OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

While the wording change was very clear, the effects were completely un-addressed. Each side had a statement in there explaining why they thought it should or should not pass BUT the statements were conflicting and were basically opinions about the law.

Even leaning clearly to one side based on my beliefs, I find it very frustrating that there is no clear indication of the effects of the law, only biased opinions.

I think you're so right there.

I feel like, if we could only split this discussion into two different ones (one pertaining to legal rights, which didn't need to mention marriage at all; and one pertaining to marriage, which didn't need to mention legal rights at all), we could greatly reduce confusion.

 

[jrlafrance]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us! - Pope Leo X

I am surrounded by priests who repeat incessantly that their kingdom is not of this world, and yet they lay their hands on everything they can get. - Napoleon Bonaparte

This so called new religion is nothing but a pack of weird rituals and chants designed to take away the money of fools. Let us say the Lord's prayer 40 times, but first let's pass the collection plate. - Rev. Timothy Lovejoy

Funny, ain't it?

Funny? You're refuting religoin based on quotes from a pope that wasn't even a priest, a cartoon character, and a French ruler? Please!

Call up some old people and tell them that if they send you $2000 you will give them $20 000 000 once you get the money out of an African bank and you go to jail for fraud. But call up some old people and tell them that if they send you $2000 you will make sure they go to play golden harps on fluffy clouds and sing Kumbaya for all eternity and you get tax-exempt status.

There are many, many examples of those that have used religion, and the promise of either earthly gain or heavenly acceptance for their own gain. Those people (Pat Robertson?) have tainted the image of Christians, but should by no means be taken as a correct sampling of our religion.

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. - Denis Diderot

Philosophers are great at coming up with witty anecdotal saying like this.

And yet it is the religious (Gabriel74) who complain of persecution.

"Heresy" -

Etymology 1: Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take, Date: 13th century

Etymology 2: 1175–1225; ME heresie < OF eresie < L haeresis school of thought, sect < Gk haíresis, lit., act of choosing, deriv. of haireîn to choose

That sums up Christianity pretty neatly, so put a sock in the Christian tolerance canard. It sure as hell wasn't atheists burning people at the stake for 2000 years. Oh, and Islam was jacked from Christianity, Christianity was jacked from Judaism, Judaism was jacked from the Epic of Gilgamesh and others, who, in turn, were jacked from even earlier folk tales and myths. And in their time, each were the one true religion. Until they weren't.

Take from wikipedia (basically a continuation of what you quoted above):
"Used in this way, the term "heresy" has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point of view of speakers within a group that has previously agreed about what counts as "orthodox". Any nonconformist view within any field may be perceived as "heretical" by others within that field who are convinced that their view is "orthodox"; in the sciences this extension is made tongue-in-cheek.

Heretics usually do not define their own beliefs as heretical. Heresy is a value judgment and the expression of a view from within an established belief system. For instance, Roman Catholics held Protestantism as a heresy while some non-Catholics considered Catholicism the "Great Apostasy."

For a heresy to exist there must be an authoritative system of dogma designated as orthodox, such as those proposed by Catholicism. The term orthodox is used in Eastern Orthodoxy, some Protestant churches, in Islam, some Jewish denominations, and to a lesser extent in other religions. Variance from orthodox Marxism-Leninism is described as "right" or "left deviationism." The Church of Scientology uses the term "squirreling" to refer to unauthorized alterations of its teachings or methods."

I understand that wikipedia isn't the end-all authority, but I thought it was quite fitting.

Watch "Zeitgeist". You'll learn about these "true" religions.

I don't have the time at work, but I'll watch this, and post my thought about it later.

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

@jrlafrance:
Thyiad's already denounced his post as unacceptable. imho, I'm thinking it's prolly safest for us to just ignore it. If he's really interested in hearing our responses, he can ask nicely, right?

Anyways, just my two cents for the moment.

 

[jrlafrance]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

@Thrandir: I know. He got my goat, and I couldn't resist.

 

[Thyiad1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

@jrlafrance - in future, resist or the same offer of a vacation will be extended to you.

 

[Jcakes1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I just want to through my 2 cents - bare with me I am going to go a little OT and talk about my family.

My Great great Grandfather was a catholic that lived in Italy (actually the Naples/Sicily state). He spent his early life in Italy and got married to an Italian woman. He decided that he didn’t really love her, so he jumped on a ship to Australia (being a catholic he could not divorce her so he did the next best thing and fled).
On the ship he met an English spinster and being a rather naughty catholic got her pregnant with my great grandfather. About 6 years later my great great grandfather got word from Italy that his wife had died so he was free to marry again.
He then proceeded to get married in a Church under the eyes of god (but not legally).
It wasn’t until he was 75 that he finally got married legally by the state (so his wife could get his pension if he died - he worked for the government and was eligible for a state pension when he retired).

