|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 503 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: State amendments regarding gay marriage | |||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I don't believe that marriage is strictly Judeo-Christian. Surely we see pair-bonding in other cultures as well? Marriage is not, marriage as it is codified in the US is. I am not going to go back and refind the sources I posted earlier, but maybe you remember (I thought it was to you anyway) that I had links showing polygamy to be the most practiced form of marriage in the world. The idea that proper relationships are "pair-bonding" and will naturally exclude, and is better for excluding others is a Judeo-Xian concept.
I realize that that's a broader definition than the government uses, but that's reason to change the gov't definition, not throw it out altogether. This is why our positions on what should be done are not so far apart. I have not said that removing marriage altogether is the ONLY or BEST solution. I guess I differ from you in that I see the merit of leaving the gov't out of it, but I am willing to be practical as people will be needing contracts anyway... why not some marriage contracts and some union contracts and some partnerships (by the way they not only have this in the Netherlands but also recognize long lived together couples)?
Civil marriage is a pair-bonding agreement. On top of being the sort of ideologue who feels like one should not be forced into sacrficing a pigeon to the state instead of zeus in order to get a certain government contract... You just said about all there needs to be said above. We do not believe that "pair-bonding" is the business of the government. If we are a pair then fine, but being forced into a Judeo-Xian concept, and therefore giving that some sort of legimitimacy. as well as accepting legal restrictions based on that concept, is not in the interest of our beliefs.
I don't see where all this Christian stuff is supposed to be, I guess. If there wasn't, why do you think most Xians are against gay marriages? Or polygamous marriages? Or discriminate against single couples? The wording may be changed to suit the palates of the more secular crowd, but it is the same as sacrificing a pigeon to the State instead of to Zeus... a needless exercise (I mean why even have a vow making ceremony) which is meant only to extend a Judeo-Xian form of social tradition.
It's just that you only get one spouse. Maybe we should change that, but marriage doesn't prevent you from adding more people to your relationship; just to your marriage. While I am glad that you are openminded enough to allow the laws to stretch, all of this should be pointing up what I am saying. They would need to change in some way just to get to fairness to those outside the Judeo-Xian culture. Hearing I can add as many as I like but I only get one spouse, is like being gay and hearing that I can marry anyone I want but I can only have a girl. That's the CATCH, and the reason I am complaining in the first place.
I believe you, but I can't imagine what those jobs are. Could you elaborate? Not because I don't believe your claim; it's just that I've never heard of such a thing. Yes, high profile jobs, or jobs with conservative companies. Adultery most certainly would get you canned from a job at a company like Disney, if it were to become public. Same goes for fornication (which is unmarried sexual activity). To prevent the suggestion of improper lifestyle (could be a womanizer or gay) a person would have to be married. The military is known for expecting officers to get married in order to rise in rank (equally). And the whole concept of the "beard" (a woman that is married to a man to cover that he is gay) comes from such business practices.
We should certainly do away with those. But those are tangental to marriage. To YOU they are tangential to marriage, but to the majority of Judeo-Xians they are not or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I mean I do agree with you that they SHOULD be, and in an objective sense they are, but then again in an objective sense MARRIAGE is tangential to taking legal responsibilities and gaining some rights regarding a significant partner(s), right? That's why marriage could realistically be done away with as a gov't program. You could of course still be married in every sense, but the papers would just be more to the point.
I mean, honestly, if you want to quibble about being "forced" to take on a name, well, that's just too silly to argue with. Husband or wife is not the same as human or adult. It has history and it has connotations. That is exactly why the majority of Xians (and indeed americans) are against gays being able to claim husband or wife status. I understand you are not them, but it seems like you are ignoring the fact that they are saying exactly what this stuff means to MOST PEOPLE. It is not silly to desire not to have to adopt someone else's religious culture and terminology just to get a basic legal document and rights for one's relationship. If terminology wasn't a big deal, as you seem to suggest, then why do you care about being called "married"? Why is it more important to be that, than have a contractual partner? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 503 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
While you guys were arguing with each other, the California Supreme Court ruled that the nearly 4,000 same sex marriages in San Francisco void and null.
The Laminator For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Sad, but not a surprise. The San Francisco thing struck me as more an act of civil disobedience on behalf of the mayor than an actual issuing of legal marriages.
"Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine, it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.' The page has been universally condemned by church leaders." -Rob Grant and Doug Naylor
|
|||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 503 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
This is a little off-topic, but I just couldn't resist posting it here.
I just went through the australian parliament website. here is a bill that bans gay marriage that just got passed today by the australian senate. It looks like America isn't the only country in the western world that harbors religious nuts. The Laminator For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
You have a near neighbor who has more sense and fairness. We are continueing to head in the direction of real freedom in this area.
Canada Rules!!! (excuse me, that wasn't very Canadian. eh? )
|
|||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 503 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Hey Ned, do you happen to know if Canada accepts immigrants from the christian nutcase overran U.S. of A.?
I am so depressed right now. It really looks like that the world is taking a step backward. People are valuing theology based bigotry over freedom. I mean, what the hell does gay rights have anything to do with these people? We are not violating their rights. We are not even asking them to recognize our rights. All we want them to do is leave us alone, for crying out loud! Here is an article about the passing of the Australian bill.
quote: I seriously almost cried when I saw the news about Australia earlier today. Ok, we need to bring Martin Luther King back to life to rally another civil right movement. The Laminator For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote:quote: Just because you claim you didn't make it doesn't mean you didn't.
quote: Why not ask them? You seem to be under the impression that I am suggesting people be allowed to sponsor others for any reason they can consider. Perhaps I am suggesting that many of the reasons that are connected to marriage can occur without the people being married.
quote: Yes and no. Wouldn't the better solution be to support people to have fulfilling lives no matter their relationships to other people rather than pushing one over all others? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote:quote: Matter of perspective. Have you considered the possibility that the problem is not that I'm repeating answered questions but rather that others repeatedly avoid the question?
quote:quote: And thus, you prove my point: Finding someone to marry is not trivial. Brittany Spears is not a refuting example. If finding someone to marry were simple, why are there so many articles written to women about how to get their guy to commit and get married?
quote:quote: But disingenuous at best and therefore worthless.
quote:quote: Yes, it is. This leads us to a question: How to handle relationships between people who are not in a sexual relationship? The full contract of marriage does include regulations of sexual conduct (after all, failure to consummate is grounds for annulment). Perhaps we need to come up with essentially a set of rights and responsibilities in packages of which "marriage" gives you one set, "dependent cohabitants" gives you another set, etc. Yes, I know: Separate but equal isn't. But that's precisely the point: A relationship between siblings is not the same as a marriage precisely because the siblings aren't having sex. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Perhaps we need to come up with essentially a set of rights and responsibilities in packages of which "marriage" gives you one set, "dependent cohabitants" gives you another set, etc. Works for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
As if it isn't bad enough Oklahomans are set to reject same sex marriages, now apparently the Cherokee National Congress is joining in...
Error For people who have been oppressed for so long I guess it must feel great to finally be able to turn around and punch someone else in the face. Anyhow, I guess there go the arguments that Native Americans had concepts of same sex marriages. I have to say I am still puzzling over why the person in tha article commenting on how bad it'll be if Native Americans have same sex weddings, goes by the name of O'Leary. This message has been edited by holmes, 08-21-2004 11:16 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024