RE: Homosexual’s marriages…

RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Emperor1956 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 7:52:45 PM)
WHOA STOP HOLD THE PHONE. A minor correction: quote: Sinergy: I know of any number of Christian groups (Unitarian Universalists Sinergy, Unitarian Universalists are NOT Xians. In fact, the fundamental beliefs of UU (the common abbreviation) is really an amalgam of two Xian heresies. First, Unitarianism, or the idea that there is One God, with no divisions (i.e. no papa, kid and spook, as George Carlin said). Second, Universalism, that all people have a place in heaven regardless of their beliefs, specifically the acceptance of Christ as their personal savior. I have hung out with a number of UUs for many years, and my wife was a fairly famous liturgical singer for them on a national basis. Calling a UU "Xian" may well be fightin' words. We now return you to your regular contentious debate about angels dancing on the heads of small pointy fastening devices... E.

juliaoceania -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 7:59:29 PM)
I think he was thinking of the Unity Church...

Lordandmaster -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:00:57 PM)
Yeah, he's right. Unitarianism was originally a denomination of Protestantism, but by now it has moved way beyond the confines of Christianity.

Sinergy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:07:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 WHOA STOP HOLD THE PHONE. A minor correction: quote: Sinergy: I know of any number of Christian groups (Unitarian Universalists Sinergy, Unitarian Universalists are NOT Xians. In fact, the fundamental beliefs of UU (the common abbreviation) is really an amalgam of two Xian heresies. First, Unitarianism, or the idea that there is One God, with no divisions (i.e. no papa, kid and spook, as George Carlin said). Second, Universalism, that all people have a place in heaven regardless of their beliefs, specifically the acceptance of Christ as their personal savior. I have hung out with a number of UUs for many years, and my wife was a fairly famous liturgical singer for them on a national basis. Calling a UU "Xian" may well be fightin' words. We now return you to your regular contentious debate about angels dancing on the heads of small pointy fastening devices... E. I used to belong to the UU church when I was a kid. It was interesting, but the pasta never stuck to the wall so I gave it up. If a person or group comes up to me and states they are X, I will generally agree that they are, in fact, X. I dont have any emotional involvement in whether they consider themselves Christian, butt-probed by aliens, Scientologists, or whatever. If it works for them, go for it. Your statement that a group of people calling themselves Christian is incorrect because they have heretical beliefs which no self-respecting "Christian" would ascribe to seems to me to be extremely narrow-minded and parochial in nature. But that is just me and I could be wrong. I am sure when you go to church you will find a legion of people willing to agree with you that UU churchgoers are not Christian. So I withdraw my comment that any number of Christian churches do not have a problem with Homosexuality. I understand that other churches (that you probably belong to) are shining examples of Jesus Christ's willingness and care for, and not judge, all persons regardless of who or what they are, as long as they refrain from engaging in consensual sodomy or other sexual practices with individuals of the same gender. I promise to fall lock-step in with your idea that people should judge other people harshly and not show Christian love. I remember some passage in the Bible about "judge not lest ye be judged" but I am probably wrong. Sinergy

Emperor1956 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:12:40 PM)
Sinergy, you are wrong. I'm not going to refute you line by line. 1. Unitarians are not Christians. They don't think they are. I don't think they are...but its nice to think YOU think they are. 2. Why the personal attacks? Totally uncalled for and they make you look small. Your nasty aspersions that my religious beliefs are intolerant are way out of line. 3. I'm Jewish. I don't go to church. And "judge not..." is Matthew, I believe? You might read MY testament...it has volumes about arrogance and pride being inappropriate. Now an apology would be nice, and we can put this to bed. E.

Emperor1956 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:15:30 PM)
quote: darkinshadows said (BUT YOU KNEW that, who else does the italics in centered text thing? but I digress...) So, if a couple are married/union in a state that allows gay marriage and moves state - even to a state that recognises gay unions... the rights they have vary? Or am I reading that wrong? Peace and Rapture from a very confused UKer... Dark, that is EXACTLY correct, and that is a major flaw in the argument of those who say "civil union" is just like "marriage". In fact a "civil union" has extremely limited legal effect, while a marriage has wideranging and permanent legal consequences. "Marriage" in the USA is recognized by all 50 states to have the same, fairly extensive, legal consequences regardless of where that marriage was performed* (Yes, we even recognize marriages performed in the UK (grin) and elsewhere). But the rights conferred by a "civil union" are ONLY applicable in the state where the union was performed, unless another state has enacted laws specifically recognizing the "civil union". So a civil union in Vermont is essentially meaningless in the other 49 states, Puerto Rico and American Samoa. -E _______________________ *This was not always so. There is extensive American law about whether, for example, a marriage between first cousins (legal in some states) is legal in states where first cousin marriage is NOT legal. Ditto miscegenatious marriages. But in fact in the USA, a legal "marriage" from one state is recognized universally

Sinergy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:34:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 Sinergy, you are wrong. I'm not going to refute you line by line. 1. Unitarians are not Christians. They don't think they are. I don't think they are...but its nice to think YOU think they are. 2. Why the personal attacks? Totally uncalled for and they make you look small. Your nasty aspersions that my religious beliefs are intolerant are way out of line. 3. I'm Jewish. I don't go to church. And "judge not..." is Matthew, I believe? You might read MY testament...it has volumes about arrogance and pride being inappropriate. Now an apology would be nice, and we can put this to bed. E. I stand corrected, and I apologize. Sinergy

popeye1250 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:38:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam I was going to answer right away, but then I thought...hey...I've got someone in my family who is much more of an expert than I (my boi is lesbian). So, I sent my answer to her and asked her opinion and answer. This was the exchange: My answer: It boils down to gender identification. If the person, male or female, identifies as male, they are a husband. If they identify as female, they are a wife. So, we have husband and wife if there is a male identified person married to a female identified person, no matter what the sex. If we have two people married that identify female, they are both wives and if we have two people married that identify male, they are both husbands. her answer/comments: Ma'am You are correct with Your answers but a lot of same sex partners identify as life partners or life mates. When (name removed)and i were married and it came to the part do you take (name removed) to be your wife.....i said i do and then when it came to (name removed) do you take moe to be your wife....she said i do. Then it went to i now pronounce you, (name removed), and you, moe, as Life Partners. It can get as confusing as any label....most often though you will hear someone introduce their same sex partner as a Life Partner....but again it is individual preference. So, there you have it from a real life lesbian who's been married. LOL Master Fire L.P.? Works for me.