The point of this story? Well there where to kinds of marriage that existed. One that is marriage under the eyes of god (which can be - but is not necessarily a legal marriage) and one that is marriage under the eyes of the state (which can be - but is not necessarily religious).

So in summary I believe the best system would be to have 2 distinct marriages

1. A church marriage recognised by your church and if you choose legally

2. A legal marriage, only recognised by the government granting tax benefits etc.

If religious people prefer the second could be called a civil union (but this means that everyone NOT married in a church would be in a civil union). I am personally against this as it creates a lot of difficulty (and it is not as if Christians have ownership of the word marriage)

Sorry for the long and slightly OT post

 

[snickersnack]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I just want to through my 2 cents - bare with me I am going to go a little OT and talk about my family.

My Great great Grandfather was a catholic that lived in Italy (actually the Naples/Sicily state). He spent his early life in Italy and got married to an Italian woman. He decided that he didn’t really love her, so he jumped on a ship to Australia (being a catholic he could not divorce her so he did the next best thing and fled).
On the ship he met an English spinster and being a rather naughty catholic got her pregnant with my great grandfather. About 6 years later my great great grandfather got word from Italy that his wife had died so he was free to marry again.
He then proceeded to get married in a Church under the eyes of god (but not legally).
It wasn’t until he was 75 that he finally got married legally by the state (so his wife could get his pension if he died - he worked for the government and was eligible for a state pension when he retired).

The point of this story? Well there where to kinds of marriage that existed. One that is marriage under the eyes of god (which can be - but is not necessarily a legal marriage) and one that is marriage under the eyes of the state (which can be - but is not necessarily religious).

So in summary I believe the best system would be to have 2 distinct marriages

1. A church marriage recognised by your church and if you choose legally

2. A legal marriage, only recognised by the government granting tax benefits etc.

If religious people prefer the second could be called a civil union (but this means that everyone NOT married in a church would be in a civil union). I am personally against this as it creates a lot of difficulty (and it is not as if Christians have ownership of the word marriage)

Sorry for the long and slightly OT post

I agree. Let a Civil Union be the thing that two people have to get if they want tax breaks and other legal things we associate with marriage. And let people call themselves married if a church agrees to call them that. Make the state and federal governments totally ignore the word Marriage.

The only problem is that Civil Union doesn't verb well. "We're CUed." Maybe?

Btw, some of you may not be aware that some churches do marry same-sex couples.

My point still stands, if marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, then same-sex marriage is not requesting a change in the rights, its requesting a change in the definition of marriage. This is clearly more than just a question of rights.

I think the pro-***-marriage claim is that that definition is an artificial way of excluding people who don't fit into the popular pigeon-hole. Why not change it, if that's all that's being asked? The only reason that I've heard boils down to protect-"traditional (whatever that means)"-marriage from dilution/perversion/cheapening. So apparently the idea is that letting *** people call themselves married ruins marriage for all the straight people - asinine. I've read some of the pamphlets that were handed out at my university just before a similar measure was voted on in Texas, and that's what they were, asinine. The pamphlet was literally about protecting a word so that families can be safe.

I don't know if that last sentence accurately describes any of the posts in this thread, but some of them read to me like they boil down to the same sort of absurdity.

Another Edit: If it really is about the definition of a word and who gets to use it, then the zealots on both sides need to lighten up and realize that there isn't anything substantive left to argue about (not this thread, the rabble-rousing in California).

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Btw, some of you may not be aware that some churches do marry same-sex couples.

Yes, there are churches that will marry same-sex couples. These are usually - not necessarily all, I'd imagine, but usually - churches which do not acknowledge the scriptures as being authoritative. The Anglican Church of Canada (I currently attend an Anglican church) is actually making a decision on the issue right now.

[very off topic: posts = #days/year!]

 

[Jcakes1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I think the pro-***-marriage claim is that that definition is an artificial way of excluding people who don't fit into the popular pigeon-hole. Why not change it, if that's all that's being asked? The only reason that I've heard boils down to protect-"traditional (whatever that means)"-marriage from dilution/perversion/cheapening. So apparently the idea is that letting *** people call themselves married ruins marriage for all the straight people - asinine. I've read some of the pamphlets that were handed out at my university just before a similar measure was voted on in Texas, and that's what they were, asinine. The pamphlet was literally about protecting a word so that families can be safe.

I don't know if that last sentence accurately describes any of the posts in this thread, but some of them read to me like they boil down to the same sort of absurdity.

