RE: Another Progressive Victory!

RE: Another Progressive Victory! (Full Version)

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

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 12:15:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Why is it important that it be called a marriage, if benefits are conferred by it being a civil union? Because it is a marriage: a loving, faithful commitment to building a life together. And, imho, gay folks' marriages deserve the same respect and dignity as others'. Part of that respect stems from nomenclature. Why is it so important to you that the word "marriage" not be applied to same-sex couples? You're going through remarkable contortions, including an ahistorical redefinition of the term, just to keep from sharing the word with queers. I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you? I'm working on changing two things: 1. So that there is a separation from religion and State in this matter. 2. Allow access to being wed to same sex couples. You apparently miss - not the first time - that non-religious weddings between opposite sex couples would also not be called a marriage, and, if a church participates in a same sex wedding, it would be a "marriage." This has nothing to do with the sex of the couples, really, but in the officiating of the wedding. If the two terms are equal then how bout the same sex folks call their unions marriages and the jesus phreaques call their unions religious unions?

thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 12:23:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you? []So you can be painted as a "homophobe", DS. It's what fits the agenda of the left. Peace and comfort, Michael[color] Or more likely a mirror than a painting.

dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 12:35:57 PM)
quote: I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you? What derogatory terms do I "keep using"? quote: I'm working on changing two things: 1. So that there is a separation from religion and State in this matter. 2. Allow access to being wed to same sex couples. You apparently miss - not the first time - that non-religious weddings between opposite sex couples would also not be called a marriage, and, if a church participates in a same sex wedding, it would be a "marriage." This has nothing to do with the sex of the couples, really, but in the officiating of the wedding. Marriage has had legal significance for centuries. Why is it so important now to remake it as strictly religious?

tj444 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 2:02:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Dudette, from your cite: According to the United States Census Bureau, the fifteen largest trading partners of the United States represent 73.9% of U.S. imports, and 71.7% of U.S. exports as of December 2011.[1] These figures do not include services or foreign direct investment, but only trade in goods... This list does not include the European Union (EU), which includes four (Germany, UK, France, Netherlands) of the above states in a single economic entity. As a single economy, the EU is the largest trading partner of the US with $367.8 billion worth of EU goods going to the US and $268.6 billion of US goods going to the EU as of 2011, totaling approximately $636.4 billion in total trade.[2] http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html#2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States dude.. my link does list the countries in the EU.. Germany is #5, the UK #6, etc, etc.. just cuz they are lumped together by your govt on another page (not as "trading partners") as "Trade in Goods with European Union" does not make the EU a trading partner)... it is like lumping each continents trade with the US together (it does not make any continent a "trading partner")... the EU is just an agreement between countries (like Nafta is or other trade agreements) and countries can come and go from that EU agreement.. with Nafta, combining Canada (#1) & Mexico (#3) together and you get more than the EU.. geez dude, Canada is just a tiny lil country, only 10% the population of the US and it beats out all the other trading partners the US deals with!..

njlauren -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 2:24:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren You are wrong, I already have touched on this. The 60 percent of conservatives who support same sex unions are not uniform, last numbers i saw said about 30 percent of conservatives support same sex marriage, it is about 50-50 marriage and unions. Secondly, the problem with unions, that many of these conservatives know, is that they don't work, they are second class. The only way to get unions to work would be to get marriage the hell out of the law, because that word has magic, and even where the law, as in NJ, creates civic unions, same sex couples have to fight for the rights the law grants, where if you say the magic work, marriage, things fall into place. The NJ supreme court, over the objection of King King our dear governor who can't figure out that the Catholic Church is not the state religion, will probably rule that civic unions have failed to provide same sex couples with equal rights. It is also interesting that conservatives who go on about the term marriage being sacred, kind of overlook the fact that lots of people get married by JP's, ship's captains, mayors, etc, in secular weddings..how come they don't object to a JP wedding being legal? Do I think for some on the left this is a casus belli? Sure, the Clintons are prime examples, Hillary is about the worst friend any GLBT person could have, and Bill is not all that better, his behavior in office shows that. On the other hand, there are a lot of conservatives, including Ted Olsen and Bob Barr, who have come to see it for what it is, a rights issue, that the whole 'marriage is a sacred pact between a man and a woman' is inherently discriminatory and in violation of the rights under the constitution. Religious belief in law is a disaster area, and libertarians (unlike the Pauls, who are both phonies) recognize that, that the government should never have granted rights to marriage under that term. If conservatives are so hyped up on marriage, then they should come up with laws that get marriage out of the law, and leave it to the churches, and make civic unions the law. Civic unions and the like supported by conservatives are supported as a smoke screen against their own stupidity; these same people claim their religious rights are voided all the time, yet they claim that gays legally marrying voids their faith, when they can't see that denying gays the right to marry is them forcing their beliefs on everyone else. This is exactly what I'm proposing. "Marriage" ends up being a strictly religious term. Civil Unions take the place of "marriage" as it's used in law now. It is a good proposal, one we shouldn't have allowed into the law in the first place, and priests should not have been given legal recognition for marrying people. Unfortunately, it isn't going to happen, and I think it is telling, I have not heard any conservatives proposing that we replace in the law civic unions, for everyone, they propose civic unions for same sex couples while keeping marriage for straight couples, and the direct intent is to make same sex unions unequal. If the GOP proposed that civic unions totally replace marriage as a legal right, the religious right would go ballistic on them, as would a lot of other bigots.