Emperor1956 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:39:34 PM)
Sinergy, thank you. E.

Sinergy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 Sinergy, thank you. E. Takes a big person to stand up and say they are right. Takes a bigger person to stand up and say they are wrong. Just me, etc. Sinergy

Lordandmaster -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:56:53 PM)
Well, but there really is a conflict-of-laws problem, because same-sex marriage began in Massachusetts in 2004, but same-sex marriages from other states are explicitly NOT recognized in places like Oklahoma. There's a hornet's nest of a controversy over whether non-residents are permitted to enter into same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. There's also a dispute over whether Proposition 22 in California (unintentionally) forces the state to stop recognizing common-law marriages contracted in other states. quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 "Marriage" in the USA is recognized by all 50 states to have the same, fairly extensive, legal consequences regardless of where that marriage was performed*

Lordandmaster -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 9:12:18 PM)
Laughing...yeah, first say you were wrong, and then congratulate yourself for it. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Takes a big person to stand up and say they are right. Takes a bigger person to stand up and say they are wrong.

Sinergy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 9:32:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Laughing...yeah, first say you were wrong, and then congratulate yourself for it. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Takes a big person to stand up and say they are right. Takes a bigger person to stand up and say they are wrong. Welcome to my world... Sinergy. p.s. On the other hand, I was simply sharing what a friend used to say.

Emperor1956 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 9:33:40 PM)
quote: LaM: Well, but there really is a conflict-of-laws problem, because same-sex marriage began in Massachusetts in 2004, but same-sex marriages from other states are explicitly NOT recognized in places like Oklahoma. There's a hornet's nest of a controversy over whether non-residents are permitted to enter into same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. Good point. I should have made it clear that I was saying that traditional M-F marriages are granted comity in all 50 states. My point was that "civil unions" and are NOT granted comity. And you are correct that the book is open as to whether same-sex marriages are to be granted comity. But you'll agree, I think, that a state that recognizes M-F "marriages" from all jurisdictions but attempts to not recognize same sex "marriages" is laying itself open for some huge equal protection challenges? E.

MisPandora -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 9:40:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong So civil unions have no rights at all then? Correct. That's why this dead gay ex-congressman's partner is not getting his pension -- because while they got married/partnered in MA where it was/is legal in their state, it's not recognized anywhere else in the union.

vield -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 9:51:43 PM)
There used to be a division between states which accepted common law marriage as a legal marriage and those which did not. I knew a case where a legal common law marrige with children from Alabama was not recognized in Wisconsin, for example. This was a male/female relationship. That was a few years back, things may have changed. I certainly am in favor of allowing anybody who wishes to take on the obligations to marry wqhoever they seek. It's not gonna be me though, I am in a community property state and the restrictions on one's business and life that imposed was not pretty once divorce was begun. As usual, your mileage may vary! vield

Lordandmaster -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 10:21:39 PM)
Yeah, I don't see how that would stand, and I certainly agree that the current push to solve this problem with civil unions isn't going to work in the long run because a civil union is no substitute for a marriage. For one thing, obviously, a same-sex couple with a legal civil union in some state couldn't file jointly as a married couple on a federal income tax return. We've had several threads about same-sex marriage, and I've stated my opinion many times, so I don't feel I have to keep repeating myself, but for anyone who has missed it: I have never heard a plausible argument against same-sex marriage, and I've heard several very implausible, not to mention downright offensive, arguments against it. I've also said that the simplest fucking thing would be to abolish marriage as a legal state entirely (and, of course, anyone who would want a religious marriage could still get one in a church or whatever)--but that's not going to happen anytime soon. quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 But you'll agree, I think, that a state that recognizes M-F "marriages" from all jurisdictions but attempts to not recognize same sex "marriages" is laying itself open for some huge equal protection challenges?

SirKenin -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/19/2006 9:05:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Paul's view and understanding of homosexuality is nowhere near what we now it to be today. The homsexuals pauls knew who practiced openly enough to be seen were mostly temple prostitutes and those that frequented them, since that would mean two things exploiting children (the temple prostitutes were often young boys), and giving money to the support of a rival god, it would stand to reason that they would be excluded. How many committed monogomous homosexual couples do you think Paul ever met and knew they were gay? Actually, that is not true. Paul was crying out against the practice of Roman emperors castrating young boys, staging elaborate wedding ceremonies and taking them in to be his wife. In one documented case, the emperor later divorced the boy to become someone else's wife.

CrappyDom -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/19/2006 9:47:44 AM)
The only people worried about gay marriage are those men who really wanted to be gay but instead married a woman and became Republicans but who really want to be fucking men in the ass and are so angry about not doing it that they want to fuck over those who do. If they were really worried about marriage they would ban divorce first.

SirKenin -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/19/2006 11:26:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom The only people worried about gay marriage are those men who really wanted to be gay but instead married a woman and became Republicans but who really want to be fucking men in the ass and are so angry about not doing it that they want to fuck over those who do. If they were really worried about marriage they would ban divorce first. Another retarded age-old worn out faux pas.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125