that it can be distinguished from marriage. The term "marriage" is already in use and everybody knows what it means. That's why when Loving v. Virginia was decided, we didn't have this silliness of "interracial matrimony" to describe interracial couples. The law already understood what "marriage" meant and thus, no laws needed to be rewritten; not at the federal level, not at the state level, not at the local level, no treaties with other nations regarding reciprocity of the marriage contract. That's because the contract of marriage didn't change.

The problem with a "separate but equal" contract is that by calling it something different, you necessarily declare that it is something different and thus it can be treated differently. We have seen this in every attempt to have a "separate but equal" contract of "civil union." Every single time, despite legal demands from the courts that the contracts had to be equivalent, the contracts were different: Different ages of consent, different rights and responsibilities (the case in California was decided on the fact that there were multiple distinctions between the contract of marriage and the contract of civil union despite the mandate that they be equivalent), and the simple fact that they don't go from state to state the way that marriages do.

If there are two things that are supposed to be the same thing, then you call them the same thing. The only way to ensure that all contracts are equivalent is to have only one contract.

It is naught but homophobic bigotry to insist that gay people have to be treated as second-class citizens in order to coddle the pwecious fee-fees of the bigots. We didn't do this when we let blacks get married. And I mean to each other. It used to be the case that blacks weren't allowed to get married at all. We didn't come up with "black union" when we realized that treating them equally didn't deny whites anything. We didn't come up with "interracial union" when we realized that interracial couples don't deny whites anything. Why do gays have to be the ones who have to just take it from the bigots?

If it's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?

And to Faith's idea that "blacks find it offensive," I find it offensive that anybody would dare to deny the equivalency of the fight for civil rights based upon race with the fight for civil rights based upon sexual orientation. If we're going to go down that road, gays have it worse:

You don't have to come out to your parents as black.

Your parents won't kick you out of the house because you're black.

It is illegal to lose your job because you're black, but legal if you're gay. The fight for marriage equality has made life very difficult for many gays: If you get married, you just declared yourself to be gay and your employer can fire you for it.

It is illegal to be denied housing because you're black, but legal if you're gay.

You don't have your children taken away from you because you're black.

It is still legal in this country to torture gay people. It's called "reparative therapy" and often involves "treatments" such as hooking your genitals up to electrodes and being administered electric shocks while you are made to look at gay images. People are actually going to court to fight to be able to do this to minors because their parents have decided to send them to "treatment" in order to "cure the gay.'

Are there differences between being black and being gay? Of course. But to pretend that it is somehow an offense for gay people to insist that we take the lessons that we learned from the Civil Rights movement and apply them to the Gay Rights movement is disingenuous at best.

It's the last gasp of someone who knows that he's a bigot and is lashing out at being identified as such.


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 706 by Percy, posted 09-13-2015 7:38 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2015 12:53 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 726 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 7:58 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 723 of 759 (768783)
09-14-2015 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 721 by ramoss
09-13-2015 10:29 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
ramoss writes:

quote:
How does a gay person getting married effect your marriage?

Well, if you're marrying a gay person, then that gay person getting married "effects" your marriage since it has the "effect" of causing you to be married.

I know...I know...spelling flame.


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 721 by ramoss, posted 09-13-2015 10:29 PM ramoss has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 724 of 759 (768784)
09-14-2015 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 722 by Rrhain
09-14-2015 12:14 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
If we're going to go down that road, gays have it worse:

You don't have to come out to your parents as black.

These are the kinds of comparisons that are probably counterproductive. For one thing, it turns out to be possible to be black and gay. For a second thing, silently "passing" or being in the closet has never been anything like an option for most black people. Thirdly, few non-black gay people can claim that their ancestors arrived in this country in shackles in the bottom of someone's ship as property. And maybe now you can no longer get fired for being black, but it still might be the case that you don't even get an education that allows you to qualify for a job because your parents are black.

Your point is well taken that the gay rights are exactly the same basic civil rights that were at stake during the civil rights movement, and that the treatment of gay people has been horrific and unfair. There are strong parallels to be drawn. And yeah, there are ways that gays have it worse, particularly now. But saying gay people generally have it worse jumps the shark just a bit. And I'm not sure that promoting the idea does anything except provide cover for bigots.