njlauren -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 2:34:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I'm having some trouble, following this. I think you're misinterpretting me and that *might be* my fault so, I am going to go little-by-little, here (I may even repeat parts of other posts of mine on this thread) quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren For your idea to work, then government would have to stop recognizing marriages, which is what they do in many countries. Marriage could be left to the churches as a religious right, but to get governmental rights, people would need a civic union, gay, straight, poly....... I get your point about rights, but the reality is the whole 'marriage is the problem' is a smokescreen for many people (not saying you), where they say "I am against the term marriage being used, but okay with civic unions", because they know that the term marriage is legally loaded. Go into a hospital as a married spouse, and your spouse has the right to make medical decisions for you; go in with a civic union, and some dumb ass relative can step in front of you. Federal law only recognizes the term marriage, civic unions have 0 meaning federally, where a lot of the rights are (for example, if you made your same sex partner your beneficiary on a 401k, and you die, a relative could challenge your right to give that money to him (speaking hypothetically), but if you are legally married, they cannot (at least,they won't be able to if Scotus throws out DOMA), because 401k's are under ERISA). I'm not positive but, I'd bet a dollar that you're singing my song, here; most specifically: I absolutely want the words "married" or "marriage" stricken from every law ever written and replaced with (I think I've worked myself into a verbal issue, here): "partnered" or "Civil Union". I want the government to pretend it's never seen the word "marriage". I want "married" to carry NO LEGAL RIGHTS WHAT-SO-EVER. Now, I'm not nit-picking but, there's a typo (I think) that I'd like to clarify. You typed: "Marriage could be left to the churches as a religious right, but to get governmental rights, people would need a civic union, gay, straight, poly ...". I think you meant "rite"? quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren It is interesting that no one has proposed doing what I am saying, throw out marriage completely as a legal term, and make everyone have a civic union, and re-write federal regs to recognize only civic union..problem is, that would give a lot of bigots no more excuses, since civic unions are not holy.....and if you want proof, take a look at the rednecks in North Carolina, who not only banned same sex marriage, they banned gays getting through contracts or other means, any of the rights of marriage. That is EXACTLY what I proposed, several posts back( Here and here and here and here . I said that it would do two positive things: 1) Give everyone the right to be recognized by the law as far as their relationship status 2) Remove the government from religion which just defends our constitution. Peace and comfort, Michael I used the term right when referring to religion simply to say that only they had the right to marry people, if we assume it to be a religious only term, how they marry them is the rite:). As an alternative, I agree with you, but it isn't going to happen, because far too many people believe the myth that marriage was about some sacredness between man and woman, that it was purely religious from the beginning, and that is basically nonsense. The reason it isn't going to happen is churches if we make the legal right civic unions, then the religious lose an argument out of denying rights to same sex couples. What you are leaving out is for a lot of the anti same sex marriage crowd, it isn't about marriage, they are using the term marriage as a shield against their real intent, which is if everyone, gay or straight, would get a civic union, it is the state "supporting' gays, and what these people want is gays put back into the closet. By keeping marriage as the legal term, they are part of the debate, because they will talk about how the term is a sacred thing; take that term out of the law, and they have no leg to stand on, and they will appear as they are, bigots who want to use the law as a club against same sex couples, pure and simple, and the term marriage is an excuse. Like I said, I haven't heard one opponent of same sex marriage propose what you are saying, take marriage out of the law; Jabba the Hut, our dear governor hear in NJ, says "We got civic unions, that is good enough, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because that is sacred, between a man and a woman", I haven't heard him propose that in NJ to be recognized by the state, you get a civic union, gay or straight, and leave mariage to the churches, it is a prime case in point.

