Topic: the shrinking territories of homosexual marriage (Read 35792 times)

pbsaurus · « **Reply #25 on:** January 23, 2007, 06:39:18 PM »

I thought we concluded that people were plants.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #26 on:** January 23, 2007, 06:40:44 PM »

Hey, to each his own I say. If you feel like being a plant, then good for you. I for one, wouldn't mind being a Triffid.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #27 on:** January 23, 2007, 06:42:42 PM »

Of course I'm a plant. I manufacture things.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #28 on:** January 23, 2007, 07:07:37 PM »

That avatar gives me an overwhelmingly powerful urge to smite milifist.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #29 on:** January 23, 2007, 07:42:47 PM »

Technically, yes we are classified as mammals... but we seem to be able to reason out things progressively, build progressively, etc... that other animals seemingly can't do. (Or do as fast, perhaps...)

In any event, I don't know if the state being able to define marriage is a good thing. If the state can say that marriage is between a man and a woman, why not between a rich man and a rich woman, or a white man and a white woman? Because it's racist/unfair/elitist/unethical? Well guess what...

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #30 on:** January 23, 2007, 09:48:07 PM »

I just woke up and realized that, despite disliking the government on principle, there ARE two possible things they could do about the gay marriage issue that would please me to the extent that I would have a party.

Option One: Abolish marriage altogether as a legal matter and let the churches and agencies keep scamming, but make the government get their mitts out.

Option Two: Allow free marriage between anybody and anything. I'm not just talking marriage between men, women, and any two combinations of the above. I'm talking men, women, dogs, cats, whales, government-owned buildings, tribes, creeds, cults, magic mushrooms, dirty needles, that empty chip bag on the ground by my desk, a Rubik's cube, and little people made of string in Kindergarten classes.

I am dead serious.

If either one of these comes to pass, I will have a party with a free bar, and further details will be forthcoming.

12AX7 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 23, 2007, 10:43:08 PM »

Quote from: Agent_Tachyon on January 23, 2007, 09:48:07 PM

Option One: Abolish marriage altogether as a legal matter and let the churches and agencies keep scamming, but make the government get their mitts out.

Backwards. Let the government handle it; keep the religion OUT of it. That's where the bias comes from. All thats being asked anyway is to be able to attain the same benefits, ie., health insurance, etc. It's really a cut-and-dried issue once you yank the religious bias out of it. I understand the original "point" being rooted in religion; but if you really want to belabor that point, I can bring up all kinds of crap about who ISN'T EQUAL to WHO according to religion(s). How slavery is ok, beating your wife is cool, etc, etc. Funny how the only people who say "you can't pick and choose what you like from the Bible" are the very ones who forgot all those issues.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #32 on:** January 23, 2007, 10:55:59 PM »

But...is it not the government that does all that health benefit stuff? I could go out and perform a short-duration SubG marriage on somebody that would mean absolutely nothing at all to the government but would be fine for their purposes (hehe). All the letters and votes in the world will not convince churches to marry gay people, I mean c'mon it's 2007 for fuck's sake and a lot still don't think the world is any older than 6000 years.

Evonus · « **Reply #33 on:** January 24, 2007, 12:21:41 AM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on January 23, 2007, 10:43:08 PM

beating your wife is cool, etc, etc.

Hmmm, perhaps there is something to the good book. *strokes chin*

12AX7 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 24, 2007, 07:15:40 AM »

Quote from: Agent_Tachyon on January 23, 2007, 10:55:59 PM

All the letters and votes in the world will not convince churches to marry gay people

My point precisely. Keep them OUT of it. Then it should be no big leap for the government to address marriages the same as any other legal partnership.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #35 on:** January 24, 2007, 08:43:02 AM »

But Churches already don't mean anything at all, they are already out of it legally speaking. If I wanted to marry a chick I wouldn't need a church to do it.

TheJudge · « **Reply #36 on:** January 24, 2007, 10:13:27 AM »

Churches continue to pollute society with preachers and behaviors that are soely based on doctrine wich is ultimately unfounded. No offense to religion or religious individuals, but that is in essence the concept of blind faith. Without it, religion would not exist.

Having said that, considering that there is not a single faith, but hundreds of different faiths, each based uppon different unverifiable myths, each doing seperate propaganda and working independently from one another, it would be impossible fo churches to run the whole marriage business independently while remaining fair and consitent. By granting this task to the federal government, you ensure consitency accross a wide geographic area. Marriage would end up being administrative process.

Now, consider both points from above and look at how society works today. In a sense, isn't his system already in pace? Churches can marry you. But you don't have to go to a church to get married, you can go see a judge. The way I see it, things are fine the way they are because it gives options to the population. I don't think it's a good thing to give monopoly on mariages to a sole organisation (religious or government). A religion has the right to refuse to perform certain types of marriages if it contradicts their doctrine, as interpretted by the current heads of a church. don't forget that churches don't just discriminate towards people. I wanted to get married on the beach, by a catholic priest. Didn't happen. They only performe marriages in churchs or chapels. The bottom line is that each religion can establish their own rules to performe their own ceremonies. So if you want your marriage to be branded "catholic" or anything else, you have to respect their rules.

