PDA

View Full Version : APP - damo, dixie and i agree



Don Quixote
11-10-2009, 11:21 PM
that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religions

what we have called marriage should be changed to civil unions or contracts

however, the government has an interest in the protection of children so laws regarding marriage may need to be applied to civil unions involving property and/or children

WinterBorn
11-11-2009, 07:08 AM
that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religions

what we have called marriage should be changed to civil unions or contracts

however, the government has an interest in the protection of children so laws regarding marriage may need to be applied to civil unions involving property and/or children

Removing the gov't from the entire marriage scene would be an excellent idea. Have marriage be a religious ceremony with no connection to any state or federal benefits. And have civil unions provide these benefits.

DamnYankee
11-11-2009, 07:30 AM
Nice; a threesome. :cof1:

PostmodernProphet
11-11-2009, 07:32 AM
menage a tripe?......

DamnYankee
11-11-2009, 07:38 AM
Who's the "Lucky Pierre", in the middle?

WinterBorn
11-11-2009, 08:07 AM
Nice of ya'll to avoid the actual topic and go straight for the ad hominem and ridicule.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 09:22 AM
that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religions

what we have called marriage should be changed to civil unions or contracts

however, the government has an interest in the protection of children so laws regarding marriage may need to be applied to civil unions involving property and/or children

You are merely changing the name to civil unions. Semantics.

Damocles
11-11-2009, 09:27 AM
You are merely changing the name to civil unions. Semantics.
Nah, you can get married, you will just get it done in a church and if you want government "benefits" you can file the necessary contractual agreements.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 09:32 AM
Nah, you can get married, you will just get it done in a church and if you want government "benefits" you can file the necessary contractual agreements.

But how is that different than what you can get from the government now? Other than a name change?

WinterBorn
11-11-2009, 09:36 AM
But how is that different than what you can get from the government now? Other than a name change?

It removes the gov't from what is essentially a religious ceremony to many people.

It creates a separate entity for the gov't benefits, and thereby includes all.

Damocles
11-11-2009, 09:38 AM
But how is that different than what you can get from the government now? Other than a name change?
It limits the government to the contractual agreement rather than allowing them to regulate and thus support specific religious dogma through "marriage" licensing.

I think the divide is clear, and consistent with the intent of the 1st Amendment. The government shouldn't have a say in whom is "married", that is the realm of the religious.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 09:39 AM
It removes the gov't from what is essentially a religious ceremony to many people.

It creates a separate entity for the gov't benefits, and thereby includes all.

Merely by changing the name?

Jarod
11-11-2009, 09:40 AM
It limits the government to the contractual agreement rather than allowing them to regulate and thus support specific religious dogma through "marriage" licensing.

So it would eliminate the license requirement?

Damocles
11-11-2009, 09:42 AM
So it would eliminate the license requirement?
Yes. Marriage is a religious institution and laws should not be made to support such an institution based on the the doctrine of the majority religion. Licensing of religious ceremonies is simply a power grab around the 1st Amendment to liegislate that people live according to the dogma of the majority belief system.

WinterBorn
11-11-2009, 09:43 AM
Merely by changing the name?

Actually, its a little more than just changing the name. The "civil union" is the joining of two people in the eyes of the gov't. It gives all the benefits that now exist for a marriage.

Marriage then becomes the religious version of that ceremony, with no gov't sponsored benefits.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 09:45 AM
Yes. Marriage is a religious institution and laws should not be made to support such an institution based on the the doctrine of the majority religion. Licensing of religious ceremonies is simply a power grab around the 1st Amendment to liegislate that people live according to the dogma of the majority belief system.



But you can get "married" in the eyes of the government without any religous componant, I did!

Damocles
11-11-2009, 09:46 AM
Actually, its a little more than just changing the name. The "civil union" is the joining of two people in the eyes of the gov't. It gives all the benefits that now exist for a marriage.