njlauren -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 2:46:47 PM)
One of the big arguments I keep hearing is the term marriage is sacred, as being between a man and woman, and always has been, and they cite biblical wording as proof (old testament says it is between a man and one or more woman, in fact, in Genesis...). What that leaves out is something quite interesting, the church did not have rites for weddings until the 9th or 10th century, and didn't require people be married in the church until the 1200's..more importantly, the reason people got married was not primarily religious, that was a lie. Those who got formally married did so to preserve property and right of succession to titles, before the 1600 families formed by a couple getting together and raising a family, they didn't bother getting married at all, because there was no reason to, only the well off and nobility bothered, for legal reasons. Common law marriage came about because so many people didn't formally wed, they ran into cases where the law had to decide but there was no formal marriage...which says that marriage only became a big deal when there was legal need to do so (if it was such a sacred thing, involving God, why did so many people not bother getting married? Could it be they didn't care?). The whole sacredness of marriage has only become an issue when same sex folks wanted to marry, they didn't make a big deal that for example, a church wedding counted the same as one done by a JP. There is an interesting twist to the sacredness of marriage, and that is that there are more then a few churches that marry same sex couples and consider it sacramental marriage, blessed and so forth...so why when it comes to 'defending' marriage we only hear from the shithead evangelicals and the morons from the RC (who frankly, have so little moral capital, why anyone listens to them I don't know)....is the RC and the evangelicals the only true faith and therefore their declarations of marriage are more valid then let's say the UCC? So the state is deciding now which religious view is real? I would have argued that same sex marriage bans violate the first amendment, because it doesn't allow the weddings of churches who believe same sex marriage is sacred , de facto granting unique status to one religious belief, which is illegal, the state is not supposed to give weight to any one religious belief, it is supposed to be neutral. If a church considers same sex couples married, then it should be recognized by the state, whether the Catholics or evangelicals like it is mute. The line of the religious conservatives is basically marriage is sacred and therefore should not be allowed in the law for same sex couples because of their belief, and that is dead, spot wrong, to those religions who marry same sex couples. If we seperated marriage out from the law, this would be avoided, but don't hold you breath, DOMA proves what the real intent is.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 3:08:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren There is an interesting twist to the sacredness of marriage, and that is that there are more then a few churches that marry same sex couples and consider it sacramental marriage, blessed and so forth...so why when it comes to 'defending' marriage we only hear from the shithead evangelicals and the morons from the RC (who frankly, have so little moral capital, why anyone listens to them I don't know)....is the RC and the evangelicals the only true faith and therefore their declarations of marriage are more valid then let's say the UCC? So the state is deciding now which religious view is real? I would have argued that same sex marriage bans violate the first amendment, because it doesn't allow the weddings of churches who believe same sex marriage is sacred , de facto granting unique status to one religious belief, which is illegal, the state is not supposed to give weight to any one religious belief, it is supposed to be neutral. If a church considers same sex couples married, then it should be recognized by the state, whether the Catholics or evangelicals like it is mute. The line of the religious conservatives is basically marriage is sacred and therefore should not be allowed in the law for same sex couples because of their belief, and that is dead, spot wrong, to those religions who marry same sex couples. If we seperated marriage out from the law, this would be avoided, but don't hold you breath, DOMA proves what the real intent is. This is an interesting argument and I would agree except that the other side of the coin is as much of an infringement on religious freedom. Whether you agree with them or not, would it be right for the government to be able to *force* churches to marry people that those churches don't feel fit the definition. It becomes a true case of "live and let live" which isn't going to happen with such a hot topic issue. I already gave an answer earlier but I'll repeat it. If we keep the term "marriage" and goverment passes a law that "all marriages" are equal, how long before someone uses the courts to force a particular religion to marry them? I'd put the over/under at 30 days. How is that (here comes the phrase the PPLs love in all cases except this one) "seperation of church and state"? How does that *not* violate the first amendment? Conversely, the way I see it, the *only* way to make this work is to have two different kinds of marriages (with only one, being legally recognized). That seems to fit all the criteria of making as many people as possible happy. Gays and lesbians are recognized by the law (which is really what the argument is allegedly about) and religious folk get to "protect" their sacrements. Those religions that feel that marrying same-sex couples is the right thing to do have no one to answer to except their congregations/hierarchy/higher power and those that don't have to answer to the same entities. Either way you slice it, gays and lesbians get to be recognized equally, under the law and churches that don't want to marry gays and lesbians don't have to. I will repeat: I think the only reason the choice of wording has become a bone of contention is to keep the issue alive. If the real goal is equality, there has to be "give" on both sides. Peace and comfort, Michael

dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 3:09:54 PM)
quote: The whole sacredness of marriage has only become an issue when same sex folks wanted to marry, they didn't make a big deal that for example, a church wedding counted the same as one done by a JP. That timing has struck me too. So has the absence of "traditional marriage" voices arguing against divorce.

thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 3:17:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Dudette, from your cite: According to the United States Census Bureau, the fifteen largest trading partners of the United States represent 73.9% of U.S. imports, and 71.7% of U.S. exports as of December 2011.[1] These figures do not include services or foreign direct investment, but only trade in goods... This list does not include the European Union (EU), which includes four (Germany, UK, France, Netherlands) of the above states in a single economic entity. As a single economy, the EU is the largest trading partner of the US with $367.8 billion worth of EU goods going to the US and $268.6 billion of US goods going to the EU as of 2011, totaling approximately $636.4 billion in total trade.[2] http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html#2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States dude.. my link does list the countries in the EU.. Germany is #5, the UK #6, etc, etc.. just cuz they are lumped together by your govt on another page (not as "trading partners") as "Trade in Goods with European Union" does not make the EU a trading partner)... it is like lumping each continents trade with the US together (it does not make any continent a "trading partner")... The e.u. is not a continent. If it were not considered a "trading partner" the sites referenced would not note the distinction of it's status as the largest trading partner. I have no quible with a position that states that canada and mexico are #1 and #3 trading countries of the u.s. and that combined these two american economic powerhouses dominate u.s. international trade[:)] quote: the EU is just an agreement between countries Is a treaty the same as an agreement?

dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 3:17:49 PM)
quote: If we keep the term "marriage" and goverment passes a law that "all marriages" are equal, how long before someone uses the courts to force a particular religion to marry them? I'd put the over/under at 30 days. Has this happened in any of the jurisdictions with same-sex marriages? It's been almost a decade in Massachusetts.

thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 3:21:13 PM)
quote: quote: I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you? What derogatory terms do I "keep using"? "stick and move...stick and move"[;)]

LizDeluxe -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 3:26:55 PM)
I couldn't care less if gays get married or not. Gay couples and gay households have been here for decades with no verifiable negative impact on society. I don't see how allowing them to legally marry would make much difference. I would encourage my representatives in state and local government to support gay marriage initiatives but only if they get the other side to agree to vote against any expansion in gun control legislation. Compromise - it's how Washington gets things done.