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 722 by Rrhain, posted 09-14-2015 12:14 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 725 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2015 7:37 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 728 by Rrhain, posted 09-14-2015 3:53 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 725 of 759 (768801)
09-14-2015 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 724 by NoNukes
09-14-2015 12:53 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
... For a second thing, silently "passing" or being in the closet has never been anything like an option for most black people. ...

But it is for some.

It is a curious thing about racial laws ... if you are part black and part white you are classed as "colored" (black\them). "mixed" is not a race choice.

As a result there are lots of shades of people out there that are called "black" ... and some can "pass for white" ... and do, and then you have the issue of coming out of the "closet" to being of mixed racial heritage -- and be classed as "black"

It is possible for a person to be of black, hispanic, native and white heritage -- and labels begin to fall apart.

/musing


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 724 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2015 12:53 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 726 of 759 (768805)
09-14-2015 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 722 by Rrhain
09-14-2015 12:14 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
Hi Rrhain,

I gave your message a cheer, here's my thank you for that excellent reply.

What do you think of the argument that where we are today is the result of past failures to fully separate church and state? If we trace marriage back to medieval times, originally all marriage was religious marriage. Once the idea of separation of church and state began to take hold it no longer made any sense for marriage status to matter to the civil mechanisms of the state, but that's not what happened. Anachronistically, as the west began to form governments less and less intertwined with religion, it continued to care about marriage status in ways that affect tax bills and the right to information about someone in the hospital, among many other things.

But we can't fix this accident of history, and so we're left to somehow deal with a contradictory and inconsistent composite of religious and civil. Any solutions will themselves inescapably contain contradictions and inconsistencies.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by Rrhain, posted 09-14-2015 12:14 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2015 11:30 AM Percy has responded
 Message 729 by Rrhain, posted 09-14-2015 4:11 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 727 of 759 (768830)
09-14-2015 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 726 by Percy
09-14-2015 7:58 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
What do you think of the argument that where we are today is the result of past failures to fully separate church and state? If we trace marriage back to medieval times, originally all marriage was religious marriage.

Marriage was originally a civil institution that was co-opted by the Catholic Church during the later part of the medieval period. At least that's what I gather from reading the wikipedia article on common law marriage.

quote:
n medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognized as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband, even in absence of any witnesses.

The Catholic Church forbade clandestine marriage at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which required all marriages to be announced in a church by a priest. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) introduced more specific requirements, ruling that in the future a marriage would be valid only if witnessed by the pastor of the parish or the local ordinary (i.e., the bishop of the diocese), or by the delegate of one of said witnesses, the marriage being invalid otherwise, even if witnessed by a Catholic priest. The Tridentine canons did not bind the Protestants or the Eastern Orthodox, but clandestine marriage was impossible for the latter, since marriage required the presence of a priest for validity. England abolished clandestine or common law marriages in the Marriage Act 1753


Of course common law marriage in the US was not repealed by the English Marriage Act. Some states still allow it.

I don't think any of that counters your general point that marriage is intertwined with religion, but I do not agree that absent that intertwining, that it does not make sense for the state to consider or care about marriage status because that status is an indicator of the relationship between two people, and that relationship reasonably matters in many instances. Maybe not tax bills (although I think I could make a case it does make sense to tax marital partners as a unit), but certainly in matters such as inheritance and making medical decisions.


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 726 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 7:58 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 740 by Percy, posted 09-15-2015 7:49 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 728 of 759 (768867)
09-14-2015 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 724 by NoNukes
09-14-2015 12:53 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
NoNukes responds to me:

quote:
These are the kinds of comparisons that are probably counterproductive.

In most cases, yes. Civil rights are civil rights and it really doesn't matter why someone is trying to deny them. It's wrong to deny them and it is evil to try and justify it as "sincerely held religious beliefs." It means your "religious beliefs" are that there are people who aren't worthy of the full respect you demand for yourself. At best, it means you are rude to them. More typically, you actively try to exterminate them from the world in ways subtle and gross.