Another Edit: If it really is about the definition of a word and who gets to use it, then the zealots on both sides need to lighten up and realize that there isn't anything substantive left to argue about (not this thread, the rabble-rousing in California).

The problem with laws (and tax breaks in the US as they stand) is that it discriminates against people that are not married. This would be ok if anyone can get married to anyone else - but this is not the case and thus certain groups of individuals (g ay people in particular) are being discriminated against.

I also object to the idea that marriage is a christian invention, people in China were getting married as early as 500 bc (with absolutely no contact with christians) people in Greece and Rome had marriages that are similar to what we have today (and probably the basis of a christian marriage) in fact I am sure you would be hard pressed to find a culture that didn't have marriage before the Christians. In fact if we face facts most of the christian religion (and culuture) is borrowed from other cultures/relgions.

 

[snickersnack]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Marriage is one of the things common to all cultures. Every human culture has had marriage in some form.

Anthropologists put Marriage right up there with the incest taboo as a human constant.

 

[crazy_bear]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Marriage is one of the things common to all cultures. Every human culture has had marriage in some form.

Anthropologists put Marriage right up there with the incest taboo as a human constant.

And really, this is the biggest point against the Christian view of the word. It existed long before Christianity, and will exist long after. There is no ownership of the word.

Regarding separation of church/legal marriage: the church would have to be the one to adopt a new word. The sheer volume of legal documents that would have to change to accommodate a change in word would be enough to deter any state/country.

 

[Jcakes1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I believe the best outcome would be as follows:

A civil marriage represents a non-religious marriage and would provide all the tax benefits etc. and will not discriminate based on sex, race, relgion etc.

A religious marriage would be performed in a church and will have all the benefits of a civil marriage (plus it would be legal under the eyes of that churches God). A church will also be aloud to marry whomever it wants / doesn't want (in accordance with its scripture).

Essentially the two marriages will be identical except that one has religion as a component and the other doesn't. The term marriage would then refer to both religious and civil marriages.

 

[NoisemakerArrow]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

What's the problem with my post? If you use religion as an argument, then be prepared for a rebuttal to that argument. You cannot use "my religion said this" and "God said that" as arguments unless you have proven your religion to be correct and God to exist. Most of you are accepting these as a given and going from there. I contest those assumptions.

This is like politicians using their kids for photo ops and publicity then denouncing the media for talking about their kids.

If pointing out the invalidity of your opponent's arguments is grounds for banning, well, this isn't much of a debate.

And saying that freedom cannot accept the bigoted impositions of religion is trolling?

"A religious marriage would be performed in a church and will have all the benefits of a civil marriage (plus it would be legal under the eyes of that churches God)."

And who knows what that church's God finds acceptable?

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

NoisemakerArrow, I don't think the fact that you are criticizing religion is the problem; many have done that in this thread, including me. My guess is that it's the way in which you are criticizing it. But, that's just my viewpoint, obviously I can't speak for the mods.

Bit late in responding to this, but Cius wrote an interesting post with some links a few pages ago (much appreciated btw, Cius). I haven't had a chance yet to look at them all closely, but one of them jumped out at me: the one that claimed that pedophiles are more likely to be g ay. If you read the study closely there's very little in the way of actual research done to back up this claim, which isn't surprising since it's utterly false. Here's a link which debunks the homosexuality-pedophilia connection pretty soundly. There's another link on that page refuting the connection between homosexuality and mental disorders as well. Both studies originate with UC Davis, a highly respected American university. (Davis is also my hometown, so I might be a bit biased. ) With a little rudimentary googling, pretty much every claim made by the LifeSiteNews website can be refuted. Some of its claims are so ridiculous that even a bit of common knowledge is enough to dispute them. For example, the site claims that homosexuality leads to an increased incidence of certain STIs “which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population," and then goes on to list things like the human papilloma virus, which is extremely common amongst sexually active adults and has been for years. The very first link you'll find on HPV is from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which states that "At least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives." Hardly an uncommon STI that those sinful g ays are introducing into the population with their perverted acts (and I might note that certain of those "perverted acts" are very commonly engaged in by straight couples as well). So basically I'd take that link and the study it cites with a gigantic rock of salt.

 

[Thyiad1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Bye Noisemaker, enjoy your break.

 

[bassen]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I have only posted three texts here so far (for those who wish to read, click HERE and HERE and HERE. In those I have not argued for either of sides tho it might seem so. My goal is to make YOU aware of other people and be able to draw a line to a certain behavior, analyze your acting. Why?