Marriage then becomes the religious version of that ceremony, with no gov't sponsored benefits.
I would say that the "civil union" is simply a contractual agreement entered into by lawfully consenting adults. The reality is such a union could benefit people who would never want a marriage, but want the assurance of linear inheritance. Imagine two sisters both widows living together at the end who want those benefits to go to their sister if either should go. They could hire lawyers and spend thousands, or they could become a "union"...

Jarod
11-11-2009, 09:47 AM
Actually, its a little more than just changing the name. The "civil union" is the joining of two people in the eyes of the gov't. It gives all the benefits that now exist for a marriage.

Marriage then becomes the religious version of that ceremony, with no gov't sponsored benefits.

We already have that, its just called the same thing.

I got "married" with no involvement of a church what so ever!

If I had chosen I could have gotten "married" in a church only, with no benefit of the government.

Cypress
11-11-2009, 09:48 AM
that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religions

what we have called marriage should be changed to civil unions or contracts

however, the government has an interest in the protection of children so laws regarding marriage may need to be applied to civil unions involving property and/or children

The institution of marriage as a legal construct is embedded in literally thousands of laws, regulations, and policies, from tax law, to estate law, to custody and family law. That crap is embedded in both federal law and the patchwork of laws in 50 states. Not to mention the civil/legal institution of marriage is entrenched in the corporate policies of tens of thousands of businesses in their benefits packages, their retirement packages, and company policies.

There’s no plausible way, and there certainly is no motivation to change all that. On an institutional and legislative scale it would be a mind-boggling and unbelievably massive and complex effort to change literally hundreds of thousands of laws, regulations, policies, and company guidelines. The magnitude of the effort is isn’t worth it, and outside of some message board posters and some armchair policy wonks, there simply is no need or political motivation to do this. In short, this is never going to happen and a Christian Taliban like Dixie knows it.

It’s mental masturbation. It’s not going to happen in the real world.

Here’s a tip: When a rightwinger like Dixie says he’s in favor of changing from marriage to civil unions in a civil context, he knows it’s never going to happen. But, it allows him to appear empathetic to gays, while still opposing gay marriage. It’s a win-win for Dixie. The semi-sane rightwing is increasingly embarrassed by their Christian Taliban ideology (at least in public), and this is an easy way to pretend to be supportive of gay rights, while fundamentally continuing to oppose any realistic attempts to expand gay rights in the real world.

Damocles
11-11-2009, 09:48 AM
But you can get "married" in the eyes of the government without any religous componant, I did!
However traditionally licensing for marriages were regulated solely by the churches. It wasn't until the mid-1800s, in order to make laws against inter-racial marriage, that licensing by the government even appeared at all in the US. Previous to that you can find licenses issued by the churches, but no government entity in the US.

Licensing appeared in about the year 1200 or so, by the Church, but it wasn't applied regularly and the church recognized the marriages of people if they said they exchanged vows with or without its license or even a Priest.

Common law "marriage" was recognized for those who wished to simply say they were "married"...

Nowadays only 10 states recognize common law marriage, "marriage" is seen as a money maker as they collect fees for the licenses and it is used to support the dogma of the majority religion.

Again this would make it so that no benefit was tied to the religious ceremony of "marriage" if you wanted to get married you would go to a church, if you wanted the benefits of a union you would have to file the contractual agreement.

Don Quixote
11-11-2009, 09:51 AM
But how is that different than what you can get from the government now? Other than a name change?

because religious extremists do not want unions between anything other than one man and one woman called marriage

this would allow other forms (including homosexual unions and plural unions) to be legal and allow benefits now only available to traditional unions

DamnYankee
11-11-2009, 09:52 AM
Nice of ya'll to avoid the actual topic and go straight for the ad hominem and ridicule.Not at all. It's just queer sex: normal natural healthy and moral, just like you say. :rolleyes:

Damocles
11-11-2009, 09:53 AM
because religious extremists do not want unions between anything other than one man and one woman called marriage

this would allow other forms (including homosexual unions and plural unions) to be legal and allow benefits now only available to traditional unions
And there are currently churches that perform ceremonies for gays, this would allow their religious beliefs to have the same foundation in freedom as those of the majority religious doctrine.