njlauren -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 3:28:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren There is an interesting twist to the sacredness of marriage, and that is that there are more then a few churches that marry same sex couples and consider it sacramental marriage, blessed and so forth...so why when it comes to 'defending' marriage we only hear from the shithead evangelicals and the morons from the RC (who frankly, have so little moral capital, why anyone listens to them I don't know)....is the RC and the evangelicals the only true faith and therefore their declarations of marriage are more valid then let's say the UCC? So the state is deciding now which religious view is real? I would have argued that same sex marriage bans violate the first amendment, because it doesn't allow the weddings of churches who believe same sex marriage is sacred , de facto granting unique status to one religious belief, which is illegal, the state is not supposed to give weight to any one religious belief, it is supposed to be neutral. If a church considers same sex couples married, then it should be recognized by the state, whether the Catholics or evangelicals like it is mute. The line of the religious conservatives is basically marriage is sacred and therefore should not be allowed in the law for same sex couples because of their belief, and that is dead, spot wrong, to those religions who marry same sex couples. If we seperated marriage out from the law, this would be avoided, but don't hold you breath, DOMA proves what the real intent is. This is an interesting argument and I would agree except that the other side of the coin is as much of an infringement on religious freedom. Whether you agree with them or not, would it be right for the government to be able to *force* churches to marry people that those churches don't feel fit the definition. It becomes a true case of "live and let live" which isn't going to happen with such a hot topic issue. I already gave an answer earlier but I'll repeat it. If we keep the term "marriage" and goverment passes a law that "all marriages" are equal, how long before someone uses the courts to force a particular religion to marry them? I'd put the over/under at 30 days. How is that (here comes the phrase the PPLs love in all cases except this one) "seperation of church and state"? How does that *not* violate the first amendment? Conversely, the way I see it, the *only* way to make this work is to have two different kinds of marriages (with only one, being legally recognized). That seems to fit all the criteria of making as many people as possible happy. Gays and lesbians are recognized by the law (which is really what the argument is allegedly about) and religious folk get to "protect" their sacrements. Those religions that feel that marrying same-sex couples is the right thing to do have no one to answer to except their congregations/hierarchy/higher power and those that don't have to answer to the same entities. Either way you slice it, gays and lesbians get to be recognized equally, under the law and churches that don't want to marry gays and lesbians don't have to. I will repeat: I think the only reason the choice of wording has become a bone of contention is to keep the issue alive. If the real goal is equality, there has to be "give" on both sides. Peace and comfort, Michael That is a totally specious argument, one I keep hearing from the religious types, and it is another dodge. No church, ever, has ever been forced to marry a couple it didn't wish to, why would that change with same sex marriage? That is almost Gobblerian in the way the religious cling to that, and I don't understand it. RIght now, no church has to marry a couple it doesn't wish to, the RC will not marry a couple (who, mind you, have the legal right to marry as we are looking for with same sex couples) who is not catholic, and who don't promise to do certain things, so why would the government step in with gays? Jewish synagogues won't marry non Jews (or at least most won't), there are churches that will not marry interracial couples, and no one can force them to....and it has never happened, and if the government tried that there would be hell to pay, it is a clear violation of the 1st amendment, and then some..... So where does this crap about churches being forced to marry same sex couples come from? The religious are not arguing they would be forced to marry same sex couples, they are arguing that because they don't believe gays should marry, the government shouldn't recognize same sex marriages done by anyone, religious or not, because they don't like it....the argument about being forced is as specious a claim as elvis is alive. Your argument would only hold water if only churches could marry people, and in an area where a gay couple lived there was no one else to do it, but that is true nowhere in this country. Legal marriage can be done by JP's, it can be done by mayors, it can be done by clergy who are okay with it, they have alternatives, so that argument is bogus. The only conflicts I am aware of is with JP's and county clerks and such claiming they don't want to do it, because it violates their religious belief, and there the government can force them to, because this isn't religious marriage, it is civic one and clerks and such don't have that right. Their employer (the government) can choose to accede to their demands, for example,if there are other clerks who will marry same sex couples, have them do it, but claiming religious exemption as a civil servant otherwise won't hold water, it cannot. In business and government, an employer is supposed to accede to the religious beliefs of their employees, as long as it doesn't present a big burden or diminish the functioning of the office.

thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 3:37:08 PM)
quote: This is an interesting argument and I would agree except that the other side of the coin is as much of an infringement on religious freedom. Mind numbingly stupid post quote: Whether you agree with them or not, would it be right for the government to be able to force churches to marry people that those churches don't feel fit the definition. How does one argue against something that does not exist. The government is not forcing any fucking church to marry anyone....How is that not plane? quote: It becomes a true case of "live and let live" which isn't going to happen with such a hot topic issue. It certainly seems to be an issue for people who have an invisible friend who guides their every thought. quote: I already gave an answer earlier but I'll repeat it. If we keep the term "marriage" and goverment passes a law that "all marriages" are equal, how long before someone uses the courts to force a particular religion to marry them? Let me see ...the day after never. Since desegregation how many private clubs have been forced to integrate by government coerscion. Perhaps that is because the government is prohibited by the constitution from telling churches what their sacraments are and how they may be observed. How many non whites have successfully sued the kkk to allow them membership? How many gays have successfully forced phred phelps and his phuckheads to accept them as parishoners? Consider the native americans who when the govt told them that certain pshchoactive substances were to be proscribed from their religious services. The native americans told the govt to open their mouths and start sucking...the constitution says so and the native americans still use peyote cuz the courts have so ruled. That pretty much rules out any such scare mongering scenaio as envisioned above. I'd put the over/under at 30 days. How is that (here comes the phrase the PPLs love in all cases except this one) "seperation of church and state"? How does that not violate the first amendment?