Ultimately, you still need a marriage license issued by the government, even if you get married in a church (over here anyway). In other words, the recognised "legal" marriage is in fact already an administrative process handled by government. The real underlying issue is the anger people feel towards the discrimination of their own churchs. When people feel uncomfortable or discriminated against by their religion, then perhaps they should consider other options. If what you preach makes you miserable, then don't. It's like banging your head against a brick wall: Feels pretty good when you stop doing it.

xolik · « **Reply #37 on:** January 24, 2007, 10:55:19 AM »

Just when this thread took a turn for the hilarious, Judgie here has to go and serious it up again.

EDIT: I just saw the 'athiests not allowed lol' thing. Very droll.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #38 on:** January 24, 2007, 12:50:15 PM »

The way I see it, "marriage" should not be the realm of government at all. Period.

If you want to get "married", you go see a religious leader. Or, if you prefer, a judge acting privately to perform a ceremony for your friends and family. Or some dufus off the street. It doesn't really matter.

But in my opinion, such a ceremony should not have any legal bearing whatsoever. It is a social ritual only.

Then, if you want legal rights and privileges, you go to your local municipality and take care of that as you will, essentially via a "civil union". Basically just a contract conferring two consenting individuals the legal rights and obligations currently bestowed by what we're calling marriage.

I mean this for straight couples, gay couples, whatever. As long as the individuals involved in the agreement/union are of legal age and are capable of giving consent, and actually DO consent to the agreement.

That way there is, in essence, no discrimination, no issues with faith and government intermingling, and it is back to what it should be: the business of individuals, not anyone else.

If you want to get married by a priest or a rabbi or a mullah? Fine. Go right ahead. Your religious leader won't marry gay people to each other? Fine. That's their perogative. Nobody is forcing them to perform a ceremony or ritual that is antithetical to whatever dogmatic teachings to which they prefer to adhere.

But that dogma has no place in government, or vice versa.

So if you prefer a religious marriage, that's great. But it has no legal ramifications until you go to the courthouse and sign the dotted line.

xolik · « **Reply #39 on:** January 24, 2007, 01:04:10 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on January 24, 2007, 12:50:15 PM

*stuff that would have me voting him into office if I could*

So, uh, why again aren't you running for some form of political office?

12AX7 · « **Reply #40 on:** January 24, 2007, 01:07:09 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on January 24, 2007, 12:50:15 PM

Then, if you want legal rights and privileges, you go to your local municipality and take care of that as you will, essentially via a "civil union". Basically just a contract conferring two consenting individuals the legal rights and obligations currently bestowed by what we're calling marriage.

But it has no legal ramifications until you go to the courthouse and sign the dotted line.

This is my entire point in saying "let the government handle it; keep religion out". After all; it isn't our churches that pass laws saying which 'marriage/union/hookup/etc' is illegal and which isn't. It's the government; and they have NO REAL basis for doing so - except the religious lobbyists.
If you wanna go hang out in a church or whatever- fine. Nobody else's business any more than if you go to a church on Sunday. By the same token, if you dont want "religion" to have anything to do with your marriage/union/hookup/etc; you shouldn't HAVE to be subject to a law based in RELIGION.

12AX7 · « **Reply #41 on:** January 24, 2007, 01:08:35 PM »

Quote from: xolik on January 24, 2007, 01:04:10 PM

So, uh, why again aren't you running for some form of political office?

Uh, cos he's smrt enuf naht too.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #42 on:** January 24, 2007, 01:26:23 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge on January 24, 2007, 10:13:27 AM

Churches continue to pollute society with preachers and behaviors that are soely based on doctrine wich is ultimately unfounded. No offense to religion or religious individuals, but that is in essence the concept of blind faith. Without it, religion would not exist.

Having said that, considering that there is not a single faith, but hundreds of different faiths, each based uppon different unverifiable myths, each doing seperate propaganda and working independently from one another, it would be impossible fo churches to run the whole marriage business independently while remaining fair and consitent. By granting this task to the federal government, you ensure consitency accross a wide geographic area. Marriage would end up being administrative process.

Now, consider both points from above and look at how society works today. In a sense, isn't his system already in pace? Churches can marry you. But you don't have to go to a church to get married, you can go see a judge. The way I see it, things are fine the way they are because it gives options to the population. I don't think it's a good thing to give monopoly on mariages to a sole organisation (religious or government). A religion has the right to refuse to perform certain types of marriages if it contradicts their doctrine, as interpretted by the current heads of a church. don't forget that churches don't just discriminate towards people. I wanted to get married on the beach, by a catholic priest. Didn't happen. They only performe marriages in churchs or chapels. The bottom line is that each religion can establish their own rules to performe their own ceremonies. So if you want your marriage to be branded "catholic" or anything else, you have to respect their rules.

Ultimately, you still need a marriage license issued by the government, even if you get married in a church (over here anyway). In other words, the recognised "legal" marriage is in fact already an administrative process handled by government. The real underlying issue is the anger people feel towards the discrimination of their own churchs. When people feel uncomfortable or discriminated against by their religion, then perhaps they should consider other options. If what you preach makes you miserable, then don't. It's like banging your head against a brick wall: Feels pretty good when you stop doing it.

My point exactly.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #43 on:** January 24, 2007, 01:27:19 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on January 24, 2007, 12:50:15 PM

The way I see it, "marriage" should not be the realm of government at all. Period.

If you want to get "married", you go see a religious leader. Or, if you prefer, a judge acting privately to perform a ceremony for your friends and family. Or some dufus off the street. It doesn't really matter.

But in my opinion, such a ceremony should not have any legal bearing whatsoever. It is a social ritual only.

Then, if you want legal rights and privileges, you go to your local municipality and take care of that as you will, essentially via a "civil union". Basically just a contract conferring two consenting individuals the legal rights and obligations currently bestowed by what we're calling marriage.

I mean this for straight couples, gay couples, whatever. As long as the individuals involved in the agreement/union are of legal age and are capable of giving consent, and actually DO consent to the agreement.

That way there is, in essence, no discrimination, no issues with faith and government intermingling, and it is back to what it should be: the business of individuals, not anyone else.

If you want to get married by a priest or a rabbi or a mullah? Fine. Go right ahead. Your religious leader won't marry gay people to each other? Fine. That's their perogative. Nobody is forcing them to perform a ceremony or ritual that is antithetical to whatever dogmatic teachings to which they prefer to adhere.

But that dogma has no place in government, or vice versa.

So if you prefer a religious marriage, that's great. But it has no legal ramifications until you go to the courthouse and sign the dotted line.

I believe the world would be a much better place if this was in place.

12AX7 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 24, 2007, 01:27:44 PM »

Quote from: Agent_Tachyon on January 24, 2007, 01:26:23 PM

My point exactly.

This is exactly what I meant.

milifist · « **Reply #45 on:** January 24, 2007, 01:28:12 PM »

Every time I see this thread I think of the BIG FAT GAY MARRIAGE DISCUSSION THREAD.

Makes me miss HN.

12AX7 · « **Reply #46 on:** January 24, 2007, 01:29:10 PM »

Quote from: milifist on January 24, 2007, 01:28:12 PM

Every time I see this thread I think of the BIG FAT GAY MARRIAGE DISCUSSION THREAD.

Makes me miss HN.

That was another of my points precisely.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #47 on:** January 24, 2007, 04:00:07 PM »

Marriage kinda does work like Demo mentioned. When we were married, the priest dude gave us a certificate from my wife's church, and they also processed paperwork with the county and gave her the info for changing her name. My friends who were married by a justice of the peace just filled out the paperwork with the county. The only difference is that the county recognizes it as a marriage which happens to be the same term that the religious ceremony called it. The religious ceremony called marriage is not recognized as a legal union until the paperwork is filled out.

So it would be nice if the legal union were called something else, civil union, entity bonding, Fred, etc. It would also be nice if the legal union didn't discriminate either.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #48 on:** January 24, 2007, 06:28:40 PM »

Quote from: xolik on January 24, 2007, 01:04:10 PM

So, uh, why again aren't you running for some form of political office?

What, you don't think I'd be persecuting Christians?

In all seriousness though, in reference to seeking political office, I have come (fairly recently even) very, very close to starting down that path. I changed my mind with hat-in-hand, before throwing it into the proverbial ring.

I don't think I would like who I would have to become in order to get into office, stay in office, and accomplish anything in office. And I don't want that.

So as I have said before, if nominated, I will decline. If elected I will refuse to serve.

The subject of gay marriage really, really pisses me off for some reason. Probably because as far as discrimination and denial of equal rights in this case is just so fucking ARBITRARY and malicious I suppose.

I literally see it as no different than barring left-handed people from owning businesses. Or making people with blue eyes register with the government so that tabs can be kept on them. Or barring blacks from marrying whites. Or preventing gay couples from adopting.

It's so senseless, and arguably has no effect on those that are so dead-set on keeping people from living their lives as they see fit. Two men or two women in a committed relationship enjoying the rights and privileges of married life together in no way diminishes or even affects my ability as a straight individual to enjoy those same elements of life with my mate.

People that go so far out of their way to interfere with the private lives of others are so incomprehensibly removed from the concept of a free society that they shouldn't be allowed to vote, in my opinion.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #49 on:** January 24, 2007, 06:53:50 PM »

Agreed, but by denying them the vote is infringing on their liberty. In other news Ron Paul is running in '08.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: the shrinking territories of homosexual marriage (Read 35792 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7