User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 207

  1. #111
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Hell yeah they should be able to discriminate.
    So would that include the right to refuse to perform an interracial marriage, Mr. Crow?

    To force them to perform homosexual marriages is a violation of the separation of church and state.
    As I said, once they receive state benefits, they can't maintain their status as a strictly religious institution, so there's no violation. The policy of separating church and state is used to prevent religious ideology from infiltrating the political arena, and that's not the case here, anyway.

    I don't know what you're talking about 'state benefits'. There is no church welfare...at least not yet. If you mean tax exemption, all religious institutions get this and I don't really see it as a benefit as much as it's a result of the separation.
    Tax Benefits

    * Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
    * Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

    Estate Planning Benefits

    * Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
    * Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
    * Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
    * Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

    Government Benefits

    * Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
    * Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
    * Receiving public assistance benefits.

    Employment Benefits

    * Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
    * Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
    * Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
    * Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

    Medical Benefits

    * Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
    * Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

    Death Benefits

    * Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
    * Making burial or other final arrangements.

    Family Benefits

    * Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
    * Applying for joint foster care rights.
    * Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
    * Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

    Housing Benefits

    * Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
    * Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

    Consumer Benefits

    * Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
    * Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
    * Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

    Other Legal Benefits and Protections

    * Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
    * Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
    * Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
    * Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
    * Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
    * Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

    The way I see your stance...liberals trying to use the state to force their own morality on religion. When Christians talk about an assault on their religion, they're talking about people like you. You think you're better than they are and that justifies you forcing your morality on them. I find your stance to be offensive and I'm not even religious. The use of state control to do this...that's fucking pathetic.
    Do you even read the posts that you're replying to, or is it just let me keep repeating myself until someone thinks what I'm saying makes sense?

  2. #112
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    I have to agree with Lateralus....

    *waits for all the gasps and shocked expressions to pass*

    As long as the discrimination is not legally sanctioned, there is no reason why one group should not be allowed to discriminate against members of another group. So as long as the state passes no laws or policies to govern morality one way or the other, then groups should be free to discriminate.

    However, the current rights and benefits of legal marriage do not apply to same sex couples, and I find that to be an example of the state imposing one group's morality over that of another group's. Just as it would be wrong to pass legislation to force religious groups to marry same sex couples, it is just as wrong to deny same sex couples the same legal rights that are given to married heterosexual couples. So I argue that those legal rights and benefits should either be stripped from heterosexual married couples, or awarded to any couple that wishes to legally marry.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  3. #113
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    If a religious group wants to hole themselves up somewhere and perform some exclusive ceremonies, really, I don't care that much. But as soon as they accept benefits and protections afforded by a state by virtue of their ceremony, they step out of their religious bubble and should be required to play by the rules everyone else plays by. You can't have your cake (state benefits) and eat it too (pretend like you're strictly religious). I have no pity for the Southern Baptists.
    I do believe Wolf means churches shouldn't get the benefits and protections, so if I understand him right he's arguing that religious groups should be allowed to hole themselves up somewhere and perform some exclusive ceremonies.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  4. #114
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I have to agree with Lateralus....

    *waits for all the gasps and shocked expressions to pass*

    As long as the discrimination is not legally sanctioned
    But that's the whole question, isn't it? Should we forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or not? It's that exact reasoning that led the California Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage.

  5. #115
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    I don't think the issue is whether churches should have to marry gay couples.

    Churches regularly exclude anyone they want. For example, as a straight (non-gay) unbaptized atheist, I can't be married in a Roman Catholic church. Or, at a minimum, I would have to be baptized and undergo other rites before I could be married by a Roman Catholic priest.

    By the same token, churches regularly include anyone they want. There are plenty of churches that will marry (and have married) gays: Reform Judaism, the UUs, most new age churches, etc.

    The big hang-up is government recognition of those gay marriages. That is, gays can get married in churches very easily, but they can't get the government to recognize those marriages. Thus, for legal purposes (inheritance, next-of-kin issues, parental/adoption rights, tax issues, etc.), gays remain unmarried.

    It is said that there are over 100 legal rights accorded by government recognition of marriage--rights that gay couples are denied. Gay couples can paper over most of those rights by executing lots of legal contracts to grant each other status similar to that of a spouse. But there are three problems with that: 1) Contracts can be broken, especially by blood family (parents) of the gays and especially in conservative states; 2) Having to execute 100 contracts is a huge legal burden to put on young gay couples, when straight couples can just exchange a vow and get all those rights; 3) Even if gays get all the contracts done, they still only have contracts and not a marriage under the law; in legal terms their relationship is still somehow inferior or illegitimate when compared to that of a straight married couple.

