Post Reply
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
Switch to Forum Live View What Should We Do About Marriage?
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2012 - 3:42PM #41
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,647

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

One of the reasons I like discussion forums is so I can try out my ideas with other people. And in this case, I have to confess that my original presentation seem unworkable even to me. My thanks to TemplarS for his insightful comments... they forced me to re-think through my ideas.



Good for you. Thinking is always good.


Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

I am still very angry about the State redefining marriage to allow same sex couples to marry each other.



Frankly, tough. Get over it.


Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

 The vast majority of people in this Country are not same sex couples... who actually amount to a tiny minority of the total population



And the Constitution is there precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Blacks are also a minority. As are Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and other non-Christians.


Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

The very idea that the Government would side with them against a vast majority of Heterosexual Christian couples



Your 'Christian' supremacist views have long ago worn out their welcome.


Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

against thousands of years of tradition, spend hundreds and thousands of hours in legislative debate from State to State, and Millions upon millions of taxpayer's dollars, just to satisfy these people... boggles my mind.



I hate (love) to point out the obvious, but you are STILL ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED now that gay couples can too. DO get over yourself.


Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

All these malcontents would have to do is recognize that they can never be a husband and wife, if they are two men or two women



But we CAN be legal spouses, much to your obvious chagrin. Again, get over it.


Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

 and then settle for Civil Unions



You haven't made a case as to why SOME citizens should have to "setttle" for less than Constitutionally guaranteed equality.


Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

But no, they have to get married.



Do heterosexuals "have to get married"? Preposterous.


 

Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

The whole thing has me mad enough to spit.



Gee, really? Whodathunkit? Seems to me like you're also mad enoughto bear false witness. And to twist history.


Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

It is not right to turn our society on its head, which is what redefining marriage will do



You're welcome to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own 'facts'. That has not happened, and we've been marrying legally for close to a decade now.


Jan 31, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:

the fetters you consent to unleashing this day, will have ripple effects that will devastate lives for generations to come.




Again, hyperbole much?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2012 - 3:59PM #42
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,647

Feb 1, 2012 -- 1:37PM, SeraphimR wrote:

The state is no required to treat all citizens equally.



???


Feb 1, 2012 -- 1:37PM, SeraphimR wrote:

The rich are taxed at a higher rate than the poor, for instance.



Warren Buffet says you're full of it. And Romney is proof that you are. Meanwhile, the State does tax - everybody. Even homosexuals.


Feb 1, 2012 -- 1:37PM, SeraphimR wrote:

And married couples gain some legal advantages, which is why homosexuals get married.



True.


Feb 1, 2012 -- 1:37PM, SeraphimR wrote:

These advantages were granted married couples to aid them in the formation of traditional families which the state considered in its interest.  Homosexuals cannot form families



Untrue. Please re-read what you first typed. It had to do with "married couples gain[ing]  some legal advantages". Nothing in there about "froming families", but couples in and of themselves ARE families. And NO ONE is required to procreate to get married. Why, I hear we even let infertile heterosexual couples marry. Plus of course, there's that niggling little fact that some 30,000+ couples among the 130,000+ legally married same-gender couples (who will admit to such on a Federal Government form) are raising children. We very much do "form families".


Feb 1, 2012 -- 1:37PM, SeraphimR wrote:

therefore they ought not to be granted these privileges.



You  failed to make a case for that argument.


Feb 1, 2012 -- 1:37PM, SeraphimR wrote:

Now traditional families are very rare now, so the marriage laws do not succeed in what they were designed to do.



Most of my married friends disagree with your blanket statement.


Feb 1, 2012 -- 1:37PM, SeraphimR wrote:

It is the state which ought to get out of the marriage business.



Well, that ain't ever going to happen. The State establishes laws and regulates them. and some 1,176 of them pertain to marriage. IOW, the government governs. Deal with it.


Feb 1, 2012 -- 1:37PM, SeraphimR wrote:

If Anglican priests do not want to perform marriages, well, so much the worse for the Anglicans.



And of course, many Anglican priests DO want to perform them. What of THEIR religious rights?


Feb 1, 2012 -- 1:37PM, SeraphimR wrote:

How come, if civil servants can be fired for refusing to marry homosexuals, an Anglican priest who refuses to marry homosexuals can still marry heterosexuals that is recognized by the state?