njlauren -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 3:46:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: If we keep the term "marriage" and goverment passes a law that "all marriages" are equal, how long before someone uses the courts to force a particular religion to marry them? I'd put the over/under at 30 days. Has this happened in any of the jurisdictions with same-sex marriages? It's been almost a decade in Massachusetts. Marriages have been recognized the whole time the US has been around yet no church has ever been forced to marry people they don't wish to, there is simply no legal standing to do so. As I pointed out to someone else, legal marriage can be done by secular authorities, by churches who are okay with same sex couples and so forth, the way you get married has no bearing on the legality of it. If you could only get married by specific churches, that argument would hold, but they don't have to be, they have plenty of alternatives. Plus, speaking with direct knowledge, I don't know of any gay couples who want to be married by a specific church enough to try and force it. Conflating fighting for legal rights, as gays are, with being married by church just makes no sense. Gays are fighting for the term marriage because in the current system it is the only way to achieve the rights, they aren't fighting for legal recognition of marriage to get approbriation from churches, or to be able , for example, to be married in the Catholic church, they are fighting for the term marriage because there is nothing else. Marriage is not a secular term in of itself, it is a legal term, and that is what they are fighting for. Can someone tell me why someone would want to force a church to marry them? Why they, for example, would go into court to get a Catholic Wedding, when getting married there bestows no special privilege on them? And if it is about forcing churches, why would they before now have not sued, for example, that churches allow them to be members? Why haven't they sued churches to be allowed to be priests? The answer is there is no cause to, same with marriage. If being married by the local representative of Rome gsve special legal benefits, maybe, but it doesn't, get married by the local priest or get married by the elvis impersonator in Vegas, counts the same, you are married.

thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 3:55:23 PM)
quote: get married by the local priest or get married by the elvis impersonator in Vegas, counts the same, you are married. So elvis or the guy with the invisible friend...when you say I do she is now entitled to 50%[:(]

Powergamz1 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 5:39:50 PM)
No, you aren't. And it isn't 'derogatory' to correctly point out when you are making up falsehoods. Your argument from the beginning has been to repeat the failed tactics of anti-miscegenationists and segregationists, by taking away the word marriage and the right to a government issued marriage license, from same sex couples and sticking gay people with the 2nd class citizen 'separate-but-unequal' status of civil unions, by citing the blatant lie that marriage is a religious icon. You've been given authoritative links to the facts which debunk those lies every time you parrot them, and you repeat the pattern of running away, blithely pretending that reality simply doesn't exist, and then pulling another drive-by regurgitation. You can keep playing this 'two plus two equals 22' sophomoric game all you want, no one is falling for it. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you? I'm working on changing two things: 1. So that there is a separation from religion and State in this matter. 2. Allow access to being wed to same sex couples. You apparently miss - not the first time - that non-religious weddings between opposite sex couples would also not be called a marriage, and, if a church participates in a same sex wedding, it would be a "marriage." This has nothing to do with the sex of the couples, really, but in the officiating of the wedding.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 6:18:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Why is it important that it be called a marriage, if benefits are conferred by it being a civil union? Because it is a marriage: a loving, faithful commitment to building a life together. And, imho, gay folks' marriages deserve the same respect and dignity as others'. Part of that respect stems from nomenclature. Why is it so important to you that the word "marriage" not be applied to same-sex couples? You're going through remarkable contortions, including an ahistorical redefinition of the term, just to keep from sharing the word with queers. I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you? I'm working on changing two things: 1. So that there is a separation from religion and State in this matter. 2. Allow access to being wed to same sex couples. You apparently miss - not the first time - that non-religious weddings between opposite sex couples would also not be called a marriage, and, if a church participates in a same sex wedding, it would be a "marriage." This has nothing to do with the sex of the couples, really, but in the officiating of the wedding. If the two terms are equal then how bout the same sex folks call their unions marriages and the jesus phreaques call their unions religious unions? because "civil union" is much shorter than "religious union" and now you'll be codifying a "religious union" in law, while going the civil union route doesn't.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 6:25:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 No, you aren't. And it isn't 'derogatory' to correctly point out when you are making up falsehoods. Your argument from the beginning has been to repeat the failed tactics of anti-miscegenationists and segregationists, by taking away the word marriage and the right to a government issued marriage license, from same sex couples and sticking gay people with the 2nd class citizen 'separate-but-unequal' status of civil unions, by citing the blatant lie that marriage is a religious icon. You've been given authoritative links to the facts which debunk those lies every time you parrot them, and you repeat the pattern of running away, blithely pretending that reality simply doesn't exist, and then pulling another drive-by regurgitation. You can keep playing this 'two plus two equals 22' sophomoric game all you want, no one is falling for it. You need to fucking read. 1. A marriage is a civil union performed as religious rite. Note the lack of definition of the gender(s) of the couple. 2. A civil union is what confers all rights, civil benefits, etc. 3. A wedding performed outside of a religious rite is a civil union. Note the lack of definition of the gender(s) of the couple.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125