Damocles
11-11-2009, 09:54 AM
Not at all. It's just queer sex: normal natural healthy and moral, just like you say. :rolleyes:
I honestly couldn't care any less if it was or wasn't healthy. If it is between two consenting adults it is none of my business.

We have laws that would protect their children, just as they would if they didn't marry and had kids as they do very often nowadays.

WinterBorn
11-11-2009, 09:54 AM
Not at all. It's just queer sex: normal natural healthy and moral, just like you say.

I'm glad you came around to our way of thinking.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 09:54 AM
However traditionally licensing for marriages were regulated solely by the churches. It wasn't until the mid-1800s, in order to make laws against inter-racial marriage, that licensing by the government even appeared at all in the US. Previous to that you can find licenses issued by the churches, but no government entity.

Common law "marriage" was recognized for those who wished to simply say they were "married"...

Nowadays only 10 states recognize common law marriage, "marriage" is seen as a money maker as they collect fees for the licenses...

Again this would make it so that no benefit was tied to the religious ceremony of "marriage" if you wanted to get married you would go to a church, if you wanted the benefits of a union you would have to file the contractual agreement.

That is already the deal. As you noted it was changed in the mid 1800's. Now the license has nuthing to do with religen and I can get a purely civil ceramony and most people will consider me married.

I have a civil union, based on your description, but semanticly its called a marriage by the government. Again, you merely want to change the semantics.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 09:55 AM
because religious extremists do not want unions between anything other than one man and one woman called marriage

this would allow other forms (including homosexual unions and plural unions) to be legal and allow benefits now only available to traditional unions

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Also a turd by any other name is still a turd.

Damocles
11-11-2009, 10:00 AM
That is already the deal. As you noted it was changed in the mid 1800's. Now the license has nuthing to do with religen and I can get a purely civil ceramony and most people will consider me married.

I have a civil union, based on your description, but semanticly its called a marriage by the government. Again, you merely want to change the semantics.
You are wrong, licenses are used by the government in most of the states to support the religious doctrine of the majority religion. IMO it is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment...

That the government misused the terminology to make you feel better doesn't change that this licensing is what I have pointed out it is. They use the licenses to limit marriages based on either their dogma, or the dogma of the majority religion. Neither should be forced on people and neither would be the case if it was solely a contractual agreement.

And again, the current "government" solution (approved religious doctrine disguised as secular licensing) would never recognize a "union" contract between two sisters as I previously posted about. They would if all it was is a contractual agreement, which is as far as the government should have the power to reach.

It isn't the government's place to limit your consensual adult relationships according to the will of any others, and it is specifically forbidden that they do it according to the dogmatic beliefs of the majority religion.

PostmodernProphet
11-11-2009, 10:01 AM
Nice of ya'll to avoid the actual topic and go straight for the ad hominem and ridicule.

good point....we've never had a thread on gay marriage before....we should take the time to explore everyone's thoughts on the issue.....

Jarod
11-11-2009, 10:01 AM
You are wrong, licenses are used by the government in most of the states to support the religious doctrine of the majority religion. IMO it is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

How so, here in florida anyway and I belvie in most states the license has nuthing to do with religen, it may have its roots in religen, but no longer based on religen.

What is the religous componant?

Jarod
11-11-2009, 10:04 AM
Damo, am I married? No religous institution had anything to do with my marrage.

WinterBorn
11-11-2009, 10:04 AM
good point....we've never had a thread on gay marriage before....we should take the time to explore everyone's thoughts on the issue.....

So instead of saying anything intelligent or discussing the option proposed, you think just adding insults is the answer?

DamnYankee
11-11-2009, 10:05 AM
good point....we've never had a thread on gay marriage before....we should take the time to explore everyone's thoughts on the issue.....LOL :good4u:

WinterBorn
11-11-2009, 10:06 AM
LOL :good4u:

Now this is actually typical. SM, you have run from so many points and questions you may as well have not gotten involved in the discussion.

DamnYankee
11-11-2009, 10:07 AM
I honestly couldn't care any less if it was or wasn't healthy. If it is between two consenting adults it is none of my business.

We have laws that would protect their children, just as they would if they didn't marry and had kids as they do very often nowadays.

One of those laws should be to prohibit adoption by persons engaging in unhealthy sexual practices and abnormal behavior, like homosexuality.

DamnYankee
11-11-2009, 10:08 AM
Now this is actually typical. SM, you have run from so many points and questions you may as well have not gotten involved in the discussion. Call a wambulance. LOL

Damocles
11-11-2009, 10:09 AM
How so, here in florida anyway and I belvie in most states the license has nuthing to do with religen, it may have its roots in religen, but no longer based on religen.

What is the religous componant?
Yet it does. Why would they not allow two brothers who simply wanted easy inheritance paths to get that license rather than spending thousands on lawyers to set up the same benefits? Why would they not allow gay people to?

Any consenting adult could enter a contractual agreement, with your marriage it is limited to what matches the religious beliefs of the majority because the government got into the business of marriage.

These licenses are tools of the government used to support the dogmatic beliefs of the majority religion.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-11-2009, 10:09 AM
So instead of saying anything intelligent or discussing the option proposed, you think just adding insults is the answer?

lol...pampers just had a hissy yesterday accusing me of this....

btw, i agree with the OP as well

it works for everyone, those that want to keep the tradition keep the tradition and those who believe the reality that marriage is solely a contract under US law get to have the equal rights....

i would add though, that the government should not confine "marriage" solely to religious institutions, if elvis still wants to marry folks in vegas, go for it, however, said ceromony, just like a religious wedding would have no legal affect until the parties "contract" under civil union laws

Jarod
11-11-2009, 10:10 AM
One of those laws should be to prohibit adoption by persons engaging in unhealthy sexual practices and abnormal behavior, like homosexuality.

Should people who smoke be allowed to adopt? What about those who eat big mac's?

DamnYankee
11-11-2009, 10:12 AM
Should people who smoke be allowed to adopt? What about those who eat big mac's?I'd say put them on the back of the list, at a minimum.

Damocles
11-11-2009, 10:12 AM
One of those laws should be to prohibit adoption by persons engaging in unhealthy sexual practices and abnormal behavior, like homosexuality.
There is no such law, nor should there be. The reality is most of the children living with gay people were born to them naturally.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 10:13 AM
Yet it does. Why would they not allow to brothers who simply wanted easy inheritance paths to get that license rather than spending thousands on lawyers to set up the same benefits? Why would they not allow gay people to?

These licenses are tools of the government used to support the dogmatic beliefs of the majority religion.

Brothers should not be allowed to marry simply to avoid taxes, they already have a family relationship that is reconized by the government. Brothers should be and are allowed to contract for things like the care of a child. My marriage has nuthing to do with a church. THe one componant I am saying we should do away with is gay marriage, because it is related to a religous element.

DamnYankee
11-11-2009, 10:16 AM
There is no such law, nor should there be. The reality is most of the children living with gay people were born to them naturally. That's clear evidence that these folks chose to be gay, which means that it ain't natural.

WinterBorn
11-11-2009, 10:21 AM
One of those laws should be to prohibit adoption by persons engaging in unhealthy sexual practices and abnormal behavior, like homosexuality.

So you want to bring back the anti-sodomy laws and use them in adoption cases?

Better to leave kids without parents than to actually allow gays to adopt?



Since straights engage in sodomy as well, should there be some test for sexual practices before allowing them to adopt?

Damocles
11-11-2009, 10:21 AM
Brothers should not be allowed to marry simply to avoid taxes, they already have a family relationship that is reconized by the government. Brothers should be and are allowed to contract for things like the care of a child. My marriage has nuthing to do with a church. THe one componant I am saying we should do away with is gay marriage, because it is related to a religous element.
And again, IMO, the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage, it is a sanction of the religious belief of the majority.

Saying "they shouldn't be allowed to do that to avoid taxes" is rubbish. The vast majority of brothers wouldn't do this because of the heavy cost of separating when they found somebody they wanted to spend their lives with, basing the argument on "brothers shouldn't be allowed to just for that"... is just weak support of that same majority belief and cements my opinion that it is based on the religious doctrine of the majority.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 10:21 AM
That's clear evidence that these folks chose to be gay, which means that it ain't natural.

Sure its natural, I choose to eat hamburger as opposed to carrots, does that make eating hamburger unatural?

Damocles
11-11-2009, 10:22 AM
That's clear evidence that these folks chose to be gay, which means that it ain't natural.
Nah, it just means that they either tried desperately to deny their urges and fit in with society because people that hate gays often make their lives hell, or that they simply were able to push beyond their distaste in order to have a child.

The reality is, most of the children that live in the situation you want to "save" adopted children from by simply not allowing them to marry are the natural children of one of the homosexual "partners", are not abused, and are protected by the laws already in place for that purpose.

WinterBorn
11-11-2009, 10:22 AM
That's clear evidence that these folks chose to be gay, which means that it ain't natural.

No it is not. If anything it is clear evidence of the prejudices against gays and the lengths that people will go to in order to avoid the hassles and dangers of being openly gay.

You would deny them marriage, and parenthood if you could. Is it any wonder they do not come out of the closet?

Jarod
11-11-2009, 10:23 AM
And again, IMO, the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage, it is a sanction of the religious belief of the majority.

Saying "they shouldn't be allowed to do that to avoid taxes" is rubbish. The vast majority of brothers wouldn't do this because of the heavy cost of separating when they found somebody they wanted to spend their lives with, basing the argument on "brothers shouldn't be allowed to just for that"... is just weak support of that same majority belief and cements my opinion that it is based on the religious doctrine of the majority.

NO because there is a secular government interest in not allowing people with a current family relationship to marry if they are doing it to avoid taxes.

That is not the same with gay marriage.

Damo, again I ask, AM I MARRIED?

Damocles
11-11-2009, 10:29 AM
NO because there is a secular government interest in not allowing people with a current family relationship to marry if they are doing it to avoid taxes.

That is not the same with gay marriage.

Damo, again I ask, AM I MARRIED?
Which still doesn't change any of my other questions.

Any consenting adult who wishes to enter into a contract should be able to, marriage is simply a grasp for the same power as religion, and government licensing was created to limit the rights of individuals, first inter-racial couples, now homosexual couples, in some of the northern states they began solely to limit the Latter Day Saints...

DamnYankee
11-11-2009, 10:33 AM
Nah, it just means that they either tried desperately to deny their urges and fit in with society because people that hate gays often make their lives hell, or that they simply were able to push beyond their distaste in order to have a child.

The reality is, most of the children that live in the situation you want to "save" adopted children from by simply not allowing them to marry are the natural children of one of the homosexual "partners", are not abused, and are protected by the laws already in place for that purpose.

That may have been true 30 years ago, but one can plainly see from the response that truth tellers like me get when discussing the issue, along with accolades of queer art and queer public figures, the opposite is true: queers are celebrated and truth tellers are demonized (and, the height of hypocrisy, accused of being gay).

I have no problem with queers raising there own children; I just think that they should be put on the back of the list when looking to adopt other's.

WinterBorn
11-11-2009, 11:03 AM
That may have been true 30 years ago, but one can plainly see from the response that truth tellers like me get when discussing the issue, along with accolades of queer art and queer public figures, the opposite is true: queers are celebrated and truth tellers are demonized (and, the height of hypocrisy, accused of being gay).

I have no problem with queers raising there own children; I just think that they should be put on the back of the list when looking to adopt other's.

Truth tellers? Not even close.


Gays are still subject to the prejudices today. Perhaps a hollywood star or musician, but for regular people they are still shunned and rejected.

Damocles
11-11-2009, 11:05 AM
NO because there is a secular government interest in not allowing people with a current family relationship to marry if they are doing it to avoid taxes.

That is not the same with gay marriage.

Damo, again I ask, AM I MARRIED?
Also, there is no compelling need to give a tax break to everybody that enters this contractual arrangement. The question should be, "Why would we feel compelled to give it to two strangers that entered into it just to avoid taxes?"

And if you want to call yourself married, by all means do so.

Damocles
11-11-2009, 11:08 AM
That may have been true 30 years ago, but one can plainly see from the response that truth tellers like me get when discussing the issue, along with accolades of queer art and queer public figures, the opposite is true: queers are celebrated and truth tellers are demonized (and, the height of hypocrisy, accused of being gay).

I have no problem with queers raising there own children; I just think that they should be put on the back of the list when looking to adopt other's.
Which truth is this?

That children shouldn't go to Catholic church or to any school because there is a far higher likelihood of being molested by somebody in authority there than if they are growing up in a house with homosexual adults?

And that's cool with me, at least you don't try to say they shouldn't be able to adopt at all.

/MSG/
11-11-2009, 11:45 AM
that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religions

what we have called marriage should be changed to civil unions or contracts

however, the government has an interest in the protection of children so laws regarding marriage may need to be applied to civil unions involving property and/or children

So I'm just chopped liver eh?

Damocles
11-11-2009, 11:46 AM
So I'm just chopped liver eh?
Yep. Just you.

DamnYankee
11-11-2009, 12:09 PM
...

That children shouldn't go to Catholic church or to any school because there is a far higher likelihood of being molested by somebody in authority there than if they are growing up in a house with homosexual adults?...

Wow. Prove it.

PostmodernProphet
11-11-2009, 12:22 PM
So instead of saying anything intelligent or discussing the option proposed, you think just adding insults is the answer?
my apologies.....I won't make the mistake of posting to your threads in the future.....

Jarod
11-11-2009, 12:38 PM
Which still doesn't change any of my other questions.

Any consenting adult who wishes to enter into a contract should be able to, marriage is simply a grasp for the same power as religion, and government licensing was created to limit the rights of individuals, first inter-racial couples, now homosexual couples, in some of the northern states they began solely to limit the Latter Day Saints...

I dont care why they began, I care why they exist now!

WinterBorn
11-11-2009, 12:39 PM
my apologies.....I won't make the mistake of posting to your threads in the future.....

I would really like to see your posts on the topic. I enjoy good debate and discussion.

But if your response on a topic is only ridicule, then its a waste of time. At least in my opinion.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 12:39 PM
Also, there is no compelling need to give a tax break to everybody that enters this contractual arrangement. The question should be, "Why would we feel compelled to give it to two strangers that entered into it just to avoid taxes?"

And if you want to call yourself married, by all means do so.

I am asking if you consider me married? The state of Florida does, yet no religous orginization was involved.... How can that be?

Jarod
11-11-2009, 12:40 PM
Which truth is this?

That children shouldn't go to Catholic church or to any school because there is a far higher likelihood of being molested by somebody in authority there than if they are growing up in a house with homosexual adults?

And that's cool with me, at least you don't try to say they shouldn't be able to adopt at all.

True using Southern Mans logic, Catholics should be at the back of the list when being considered as adoptive parents.

Damocles
11-11-2009, 12:42 PM
I dont care why they began, I care why they exist now!
As do I, except I fully understand that they exist in order to limit marriages to those approved by the doctrine of the majority religion and to collect fees.

I don't know why you would hate this so much, Jarod. It simply gives equal standing to all religions, and allows all persons of consenting age to choose this type of agreement. All marriages would be on equal footing, including those performed by churches for homosexual couples, and only those who feel a need for secular acknowledgment or benefits would need to file for that at all.

IMO, we should limit tax benefits solely to those raising children so that laws are not again pressing towards the doctrine of the majority religion that the only valid "family" is one in the valid state of "marriage"...

Jarod
11-11-2009, 12:50 PM
As do I, except I fully understand that they exist in order to limit marriages to those approved by the doctrine of the majority religion and to collect fees.

I don't know why you would hate this so much, Jarod. It simply gives equal standing to all religions, and allows all persons of consenting age to choose this type of agreement. All marriages would be on equal footing, including those performed by churches for homosexual couples, and only those who feel a need for secular acknowledgment or benefits would need to file for that at all.

IMO, we should limit tax benefits solely to those raising children so that laws are not again pressing towards the doctrine of the majority religion that the only valid "family" is one in "marriage"...

I dont hate it, I am merely pointing out that you are merely changing the name. I agree with doing away with the license procedure. The only requirement should be age. I dont have a problem with the states calling it marriage if they choose.

There are lots of legal arrangements that only married people are allowed. There are certian ways that only married people can own land together. These are set up because of the unique situation that exists when two people are raising a child together or when one member of a couple gives up earning potential for the good of the group.

In my profession, a long term partner does not qualify for a consortium claim, yet a person married for a week does.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 12:50 PM
DAMO,

Do you consider me married?

Damocles
11-11-2009, 01:01 PM
True using Southern Mans logic, Catholics should be at the back of the list when being considered as adoptive parents.
No. Just Priests. Priests and school teachers based on the news cycles...

Damocles
11-11-2009, 01:01 PM
DAMO,

Do you consider me married?
Again, it doesn't matter what I "consider" you to be, we are speaking of why I think what we do now is wrong.

And we are speaking of how I think we should change the system in order to first have the government stop enforcing others religions on us, and secondly as a good compromise that even most religious people could agree with.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 01:02 PM
No. Just Priests.

I dono, Catholics expose there kids more often to Catholic Priests.

Jarod
11-11-2009, 01:04 PM
Again, it doesn't matter what I think, you can be whatever you want to call it.

And we are speaking of how I think we should change the system in order to first have the government stop enforcing others religions on us, and secondly as a good compromise that even most religious people could agree with.

It does matter what you think.

If you belive I am married you are acknoledging that marriage is not necessarly religously based.

If you belive that I am not married, then you are just silly.

Ive been to lots of weddings, I do not automatically it will be a religous ceramony.

Damocles
11-11-2009, 01:08 PM
It does matter what you think.

If you belive I am married you are acknoledging that marriage is not necessarly religously based.

If you belive that I am not married, then you are just silly.

Ive been to lots of weddings, I do not automatically it will be a religous ceramony.
No, it doesn't matter what I think. I don't think the government can "sanctify" anything and that sanctity is exactly what the most religious argue about.

Anyway, I would then be recognizing that the government is using its power to enforce what is "traditionally" (and I use that for the "traditional marriage" folk) a religious institution, not that it suddenly isn't what it was always simply because a secular entity wants some of that power too. Replacing religious dogma for irreligious dogma is also (per the SCOTUS) proscribed against in the Constitution.

What I most recognize is that by government licensing we have enforced upon us the doctrine of the majority religion, and under the guise of "traditional marriage" they continue to do this, even though there is an Amendment against just that type of thing in the Constitution.

Again, this is what I argue:

First, I want the government to come into line with the powers they were given and the limitations that were set.

Second, I want a good compromise that even most religious people agree with.

Don Quixote
11-11-2009, 06:17 PM
No, it doesn't matter what I think. I don't think the government can "sanctify" anything and that sanctity is exactly what the most religious argue about.

Anyway, I would then be recognizing that the government is using its power to enforce what is "traditionally" (and I use that for the "traditional marriage" folk) a religious institution, not that it suddenly isn't what it was always simply because a secular entity wants some of that power too. Replacing religious dogma for irreligious dogma is also (per the SCOTUS) proscribed against in the Constitution.

What I most recognize is that by government licensing we have enforced upon us the doctrine of the majority religion, and under the guise of "traditional marriage" they continue to do this, even though there is an Amendment against just that type of thing in the Constitution.

Again, this is what I argue:

First, I want the government to come into line with the powers they were given and the limitations that were set.

Second, I want a good compromise that even most religious people agree with.

i have married people in both ca and hi - under their laws a person is officially married when the paperwork is completed and registered - a partner claims common law marriage (not so sure of the last one as common law may have been abolished since i got out of the marriage business)

religiously but not legally, people may be married as a result of a religious leaders, i.e., priest, minister etc., pronouncement - this is considered 'married within the church'

from wiki -
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship). It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding) and the marital structure created is known as wedlock.
People marry for many reasons, most often including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love).