Well, for starters, the 2nd half of your hypothesis is a non-sequitur. Civil servants are agents of the State and cannot decide which citizens deserve the full porotections of the law. Meanwhile, an Anglican (or any other cleric) is first and foremost acting as an agent of their religion, and in America, there's still freedom of religion. The religion is the enttity that decides who their particular clerics may marry. The trouble is that clerics are also acting as an agent of the State when they marry couples. (They must sign the State-issued certificates and intone the words, "And now, by the authority vested in me BY THE STATE ...".)


All you've done here is highlight the unfairness and inequality of not only refusing to marry some citizens, but also the granting of "recogni[tion] by the state" only for some couples' legal marriages an dnot ALL.


Feb 1, 2012 -- 1:37PM, SeraphimR wrote:

I guess it is another example of unequal treatment of citizens.





Sure 'nuff is, and it ain't the str8s who are the losers. Thanx for pointing it out.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2012 - 4:04PM #43
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,647

Feb 1, 2012 -- 7:50PM, SeraphimR wrote:


Feb 1, 2012 -- 2:39PM, dblad wrote:


Homosexuals cannot form families, therefore they ought not to be granted these privileges.



I beg to differ, Homosexuals can and do form families. I don't know where you get the ridiculous notion thay cannot.


From Wiki ... Heterosexism is a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships. It can include the presumption that everyone is heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm and therefore superior. Although heterosexism is defined in the online editions of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary as anti-gay discrimination and/or prejudice "by heterosexual people" and "by heterosexuals", people of any sexual orientation can hold such attitudes and bias. Nonetheless, heterosexism as discrimination ranks gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual minorities as second-class citizens with regard to various legal and civil rights, economic opportunities, and social equality in the majority of the world’s jurisdictions and societies.




I get the silly notion from observing that homosexual couplings are sterile.




Seraphim, you changed your statement from "Homosexuals [i.e. the people] cannot form families" to "homosexual couplings [i.e. a physical act] are sterile". They are not the same thing. The "effects that flow from marriage" flow to people, not sex acts.


Besides, procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Anyone's. And, we let sterile heterosexuals marry all the time.


Let me know when you can come up with a cogent, consistent argument that isn't an insult.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2012 - 4:07PM #44
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,647

Feb 2, 2012 -- 12:14AM, SeraphimR wrote:


Getting the state out of the marriage business would get you to equal rights much more thoroughly.



No. Passing equal marriage would accomplish that. And THAT would happen much sooner if the 'religious' would stop their anti-equality wars.


Feb 2, 2012 -- 12:14AM, SeraphimR wrote:


Right now, married and unmarried persons have different rights.





Which is WHY we want to get married.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2012 - 4:10PM #45
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,647

Feb 4, 2012 -- 1:11PM, mainecaptain wrote:


As has been stated several times. Marriage is not a Christian controlled business. And yes it is a business. Marriage is a business contract. And that is all it ever was.


It has only become something special in the last 100-150 years, when emotion, become part of the deal.  Up until then women were pretty much bought and sold by fathers and potential husbands. Women had no say in who they married at all. If Christians consider that sacred,


well.......






Well said, Cap'n. I remember hearing those now-antiquated words, "Who giveth this bride away?" - as if brides were property.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2012 - 4:14PM #46
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,647

Feb 5, 2012 -- 3:28PM, TPaine wrote:


The General Accounting Office of the federal government found 1049 laws that apply to or give benefits to married couples in report dated January 31, 1997. They classified these laws into 13 catagories which are:


Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Veterans' Benefits
Taxation
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Employment Benefits and Related Laws
Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Indians
Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Crimes and Family Violence
Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture
Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws
Miscellaneous Laws


Link


IMO, denying these benefits to LGBT couples is unconscionable, and violate their civil rights and civil liberties under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.





Thanks for this. It's invaluable. And worth repeating. (Which is why I repeated it.)


And, it counters the specious 'arguments' that the State should get out of the marriage business.


It also makes a very good case for why it should be "the Church" that should get out of the marriage business, since (rightly) it has NO jurisdiction over ANY of those areas. Thank Zeus.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2012 - 8:06PM #47
REteach
Posts: 14,450

Who signed Adam and Eve's wedding licence?  Who were the witnesses required?  

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook