Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Another Progressive Victory!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Another Progressive Victory! Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 11:56:48 AM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		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.




_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 12:19:21 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
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)

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 2:39:04 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		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)



< Message edited by Powergamz1 -- 5/18/2013 2:40:50 PM >

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 2:52:40 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline 		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..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 3:24:19 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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


(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 7:20:47 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 8:12:48 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
Hope you didn't hurt yourself with that backflip.


What backflip?


_____________________________

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)

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 8:16:36 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.




_____________________________

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)

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 8:22:57 PM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

http://www.extra-life.org/

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 8:24:45 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 8:52:42 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 10:43:05 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
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.




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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/18/2013 11:44:44 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/19/2013 4:56:10 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

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)

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/19/2013 5:02:49 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.

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?


_____________________________

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)

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/19/2013 5:04:36 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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!

(just so you know, I'm not arguing that trade status should be listed by Country)


_____________________________

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)

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/19/2013 5:06:55 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/19/2013 5:16:31 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

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)

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/19/2013 5:45:55 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		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.





_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/19/2013 6:34:35 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

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)

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Another Progressive Victory! Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109