To discuss this thing it's important that we can see the world from another human perspective which I see a few have forgotten. Remember that you are speaking about other people and their value as human beings. For example if you were homosexual and somebody told you that you should not be able to matty cause you being *** undervalue as a human. Another example if you were against *** marrige and belive in a religion from which has forbidden it and then somebody tells you are wrong because the religion is wrong. My third example is to be that one who says so about another persons religion, underthrow everything they belive in. These are just exampels. [highlight]Lear how to see from a diffrent perspective than your own, otherwise you'll never be a good debater.[/highlight]

I might should mention that this lies in my interest as a social scientist/sociologist, to see how people act. I would be very happy if someone actually could analyze their own behavior. Cause that is a great thing when you discuss things like this.

The person who actually can give a few reasons from at least 3 perspectives is a winner. He or she have learnt how to get into others minds, see how they feel. This is a great ability for understanding other people and a good way to become more humane ^^

Thank you for reading this

 

[HBeachBabe]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

What about children who have lost a parent? By your statment there should be a law stating that a widow or widower with children should be forced to re-marry.

My cousin's mother disappeared when he was 5, I assure you my uncle's re-marraige was far worse for B__ than if his father had remained single. And morally it harmed the child far more.

It was quite common for child to only have one parent frankly, esp. when the #1 cause of death for women was childbirth. Ever noticed the number of fairy stories with evil step mothers??

While I tend to agree that the ideal enviroment for children is a multi adult, stable, loving family. But I've known pleanty of people raised by a grandparent or single parent, and even a mother and grandmother. Or strangers totally unrelated to them by blood.

As for the Biblical aspect, I feel impelled to point out that in the Ancient Jewish world women did all the child raising, and then didn't see much of their sons once they reached "adulthood". Look at the story of Jesus LEFT BEHIND in the Temple. No one noticed for DAYS becuase Mary though he was with Joseph and vice versa.

@thyiad: you said that g ay couples do not have same options to leave their organization, but they do, this isn't China, where citizenship is enforced. I don't know if you knew HBeachBabe, but she and her partner moved to Sweden for that very reason.

wow, I'm gone for a year and still get named checked. cool.

Just to clarify, I moved to Sweden (where my partner is from) because of the hassles we had with U.S. immigration. In part because of the same sex issue and in part because after 9-11, U.S. immigration became an even bigger mess. I had spent thousands of dollars getting my Partner to the U.S. and after 2 years, she still didn't even have permanent residence and couldn't leave the country and return without extra paperwork. Conversely, it took 3 months for me to get approval to move to Sweden, I got permenant residence after 2 years and citizenship after 3. We had a marriage ceremony last year, although technically, we are in a "partnership" as Sweden won't have legal same-sex marriage until next summer.

 

[Liquid_Evil]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I saw this Newsweek article today that reminded me of this thread. I don't necessarily want to restart this topic, but it was an interesting read.

 

[snickersnack]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Caly: Thanks for linking to that UC Davis paper - interesting read, and now I know how to respond to that sort of argument. Thanks again.

Bassen:

(1) I think that I see the perspective of someone who wants to "protect" marriage. They are afraid of what will result if society fully accepts homosexuals. They're not necessarily bigotted, but they are afraid of change. I understand that; they think the world is pretty damn good as it is and changing things might ruin something. There are many ways to characterize this sort of thing, but it all boils down to a fear of uncertainty. But that stills seems pretty selfish to me. It's easy to say "let's not change anything" when everything is going well for you. It's a bit harder to make sacrifices so that the world is better for everyone. Also, as I've said before and will probably say again, let's not do anything out of fear.

(2) I'll list my own perspective: A guy who expects to get married to the finest woman in the world in the semi-near future (the woman is all picked out, I just need to finish grad school and get a decent job). Um, same-sex marriage doesn't affect me, and it seems like adults should be able to do what ever they want if it doesn't hurt anyone. That's it. (Also, I secretly want to slippen the slope to polygyny. arty

(3) Perspective of....the daughter of a homosexual man who wants to get married to his partner and get full custody of his daughter. Remember every homosexual is someone's father/mother/brother/daughter/...... Suppose that this 9-year-old girl is living with her mother who regularly berates the father (well, he left her for a man, so she has a right be pissed). Let's say that the daughter would rather live with her father for a while, but the mother keeps blocking it using some legal mumbo-jumbo about his hedonistic life-style. Say, him getting married might allow him to get greater custody, and who knows, maybe the mother would see his affinity for males as more than just a selfish perversion. Maybe, his getting married would be a way to say "I'm not just a sick horndog; I genuinely want to be with this person for a long time." You know, the thing that heterosexuals use marriage for. This is a completely made up scenario, but i wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it accurately described someone's life.

 

[water_moon]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

HBB! I'd send a wedding cake but they don't ship well.

And my point is still valid that California isn't a fuedal state where serfs aren't allowed freedom of movement. *sigh* just look at the number that flooded over here :/