    A couple states are moving toward recognizing gay marriage or at least gay unions. However, even that won't solve the problem. Most of the important rights granted by marriage are at the federal level. And the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Clinton says that a marriage recognized in one state doesn't have to be recognized in another state.

    So only federal recognition of gay marriages will really level the playing field. And that's largely up to the voters and public opinion.

    That's my understanding of the issues, anyway.

    But to get back to the starting point: It's not really about marriage in churches. I would even say that the average baptized, religious gay person has more access to a church marriage than I do (as an atheist). Church marriages aren't a problem for gays. The real problem lies with government recognition of those marriages.

    Both gays and straights can and do get married in churches and also in civil ceremonies (outside churches). The difference is that the marriages of straight couples are recognized by the government, whereas the marriages of gay couples are not.

    Just wanted to get that straight. (No pun intended.)

  6. #116
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    So would that include the right to refuse to perform an interracial marriage, Mr. Crow?
    Yes, it does. A church like that would fail, or at the very least have a bad reputation, but I think people should be free to practice whatever beliefs they choose. Choosing to not marry gay or interracial couples is not an infringement on those couples rights. The STATE sanctions marriage. If the state wants to legalize gay marriage, by all means, legalize it. But don't force churches to perform those ceremonies. If it's legal protection they seek, then getting a marriage license at the county courthouse should be enough. If it's spitting in the face of people who don't share your beliefs, then I can see why you'd advocate forcing churches to perform ceremonies.

    As I said, once they receive state benefits, they can't maintain their status as a strictly religious institution, so there's no violation. The policy of separating church and state is used to prevent religious ideology from infiltrating the political arena, and that's not the case here, anyway.

    'lots of unrelated crap'
    Those are not benefits exclusive to religion. You can easily make gay marriages legal without shoving it in the face of Southern Baptists.

    Do you even read the posts that you're replying to, or is it just let me keep repeating myself until someone thinks what I'm saying makes sense?
    You don't even seem to understand what you're arguing. You stated, explicitly, that religions should be forced to perform ceremonies that are contrary to their beliefs.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #117
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    But that's the whole question, isn't it? Should we forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or not? It's that exact reasoning that led the California Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage.
    No, the question is should we forbid legal discrimination of sexual orientation. Unlike back during the civil rights movement where they had laws passed against interracial marriage, people riding on buses, using certain water fountains, etc. on the basis of race, there is no law against same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is just not legally recognized and the result is that it doesn't receive the same rights and benefits as heterosexual marriages. That is wrong but it can be corrected simply by passing legislation which would give the same legal recognition to same sex civil unions as to heterosexual marriages. (The other way it could be rectified would be by removing the legal benefits and rights that are given to heterosexual couples.)

    However, it would be just as wrong to pass laws forcing religious institutions to recognize same sex marriages as it would be to pass laws against same sex marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  8. #118
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Get the government out of marriage. The ceremony should be private, and the government should simply acknowledge the contract in its records, and there shouldn't be any tax breaks or penalties or anything for marriage. IMHO, any two people who have reached the age of consent and are of sound mind should be able to sign a marriage contract.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #119
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Get the government out of marriage. The ceremony should be private, and the government should simply acknowledge the contract in its records, and there shouldn't be any tax breaks or penalties or anything for marriage. IMHO, any two people who have reached the age of consent and are of sound mind should be able to sign a marriage contract.
    I'd actually prefer this to sanctioning gay marriage, but we all know this will never happen.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #120
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Yes, it does.
    Hey, that's really great. Maybe we should also deny blacks the right to vote while we're at it. And women. Lateralus, I think you seriously need to study up on some legal and social history and start thinking about the decisions that have been made for the maturity of our civilization.

    Those are not benefits exclusive to religion.
    Jesus F'ing Christ. They're benefits exclusive to marriage. Can you keep your ideas straight?

    You don't even seem to understand what you're arguing. You stated, explicitly, that religions should be forced to perform ceremonies that are contrary to their beliefs.
    What I said isn't as general as what you said. I am saying that a religious institution that is tied into the state by virtue of the benefits and protections it receives should not be given free reign to do whatever it wants in discriminating on the basis of race or sexual orientation.

Similar Threads

  1. Gay marriage and black people
    By great_bay in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-22-2016, 10:30 PM
  2. Gay Marriage and SCOTUS: Hi ho and here we go
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 07:20 AM
  3. Texas GOP Platform: Criminalize Gay Marriage and Ban Sodomy
    By Ginkgo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 10:40 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 04:17 PM
  5. Abortion, gay rights, and other social issues.
    By Angry Ayrab in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 11:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO