RE: Another Progressive Victory!

RE: Another Progressive Victory! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/14/2013 9:30:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Not exactly. Well, then I guess we are stuck at just offering an affirmation that conservatives aren't in monolithic lockstep on the issue, and leave it there. You didn't get the talking points and marching orders from Karl Rove? Did you move and forget to give the "neocons" your forwarding address, Rich? LOL Peace and comfort, Michael

GotSteel -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/14/2013 10:09:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I'm against "same sex marriage" but I strongly favor "same sex civil unions". Sorry, there's a part of me that says that marriage is between a man and a woman and a part of me that says that *everyone* has a *right* to be treated equally. Therefore, I strongly support the government recognizing same sex couples that enter into some kind of legal union. However, I do *not* favor couples being given advantages over single people. If we're going to argue 14th amendment and shit, let's do it right. Why do married couples get tax breaks? That doesn't sound like equal treatment to me. Why can only married couples enjoy survivor benefits? Why can only "spouses" visit certain people in the hospital? What gives? I don't believe in "gay rights", "womens' rights", or "minority rights" of any kind. I believe in EQUAL rights. I very much agree with you that everyone has a right to be treated equally and as such I'm against your marriage and strongly in favor of you having to refer to it as a civil union.

Moonhead -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 4:52:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 England? Zero. Scotland is also part of the UK, and they are allowing gay marriage up there.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 5:43:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I very much agree with you that everyone has a right to be treated equally and as such I'm against your marriage and strongly in favor of you having to refer to it as a civil union. If I'm reading Michael correctly, all civil benefits will be attached to the "civil union" part. The "marriage" part will be but a subset of civil unions and will confer no benefits outside of any a religious institution confers. That is, in the eyes of government, a marriage is but a civil union like a JoP civil union, or a same sex civil union. All civil unions get the same civil benefits.

thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 7:24:19 AM)
quote: Not exactly. I see "marriage" as the pervue of religion and "civil unions" as the pervue of the government. Wouldn't that be redefining a word in an effort to validate and justify biggotry?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 9:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If I'm reading Michael correctly, all civil benefits will be attached to the "civil union" part. The "marriage" part will be but a subset of civil unions and will confer no benefits outside of any a religious institution confers. That is, in the eyes of government, a marriage is but a civil union like a JoP civil union, or a same sex civil union. All civil unions get the same civil benefits. Yes. I realize my message was a bit all over the place but that is it. It makes "marriage" strictly a religious thing but civil unions (to which I believe *everyone* should be entitled) would be under control of the government. This would allow certain things that I (as a polyamorist) think should be allowed; plural marriages (that only "count" within ones' religion). That's just one but there's another issue. What I see here is the government digging it's claws deeper into what originally was a religious practice (marriage). It violates the 1st amendment but, let's go a little further: The government writes a law saying: "That's it. EVERYONE can get married." How long do you suppose it will be before someone sues (using a court which is an arm of the government) to force a religion to marry them (or fold, based upon the size of the judgement)? I want religious marriage and legal marriage to be two different things. The government, having any say about religious practice is exactly what the first amendment was designed to prevent. Peace and comfort, Michael Edited to remove idiotic blather

mnottertail -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 9:41:57 AM)
Yeah, I doubt anybody gives a fuck what you call them, call them woodticks for who fuckin cares. Except it would be unconstitutional to make a law that 'marraige' is for religous pairing. That is an establishment, period.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 9:46:29 AM)
Agreed-- However, I think the state should ditch the term marriage for all, use the term civil union for all, and if a damn church wants to use it so be it. Even if it is the "First Gay Dominion Chuch of Christ.' You know you are doing the right thing when everyone thinks they are being screwed

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 10:01:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 Agreed-- However, I think the state should ditch the term marriage for all, use the term civil union for all, and if a damn church wants to use it so be it. Even if it is the "First Gay Dominion Chuch of Christ.' You know you are doing the right thing when everyone thinks they are being screwed With the exception of damning churches and removing the last sentence, we agree. I think it's better when everyone thinks they've lost a little bit but didn't get totally screwed. It's one of the basic principles of good negotiation. Gays and lesbians get their unions recognized by the government. Churches won't be forced to engage in activities that violate their tenets. The constitution is protected by removing government from religious practice. Everyone wins! Peace and comfort, Michael