Cancel 2018. 3
11-11-2009, 07:38 PM
So you want to bring back the anti-sodomy laws and use them in adoption cases?

Better to leave kids without parents than to actually allow gays to adopt?



Since straights engage in sodomy as well, should there be some test for sexual practices before allowing them to adopt?

good one....

all those that engage in blowjobs should also not be allowed to marry as it is sodomy to SM

Jarod
11-12-2009, 09:31 AM
No, it doesn't matter what I think. I don't think the government can "sanctify" anything and that sanctity is exactly what the most religious argue about.

Anyway, I would then be recognizing that the government is using its power to enforce what is "traditionally" (and I use that for the "traditional marriage" folk) a religious institution, not that it suddenly isn't what it was always simply because a secular entity wants some of that power too. Replacing religious dogma for irreligious dogma is also (per the SCOTUS) proscribed against in the Constitution.

What I most recognize is that by government licensing we have enforced upon us the doctrine of the majority religion, and under the guise of "traditional marriage" they continue to do this, even though there is an Amendment against just that type of thing in the Constitution.

Again, this is what I argue:

First, I want the government to come into line with the powers they were given and the limitations that were set.

Second, I want a good compromise that even most religious people agree with.

I agree the government cannot sanctify anything, but my point is that marriage does not have to be sanctified, mine is not! That is exactly the point. A legal marriage that is not sanctified should and is allowed, many of my friends were married by judges and have a non sanctified marriage. You can change its name, but its still a marriage!

Damocles
11-12-2009, 09:46 AM
I agree the government cannot sanctify anything, but my point is that marriage does not have to be sanctified, mine is not! That is exactly the point. A legal marriage that is not sanctified should and is allowed, many of my friends were married by judges and have a non sanctified marriage. You can change its name, but its still a marriage!
Then help us to "change its name" so that we can have a solution rather than a wedge issue.

Jarod
11-13-2009, 09:46 AM
Then help us to "change its name" so that we can have a solution rather than a wedge issue.

I dont care if you want to change the name and do away with the liscence requirement. Ive been against the liscence requirement for a long time. TO me however changing the name is merely semantics.

Church and state are already sepperated in marriage, that is why homosexuals should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the government. THe church still has a right to not reconise the union.

Many churches currently fail to reconize divorces. The Catholics call it an anulment and you have to pay to get one!

Im sure the Catholic church does not see me as married! According to them I am living in sin and my children are bastards.

WinterBorn
11-13-2009, 09:48 AM
I dont care if you want to change the name and do away with the liscence requirement. Ive been against the liscence requirement for a long time. TO me however changing the name is merely semantics.

Church and state are already sepperated in marriage, that is why homosexuals should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the government. THe church still has a right to not reconise the union.

Many churches currently fail to reconize divorces. The Catholics call it an anulment and you have to pay to get one!

The point is that the two are not separate when people get married in the church. You still have to get a gov't licence to get married, whether you have a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.

The suggestion was to separate the two completely.

Canceled1
11-13-2009, 10:18 AM
that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religions

what we have called marriage should be changed to civil unions or contracts

however, the government has an interest in the protection of children so laws regarding marriage may need to be applied to civil unions involving property and/or children

Here's a quarter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


:palm:



Call someone who cares!

Jarod
11-13-2009, 10:25 AM
The point is that the two are not separate when people get married in the church. You still have to get a gov't licence to get married, whether you have a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.

The suggestion was to separate the two completely.

You can get married in a church without a license and the church will reconize it and consider you married. You can also get married on a beach a church or your bathroom by a judge, priest or notary and the government will reconize it and consider you married.

If you want the goverment to reconize it you need a liscence and some legal documents. If you want a church to reconize it, you need what ever that church requires. The church should not concern itself with the governments requirements and the government shoud not concern itself with the churches requirements.

Jarod
11-13-2009, 10:27 AM
Religous marriage and legal marriage are two different things!

It just so happens that many Churches allow you to get the two accomplished at the same time if you choose.