But are times where it's important to look at how people treat others based upon the specific trait because it shows us what we need to overcome. When you're gay, you're always waiting for the other shoe to drop. If you have an obvious trait such as being a woman or not white, then there is no "betrayal" to be had. The other person knew what you were from the very beginning. That doesn't stop them from being any less horrible, but you know right away what is going to happen because it's all up front.

But if you have a trait that isn't obvious such as being gay, then you have to constantly decide if you're going to reveal it. After all, it often isn't relevant to the situation at hand. But if you don't, you always have to wonder what is going to happen when they find out. You have to keep everybody at a bit of a distance until you can determine whether or not it's safe to actually be who you are.

And when they do find out, even if they're friendly, there's still a sense of betrayal. "Why didn't you trust me enough to tell me?" And if they're bigots, their hatred of you is intensified because suddenly it's your fault for "tricking" them. There's a reason that trans people suffer even worse than gay people when people find out. Hate crimes against gays are bad but trans people are more severely beaten and/or killed.

The point behind this is that those who have obvious traits have a support system in their family that will stick with them. Our society, as imperfect as it is, at least pays lip service to the idea of the fundamental dignity of those who aren't white. Gays quite often don't have that. At the very least, gay people are raised by straight people. They are raised with the idea that they will be straight and have to find those who will accept them. The most common reason for homelessness for children, about half of all homeless children, is being kicked out of the house for being gay or trans. As imperfect as our legal system is with regard to race, there is still an understanding that you're not supposed to do that to those who aren't white. We aren't fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to try and find justifications for discriminating against black people.

In Louisiana back in 2009, a JP denied an interracial couple a marriage license. Nobody came to his defense. Because of Kim Davis, the Republicans are trying to pass a "First Amendment Defense Act" which will prevent any prosecution of any government official for denying services to a gay couple because they don't want to accept them as married.

That means your Social Security application might not be processed, the IRS agent can audit you because you filed your taxes "fraudulently" as a married couple, the clerk at the DMV can refuse your driver's license change of name when you get married, and on and on.

So yeah, injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. But we cannot work to end bigotry without understanding how it manifests.

Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a "no" that changed the meaning of a sentence.

Edited by Rrhain, : Fixing phrasing.


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 724 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2015 12:53 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 729 of 759 (768875)
09-14-2015 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by Percy
09-14-2015 7:58 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
Percy,

As NoNukes pointed out, you have it backwards: Marriage was a civil institution that religion attached itself to...but not surprising given how often church and state intertwine given they both concern themselves with power over others in a society.

But there will always be a need for a governmental institution of "marriage": You suddenly take ill and are unable to make decisions for yourself. Who makes those decisions for you? In the Terry Schiavo case, there was a conflict between her parents and her husband. Who takes precedence? Or should your fate be in the hands of the government itself should you not have established directives beforehand with no other person of your choice ever being allowed to make those decisions for you?

You die intestate. What happens to your property?

Are you allowed to sponsor anybody for citizenship into your country?

All of these things and more are a part of "marriage." You can simulate a lot of them through other contracts such as power of attorney, living wills, trusts, etc., but they are much more expensive, don't cover everything, and will require the assistance of a legal professional to make sure that you're doing everything that you want to do. Thus, we have the contract of "marriage" that puts it all together into a single package (and includes things that you simply cannot get through other contracts such as SSI survivor benefits).

The simple fact is that people form families. They need the government to help them maintain those families. One of the ways governments do that is to provide a contract of "marriage" that helps people who have no other connection to each other have a legal recognition that they are a family.

The problem is not that the government is "intruding" on the actions of the church. It's that the church thinks it is control of the state. There's a reason that the people who are complaining are the ones who insist that "America was founded on the Bible."


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 726 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 7:58 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 5:15 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 730 of 759 (768884)
09-14-2015 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 729 by Rrhain
09-14-2015 4:11 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
Rrhain writes:

As NoNukes pointed out, you have it backwards: Marriage was a civil institution that religion attached itself to...