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 10:13:47 AM)
However the Ecclesiastical attachment to marriage is wrong. Marriage has always been a function of the state. The religious obsession with marriage should be stripped, hence my declaration that we should rename it civil union period. Even thought the state permits ministers to 'preside' over a 'wedding' the couple is not married until it is recorded with the state. The primary reason christians are so butt-hurt over this is the catholic church became the institution of marriage during the fall of Rome. As Rome collapsed so did it administrative function. When the church took over, they applied all the religious mumbo-jumbo dogmatic BS to it. This is why christianity is just wrong. It is not a sacrament, it like a driver's lisence. The state needs to reclaim the absolute authority to define it as they will. What I love about my home state is anyone can 'marry' anyone. You do not need to be ordained or a judge. When we got married we had our parents do it.

searching4mysir -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 10:18:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 However the Ecclesiastical attachment to marriage is wrong. Marriage has always been a function of the state. The religious obsession with marriage should be stripped, hence my declaration that we should rename it civil union period. Even thought the state permits ministers to 'preside' over a 'wedding' the couple is not married until it is recorded with the state. The primary reason christians are so butt-hurt over this is the catholic church became the institution of marriage during the fall of Rome. As Rome collapsed so did it administrative function. When the church took over, they applied all the religious mumbo-jumbo dogmatic BS to it. This is why christianity is just wrong. It is not a sacrament, it like a driver's lisence. The state needs to reclaim the absolute authority to define it as they will. What I love about my home state is anyone can 'marry' anyone. You do not need to be ordained or a judge. When we got married we had our parents do it. I call bullshit. There was a religious attachment to marriage long before Christianity. We see it in Judaism too.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 10:28:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 However the Ecclesiastical attachment to marriage is wrong. Marriage has always been a function of the state. The religious obsession with marriage should be stripped, hence my declaration that we should rename it civil union period. Even thought the state permits ministers to 'preside' over a 'wedding' the couple is not married until it is recorded with the state. The primary reason christians are so butt-hurt over this is the catholic church became the institution of marriage during the fall of Rome. As Rome collapsed so did it administrative function. When the church took over, they applied all the religious mumbo-jumbo dogmatic BS to it. This is why christianity is just wrong. It is not a sacrament, it like a driver's lisence. The state needs to reclaim the absolute authority to define it as they will. What I love about my home state is anyone can 'marry' anyone. You do not need to be ordained or a judge. When we got married we had our parents do it. Well, your facts are a little facacta. "religion" was involved in marriage long before the fall of the church of Rome. It was involved in marriage long before there was any such thing as "Christians". Are you saying the ancient Greeks and Romans didn't "marry" by authority of their gods? The Egyptians? I don't particularly care what the unions are called, per se but I do like "marriage" for the religious practice; not only because of tradition but because of etymology. To repeat myself: I want *all* people to be able to enter into civil unions that are recognized by the government but, I also want churches to be free to exercise their religions as they see fit (within reason). In fact, it's the reason this country even exists. If Mormons wish to marry 20 women (with the government only recognizing one "civil union"), I'm all for it. But, the long and short of it is: Does it matter? As long as *all* people can have their unions recognized by the government and the government gets the fuck out of telling religions what to do, isn't everyone a winner? Peace and comfort, Michael

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 11:03:04 AM)
When you had early polytheistic religious beliefs, under what element was marriage codified? The state controlled it. Yes there was marriage in Egypt, Greece and Rome. Was it Ra, Zues, Hermes, Athena, Jupiter, Eros, etc that was the athority of marriage? What if you didn't worship that God? The state handled it. As for the Jews, the church and state were one in the same.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 11:19:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 However the Ecclesiastical attachment to marriage is wrong. Marriage has always been a function of the state. The religious obsession with marriage should be stripped, hence my declaration that we should rename it civil union period. Even thought the state permits ministers to 'preside' over a 'wedding' the couple is not married until it is recorded with the state. The primary reason christians are so butt-hurt over this is the catholic church became the institution of marriage during the fall of Rome. As Rome collapsed so did it administrative function. When the church took over, they applied all the religious mumbo-jumbo dogmatic BS to it. This is why christianity is just wrong. It is not a sacrament, it like a driver's lisence. The state needs to reclaim the absolute authority to define it as they will. What I love about my home state is anyone can 'marry' anyone. You do not need to be ordained or a judge. When we got married we had our parents do it. I don't know what the basis was for your home state to allow anyone to preside over a marriage. I think that could be an easily abused practice. Actually, once you proclaim your wedding vows and the minister "weds" you, you are absolutely married, in the eyes of the church. For civil benefits to transfer, you need to register with the State. And, here is where things get a bit messy. Why can't a Church unite two people in Holy Matrimony without any interference by the State, with the caveat that this type of union - just for shits and giggles, let's call it a marriage - carries zero civil benefits? A Church can certainly honor the rite of marriage without a State honoring it, right? Why does a State care if there are no civil benefits attached to a marriage? On the other hand, a union registered and accepted by the State - another shits and giggles naming; a civil union - that carries civil benefits shouldn't be within the Church's purview, as it shouldn't matter to the State if the Church cares about civil benefits. So, a civil union would be a purely legal construct controlled by the State, that carries civil benefits (and also carries legal ramifications that deal with the dissolution of that union). The Church can't be forced to unite two people if it goes against it's Articles of Faith (keeps a separation between the Church and the State) and the Church can't do anything about civil unions that go against it's Articles of Faith (separation, pure and simple).

