DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Your rush to attempt a clever-sounding response has taken a toll on your comprehension.
quote:
Do you not understand a proposal for a solution? That a proposal isn't a straight reporting of the way things are now (else there would be no need to propose anything)?
Michael's post, to which I was replying, described marriage as a "religious exercise" in fact, not as a proposal.
Yet, by including the part I quoted in my response, you brought me into it, or were you only talking about DarkSteven and Michael? 
quote:
quote:
Are you saying that a marriage isn't a religious institution? Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible? I could be wrong here, but there sure seems to be some background as a religious thing there...
You overlooked the crucial word "solely" in my post. I'm not sure if that reflects sloppiness or intellectual dishonesty.
The sloppiness of intellectual dishonesty would be on your account, then. I have never stated that marriage is solely a religious thing. I have proposed that the word "marriage" be used to refer solely to a religious rite, but you don't get the whole proposal thing.
quote:
quote:
If civil unions conferred the benefits currently conferred by marriage and marriages became simply a construct of religion, and held no benefits over an above a civil union, what would the problem be?
What would the benefit be?
Not an answer to the question. Ignoring your unwillingness to admit there is no real downside, the benefit would be the distinct separation of a religious activity and civil benefits.
quote:
For someone who claims to favor a conservative approach to the Constitution and limited government, you're proposing a massive legal upheaval, and you've yet to advance a good reason for it.
You're just too set in your ways to accept a different opinion. And, the "massive legal upheaval" would take, how long? There would be little increase in government, if any. I do like that straw though...
quote:
quote:
Are you worried that someone might look down on you for having a civil union?
No. My church does same-sex marriages.
Then, any marriage done in your church would be called a... wait for it... marriage.
quote:
quote:
And, if you get barred from some civil benefit because you have a civil union (if civil unions are what confer the benefits) as opposed to a marriage, won't there be recourse?
For pages now, you've been talking about how civil unions would convey the same benefits as marriage, though you haven't explained how you'd bring that about. Now you're raising the prospect that they might not convey the same benefits after all. What would the "recourse" be? How much time and money would it take?
How fucking long does it take to create a law? FFS, Obama could EO it and we'd have it in a day. You're clinging to paperwork issues here. I don't know why. There are times when extra paperwork is okay when it results in less paperwork and headaches later.
Are you afraid of hiring an attorney? If you get discriminated against, what are your recourses now (ignoring the basis of the discrimination)? How would they be any different?
Do you not see that calling a same sex marriage a marriage is the massive sticking point? Personally, I don't give a fuck what you call it. I'm proposing something that would keep both sides relatively happy. Same sex unions would carry all the same benefits as opposite sex unions. In the law's eyes, same sex and opposite sex unions would be civil unions and would enjoy all the same civil benefits. Because it's a matter of civil benefits, why should all unions not be called civil unions?
There are already States that allow civil unions, right? You have no problem with the legal upheaval that would have to take place if National law isn't the same as theirs, do you?
Here's yet another little tidbit...quote:
Marriages can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting.
Warning! Proposal ahead! This means that I am not stating the way things currently are, but am offering a solution to amend the things are now.
A wedding perfomed in a civil ceremony would result in a civil union, not sub-type at all. A wedding performed in a religious setting would result in a civil union, with the "marriage" sub-type. Both would be civil unions and share all the same benefits as the other, as the benefits are not conferred by the sub-type.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread