|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I still want a different word for 'gay marriage' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't care if its with a guy because it couldn't have been a legitimate marriage in the first place.
Well, if we make gay marriage legal, then it gets legitimized, now doesn't it? Well, I was talking about legitimate in my opinion but lets not digress.
but if it's fake, it wasn't a real marriage in the first place. It becomes different, to me, when religion is considered. This is in the context of whether or not the fake marriage is with a guy or a girl.
Ok, but I don't see why your dishonesty is anybody else's problem. Combined with all of the other people's dishonesty and it could become everyone's problem. That's what I think we should avoid. That's why I don't support calling gay-marriages marriage.
I don't see why my uncle-in-law would have to be barred from his husband's room at the hospital simply because you don't have a problem with being dishonest. Can you explain it to me? No, that doesn't make any sense to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
and I think they are trying to define it as it was originally intended. *scratches head* So... we are going to purchase thirteen year-old child brides again? 'Cuz seriously... I could use free maid service.
I don't equate not including with actively excluding. I typed and deleted a few sarcastic replies to this, but none of them could really do my reaction justice. (Not without breaking forum rules, at least.) You can choose to not equate them all you like. You can also, while you're at it, choose to not equate six of one with a half-dozen of the other. But if someone asks for inclusion, and you deny them that inclusion, you are excluding them. "We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Me writes: So if I got married then I'd have to get a civil union too? Yes.... In other words, the religious wedding is not a civil union. I thought that when you get married and then go down to the courthouse to sign the paperwork its all one big thing called marriage and that a civil union is something different altogether. So if I get married then I don't need a civil union. Am I wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So if I got married then I'd have to get a civil union too?
I don't know what the rules are over there, but in the UK if you get married in an established church (RC, CofE, etc.), then you get the civil union at the same time. If you're not religious, you can just do the legal bit in a registry office or some other place licensed to do it.
I thought that a marriage is not just a religous ceremony and a civil union. Legally, its something different, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What is the purpose of a marriage for you, beyond a commitment to your partner that you could make without any ministers, justices of the peace, or anybody else? Its a sacrament to my religion.
Religious marriage should be separated from civil marriage. Seems to me you're talking about religious marriage--some specific ideal to the "meaning" and "form" of marriage. What does that have to do with the practical side? I'm still under the impression that the civil part of the marriage is included in the whole package of the religious part and that a civil union is a different thing than marriage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Me writes: What if some people think that objective harm on a reasonable standard will be done? At what point do their wishes become considered? a harm on a reasonable standard is not an objective harm, to a person. their wishes become considered when enough people agree that a behaviour is so abhorent that any practice of it will objectively harm another person. faith says that society will fall apart, but neglects to explain how, and what exactly will happen. But how can we know how and what exactly will happen? I think its gonna mess up healthcare (assuming it can get worse :rolleyes because we'll be more prone to fake marriages for getting a friend on your healthcare plan. Some people think society will fall apart, some think the rapture will occur. My question was: At what point do their wishes become considered? and your answer is:
quote: Hence the amendment. There just isn't enough people that agree with it so I guess we'll just go ahead and have gay marriages. I'm just not gonna support it because I think its a bad idea. That doesn't mean that I want to exclude gay people or deny them rights or force my religion on other people though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Let's first tackle the issue that you have concerning how gay marriage affects YOUR marriage. Let's not. I don't think that has anything to do with my position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I'm still under the impression that the civil part of the marriage is included in the whole package of the religious part and that a civil union is a different thing than marriage. Well the way it works is that the government does not recognise religious marriages, to it, all marriages are civil unions. The whole bit with having to go to the County Clerk and get a marriage license and have the priest/rabbi/judge/... sign it is the civil union part. The church/temple/... part is the religious part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1314 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
CS writes:
what? of course it is.. exactly the same! To fail to include someone is not the same as purposfully excluding them. to willfully fail to include someone is precisely the same as purposefully excluding them. how can you honestly say it is different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
If you were a friend of mine, and I went out to dinner with other friends and did not include you on the invite list, it need not be a purposeful exclusion. (Just a practical matter.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
If you were a friend of mine, and I went out to dinner with other friends and did not include you on the invite list, it need not be a purposeful exclusion. (Just a practical matter.) Well Phat, what then is the practical reason to exclude gays from marriage? Edited by kjsimons, : Removed extranious 'then' Edited by kjsimons, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2349 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
I thought that a marriage is not just a religous ceremony and a civil union. Legally, its something different, right?
I'm having a bit of difficulty answering your question, because 'Civil Union' has a specific legal meaning here since we legalised same-sex marriage, i.e. a same-sex marriage is called a Civil Union here (notice the capital letters). But my original post was distinguishing between the religious ceremony you go through to satisfy your religion's marriage sacrament, and the paperwork you have to sign to satisfy the state that you are married, i.e. the 'civil union' bit of your marriage (notice the small letters). You can do the latter without the former, but you can't do the former without the latter (well, not if you want to be treated as legally married). So to go back to your original question:
So if I got married then I'd have to get a civil union too? You don't have to go through two ceremonies, no. But if you're going for a religious ceremony you have to satisfy both your religion's requirements, and the state's. Edited by JavaMan, : Changed 'the government' to 'we' 'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1314 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
What?
of course it is you puposefully excluded me so you could spend time with your other friends... what ever the reason.. it is purposeful exclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
all marriages are civil unions Are all civil unions marriages? (to the government not religion)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
what? of course it is.. exactly the same! To fail to include someone is not the same as purposfully excluding them.to willfully fail to include someone is precisely the same as purposefully excluding them. how can you honestly say it is different.
[/qs] Well, you had to throw that word 'willfully' in there and changed it. But, what I mean is that if you make a law that fails to consider some group, it is not the same as making a law that specifically excludes them. Or like Phat's example, if I invite persons A, B and D to dinner, it is not the same as saying person C cannot come to dinner.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024