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 11:56:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't know what the basis was for your home state to allow anyone to preside over a marriage. I think that could be an easily abused practice. Actually, once you proclaim your wedding vows and the minister "weds" you, you are absolutely married, in the eyes of the church. For civil benefits to transfer, you need to register with the State. And, here is where things get a bit messy. Why can't a Church unite two people in Holy Matrimony without any interference by the State, with the caveat that this type of union - just for shits and giggles, let's call it a marriage - carries zero civil benefits? A Church can certainly honor the rite of marriage without a State honoring it, right? Why does a State care if there are no civil benefits attached to a marriage? On the other hand, a union registered and accepted by the State - another shits and giggles naming; a civil union - that carries civil benefits shouldn't be within the Church's purview, as it shouldn't matter to the State if the Church cares about civil benefits. So, a civil union would be a purely legal construct controlled by the State, that carries civil benefits (and also carries legal ramifications that deal with the dissolution of that union). The Church can't be forced to unite two people if it goes against it's Articles of Faith (keeps a separation between the Church and the State) and the Church can't do anything about civil unions that go against it's Articles of Faith (separation, pure and simple). Here's a funny one (that my idea would nullify): I know for a fact that in the state of New Jersey, in 2004 (maybe later), a couple that had been legally married for 10 years needed a "re-marriage" license in order to renew their vows in a church. The minister/rabbi/priest/whatever was *not allowed* to perform a ceremony without a permit from the state? Is this anything other than the state, finding a way to make money off of a strictly religious/personal emotional practice? Peace and comfort, Michael

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 12:19:17 PM)
That is kinda my point.... Let the state call it a 'union' and that's all you get. Beyond that you can call it marriage or twixting or intergroining or whatever. This butt-hurt whining over a word is akin to all the PC cry baby crap about what is acceptable to call someone of a certain ethnicity or condition. quote: I don't know what the basis was for your home state to allow anyone to preside over a marriage. I think that could be an easily abused practice. I wonder how it would be abused? To me it prevents abuse. You don't have to find anyone, pay them anything or work on their schedule. The state only requires that both parties sign the marriage license and there is someone to witness it. If we had been so inclined, we could have done it at the DMV as that is where we picked up the license. We could have signed it at that moment, asked the clerk to be the witness and turned it right back in. Could have saved a lot of time and money. Granted not very special, but possible. I think the only thing that was required was that both people needed to be there to pick up the license and show some ID, you know to prevent you from artificially marrying someone.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 12:28:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 That is kinda my point.... Let the state call it a 'union' and that's all you get. Beyond that you can call it marriage or twixting or intergroining or whatever. This butt-hurt whining over a word is akin to all the PC cry baby crap about what is acceptable to call someone of a certain ethnicity or condition. quote: I don't know what the basis was for your home state to allow anyone to preside over a marriage. I think that could be an easily abused practice. I wonder how it would be abused? To me it prevents abuse. You don't have to find anyone, pay them anything or work on their schedule. The state only requires that both parties sign the marriage license and there is someone to witness it. If we had been so inclined, we could have done it at the DMV as that is where we picked up the license. We could have signed it at that moment, asked the clerk to be the witness and turned it right back in. Could have saved a lot of time and money. Granted not very special, but possible. I think the only thing that was required was that both people needed to be there to pick up the license and show some ID, you know to prevent you from artificially marrying someone. What was the legal process for nullifying a marriage? Sure seems like people could do it willy nilly there.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 12:29:59 PM)
um divorce... whatelse is there?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 12:41:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 um divorce... whatelse is there? Yeah, what has to happen for a divorce to be in full effect? I guess I should have worded that more clearly. What are the legal hoops that have to be gone through, or do two people simply have to go down to the Courthouse and fill out the paperwork?

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/15/2013 12:46:36 PM)
yeah, actually, if there is no contest that is all it takes. I have several divorced friends that had amicable divorces. While the fees are higher than marriage, if no one is making property claims, that's all it takes.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625