I think many religions would disagree, but I don't want to get into what would probably become a very long debate. I'm sure there are many good arguments on both sides. But I do wonder how marriage could have originally been a civil institution distinct from religion if from man's earliest days there was no separation at all between government and religion. If you're tracing marriage's origins back to a time when church and state were one, don't you have to instead argue that it was a personal affair between a man and woman a having nothing to do at all with either church or state?

But there will always be a need for a governmental institution of "marriage":

Of course.

The problem is not that the government is "intruding" on the actions of the church. It's that the church thinks it is control of the state. There's a reason that the people who are complaining are the ones who insist that "America was founded on the Bible."

I think the problem is the one I already mentioned, that church and state aren't as separate as we sometimes claim. While I wouldn't agree with the fundamentalists who claim that America was founded as a Christian and Bible-fearing nation, it is certainly true that government and religion were much more intertwined then than they are today. We have gradually over time increased the degree of separation between them, but some entanglements yet remain, and marriage is one of them. One side can claim marriage is an inherently civil bond that religion co-opted, and the other side can counter-claim that marriage is a holy bond blessed by God that government co-opted, and depending upon when and where you're talking about both would be right.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by Rrhain, posted 09-14-2015 4:11 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 731 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2015 5:34 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 732 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2015 6:43 PM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15440
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(9)
Message 731 of 759 (768887)
09-14-2015 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by Percy
09-14-2015 5:15 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
I'd point out that claims to ownership of the concept are not only questionable, but irrelevant. In so far as marriage is a matter of law it is regulated by law, and in the U.S. - since the Bill of Rights at the very least - that is the province of a secular government that is supposed to not give special status to any religion. The legal arguments must take precedence over religious belief. Religious organisations can restrict the weddings that they offer as they will, which is the only power that they should have.

Once you get to the situation where your legal rights can be denied simply because someone else has a religious objection to them, you do not have a free or fair society.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 5:15 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 732 of 759 (768891)
09-14-2015 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by Percy
09-14-2015 5:15 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
If you're tracing marriage's origins back to a time when church and state were one, don't you have to instead argue that it was a personal affair between a man and woman a having nothing to do at all with either church or state?

Exactly.

Between a man and a women, their family, and the community that the announce their relationship to and from whom they expect respect for their marriage. That's enough to make it a civil matter.


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 730 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 5:15 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 7:37 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 733 of 759 (768898)
09-14-2015 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by NoNukes
09-14-2015 6:43 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
NoNukes writes:

Between a man and a women, their family, and the community that the announce their relationship to and from whom they expect respect for their marriage. That's enough to make it a civil matter.

I've been using the definition of "civil" that means associated with the state.

It seems to me that even the earliest states (and church, such as they were at the time) would have involved themselves in the affairs of their citizens, including especially marriage.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2015 6:43 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2015 8:57 PM Percy has responded
 Message 737 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2015 1:21 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 734 of 759 (768903)
09-14-2015 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 733 by Percy
09-14-2015 7:37 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
It seems to me that even the earliest states (and church, such as they were at the time) would have involved themselves in the affairs of their citizens, including especially marriage.

Hasn't this discussion moved beyond the point where some authority ought to be cited? I've done that, but you seem to be relying on your opinion about how history unfolded. The references I've posted suggest a history of marriage with little to no state involvement followed by the Church getting involved.

The facts as I can find them suggest that your suppositions are wrong and that marriage evolved and flourished without state or church involvement for a substantial period of time and for even later at time in history for the US than for Europe, and that the initial involvement was mere registration, which is a secular activity regardless of who conducts it.


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 733 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 7:37 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 735 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 10:01 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 735 of 759 (768911)
09-14-2015 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 734 by NoNukes
09-14-2015 8:57 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
NoNukes writes:

The references I've posted suggest a history of marriage with little to no state involvement followed by the Church getting involved.

I think you're missing that I was responding in the broader context that Rrhain described (see Message 729 where he describes some rights conveyed by marriage regarding illness, death, families, etc.), while you seem at this point mainly focused on the marriage event itself and are assuming I disagree with you. I don't.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2015 8:57 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 736 by NoNukes, posted 09-15-2015 12:14 AM Percy 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