RE: Another Progressive Victory!

RE: Another Progressive Victory! (Full Version)

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

Message

Powergamz1 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 11:56:48 AM)
Hope you didn't hurt yourself with that backflip. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Nope. A marriage is the registration of a couple as a family with a government office. * Solemnification * of marriage is the ceremony performed by a government registered agent. http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/legal-faqs/marriage/federal/what-does-it-take-to-solemnize-a-marriage.html You are once again making up your own definitions that are totally out of touch with reality. And your argument fails completely because there is not an establishment of religion anywhere in America which has the authority to issue a legal decree of divorce. As you are well aware. Making up my "own definitions ... out of touch with reality?" Odd how that's shocking when someone offers a system that would solve an issue that is real. How is that not obvious? If this was the way it was in reality, we'd not even be having this topic discussed. But, excellent grasp of... well, nothing, actually.

tj444 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 12:19:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Perhaps your definition of decades is different than others. I was thinking of your biggest trading partner (which for those that dont realize it, that would be Canada) and the country to the north of you (again, for those that dont know).. gay marriage has been legal in Canada for decades (by a federal law).. its a non-issue there.. it is perplexing to watch Americans arguing about this issue (& all the fuss over it). I fully expect that there will be the very same threads about it here 20 years from now (cuz I expect several states will steadfastly refuse to make it legal).. I also expect the same federal political deadlock 20 years from now & ya'll will still be arguing about Obamacare too!!! (shrug)

Powergamz1 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 2:39:04 PM)
You were thinking of Canada when you said "the US is several decades behind (other countries)..."? How droll... except that of course, it wasn't until 2005 that Canada passed their Civil Marriage Act, and recognized same sex marriages within Canada (while still not recognizing American or other nation's same sex marriages). But hey, who needs history, when you've got revisionism? quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I was thinking of your biggest trading partner (which for those that dont realize it, that would be Canada) and the country to the north of you (again, for those that dont know).. gay marriage has been legal in Canada for decades (by a federal law).. its a non-issue there.. it is perplexing to watch Americans arguing about this issue (& all the fuss over it). I fully expect that there will be the very same threads about it here 20 years from now (cuz I expect several states will steadfastly refuse to make it legal).. I also expect the same federal political deadlock 20 years from now & ya'll will still be arguing about Obamacare too!!! (shrug)

tj444 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 2:52:40 PM)
most provinces made it legal before that but ok, a decade ago.. happy now? That wont happen here for another 20 years or longer.. and you will still be arguing about it then..

thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 3:24:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I was thinking of your biggest trading partner (which for those that dont realize it, that would be Canada) and the country to the north of you (again, for those that dont know). The eu is the largest trading partner of the u.s..(for those who don't know

GotSteel -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 7:20:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Nope. You are not reading me right. Thank you for pointing that out. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A marriage is a civil union done as a religious rite. It carries all the weight and benefits of a civil union because it is one type of civil union. A civil union done outside of a religious rite (ie. going down to the JoP to get wed) is a civil union, and, thus, carries all the weight and benefits of a civil union. The only difference between the two is that a marriage is done as a religious rite, by a religious leader. In the eyes of the law, there would be no difference between a marriage and any other civil union. Would your legally binding documentation say marriage license on it?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 8:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Hope you didn't hurt yourself with that backflip. What backflip?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 8:16:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Nope. You are not reading me right. Thank you for pointing that out. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A marriage is a civil union done as a religious rite. It carries all the weight and benefits of a civil union because it is one type of civil union. A civil union done outside of a religious rite (ie. going down to the JoP to get wed) is a civil union, and, thus, carries all the weight and benefits of a civil union. The only difference between the two is that a marriage is done as a religious rite, by a religious leader. In the eyes of the law, there would be no difference between a marriage and any other civil union. Would your legally binding documentation say marriage license on it? Shit. Didn't think of that. Dammit. It's too bad that in this day and age that we still don't have the ability to change something from a "Marriage License" to "License to Wed." Fuck. We're screwed now. [8\|]

subrob1967 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 8:22:57 PM)
I for one think President Obama was right to change his opinion on gay marriage, I applaud his reversal and Vice President Biden's opinion.

dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 8:24:45 PM)
quote: Dammit. It's too bad that in this day and age that we still don't have the ability to change something from a "Marriage License" to "License to Wed." Fuck. We're screwed now. Well, it would mean extra printing costs for strapped local governments. [:)] But seriously, what would be the benefit of redefining marriage in this way?

dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 8:52:42 PM)
quote: I for one think President Obama was right to change his opinion on gay marriage, I applaud his reversal and Vice President Biden's opinion. Is this your weekly bet-fulfillment post?

GotSteel -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 10:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Nope. You are not reading me right. Shit. Didn't think of that. Dammit. It's too bad that in this day and age that we still don't have the ability to change something from a "Marriage License" to "License to Wed." Fuck. We're screwed now. [8\|] I'm seriously asking that in order to figure out where I'm misunderstanding your position but thanks for the snark anyway. I'm trying to figure out whether you're advocating for a segregation scheme where your marriage license would be labelled "marriage license" and mine would be labelled second class citizen or whether you're advocating annulling all marriages in the legal sense.

tj444 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/18/2013 11:44:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I was thinking of your biggest trading partner (which for those that dont realize it, that would be Canada) and the country to the north of you (again, for those that dont know). The eu is the largest trading partner of the u.s..(for those who don't know According to your US Census Bureau, Canada is the US's largest trading partner (larger than China), it lists the EU as individual countries (which is what they are).. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top1212yr.html

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 4:56:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Dammit. It's too bad that in this day and age that we still don't have the ability to change something from a "Marriage License" to "License to Wed." Fuck. We're screwed now. Well, it would mean extra printing costs for strapped local governments. [:)] Depends on if they "print on demand" or not. We are talking about digital collections now, too. Very little need for "set up costs" like there were (and still could be, I have no fuckin' clue) with things such as silk-screening. [sidebar]Wouldn't it be better and less costly to find a way to go paperless, anyway? Now, you aren't talking about "printing costs."[/sidebar] quote: But seriously, what would be the benefit of redefining marriage in this way? Separation of a religious activity from government, and allowing for equality across the board. If we were to switch to the plan I put out, would there be any changes, even if gay marriage was still banned? Yes. People going through a Justice of the Peace would not have a "marriage." It would be a straight up civil union. Benefits being conferred via civil unions, a straight up civil union and "marriage" civil union have the same legal rights and standing. Same-sex marriage, once it's fully allowed, will assimilate perfectly into the system. If a same sex wedding is performed as a religious rite, it's a same sex marriage civil union. If it's not done as a religious rite, it's a same sex straight up civil union. In either case, the benefits and standing are conferred on it being a civil union, and not on whether it's a marriage type or a straight up type. Why is it important that it be called a marriage, if benefits are conferred by it being a civil union?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 5:02:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Nope. You are not reading me right. Shit. Didn't think of that. Dammit. It's too bad that in this day and age that we still don't have the ability to change something from a "Marriage License" to "License to Wed." Fuck. We're screwed now.[8\|] I'm seriously asking that in order to figure out where I'm misunderstanding your position but thanks for the snark anyway. I'm trying to figure out whether you're advocating for a segregation scheme where your marriage license would be labelled "marriage license" and mine would be labelled second class citizen or whether you're advocating annulling all marriages in the legal sense. Yeah, no snark from you, either. All "marriage licenses" that are in effect until my proposal is set into law, will remain titled "marriage license." Everything else going forward would be a "License to Wed." In a legal sense, there would be no such thing as a "marriage" going forward. All current marriages would be considered civil unions, and all future weddings would be considered civil unions. Is that really all the difficult to understand? Really?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 5:04:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I was thinking of your biggest trading partner (which for those that dont realize it, that would be Canada) and the country to the north of you (again, for those that dont know). The eu is the largest trading partner of the u.s..(for those who don't know According to your US Census Bureau, Canada is the US's largest trading partner (larger than China), it lists the EU as individual countries (which is what they are).. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top1212yr.html Well, that's dumb. The entire Earth should be listed as our largest trading partner! [8D] (just so you know, I'm not arguing that trade status should be listed by Country)

Lucylastic -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 5:06:55 AM)
nope, just so convoluted and asinine to contemplate where does it state that the only "marriage" that is allowed to be called marriage is one solemnized in a christian church? please? I mean outside the fevered brows of anyone who hates the idea of same sex marriage.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 5:16:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic nope, just so convoluted and asinine to contemplate where does it state that the only "marriage" that is allowed to be called marriage is one solemnized in a christian church? please? I mean outside the fevered brows of anyone who hates the idea of same sex marriage. Who said anything about a Christian church? I stated, "performed as a religious rite." If there are churches/religions that allow same sex marriage, then, a wedding taking place as a rite within that religion would be.... <drum roll>... a marriage. Let's see if I can make an example that you can contemplate. A "Civil Union" is a rectangle. All 4-sided shapes with opposite sides parallel to each other are civil unions. A "Marriage" is a square. All squares are rectangles. Every single one of them. Not all rectangles are squares. Civil benefits are only conferred to rectangles. Squares only get civil benefits conferred because they are, in fact, rectangles.

Lucylastic -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 5:45:55 AM)
yeah if you go round in any more circles, you will disappear up your own fundamental orifice. Your sharp corners are gonna leave festering wounds. Ive been married for 28 years.... my marriage certificate proves it, it says marriage, several times. It hasnt been called a civil union once, not a single time and every form I sign that asks my "MARITAL" status, is ticked married. I didnt get married in a church, but it has NEVER been anything but a marriage. A good marriage, the focus of the past 28 years of my life, and no less deserving to be called a marriage, than any couple who gets married with religious solemnation. With all its problems, joys, hardships and benefits, love, happiness and respect, as any other solemnized marriage My parents were married in a church.... their best friends, bridesmaids and my godmothers are lesbians. They've been together longer than my parents were. They have been together for 60 years, why should they not be able to have the "title" of marriage.... without being demeaned by people like you simply for (suspect at best) ....religious reasons.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 6:34:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic yeah if you go round in any more circles, you will disappear up your own fundamental orifice. Your sharp corners are gonna leave festering wounds. Ive been married for 28 years.... my marriage certificate proves it, it says marriage, several times. It hasnt been called a civil union once, not a single time and every form I sign that asks my "MARITAL" status, is ticked married. I didnt get married in a church, but it has NEVER been anything but a marriage. A good marriage, the focus of the past 28 years of my life, and no less deserving to be called a marriage, than any couple who gets married with religious solemnation. With all its problems, joys, hardships and benefits, love, happiness and respect, as any other solemnized marriage My parents were married in a church.... their best friends, bridesmaids and my godmothers are lesbians. They've been together longer than my parents were. They have been together for 60 years, why should they not be able to have the "title" of marriage.... without being demeaned by people like you simply for (suspect at best) ....religious reasons. Demeaned? Any demeaning you feel will find it's roots within your own head. Your marriage certificate won't be changed ex post facto. It is what it is. Why is it demeaning for a non-religious wedding to not have the same title as a religious wedding? Notice, too, how the only difference is rooted in it being a religious ceremony or not, and not in the genders involved in the wedding. If your feelings are hurt because of a word, then, well, that's an issue you'll have to deal with.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875