User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 180

  1. #141
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Plenty of religious bodies would love to recognize same-sex unions as marriages. Would that be allowed under this system?

  2. #142
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    No, you're advocating that government define a word. What happens to people who don't adhere to the law? Do they go to prison for misusing a word the government has defined? What sort of punishments are we talking about here.
    Nothing happens. They can call themselves married all they want, as the certainly would, the title on the documents just wouldn't contain the word marriage.

    Either way, I'm thoroughly exhausted with this whole thread.

  3. #143
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Plenty of religious bodies would love to recognize same-sex unions as marriages. Would that be allowed under this system?
    That's up to each church and parish etc.. The state has no role in their deliberations.

  4. #144
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    That's up to each church and parish etc.. The state has no role in their deliberations.
    I guess I don't understand why there would need to be anything separate, then. When you brought this up originally it sounded like all gay unions would be CUs, and straights could have what they currently have or choose to have the civil union out of solidarity with teh gais. But if it's up to the religious body to decide who they grant a marriage to, then anyone, straight or gay, could get married in their own faith, and have it be legally binding. And anyone who wasn't interested in a religious marriage, straight or gay, could go to the courthouse and get a civil union, which would also be legally binding. But that's pretty much how it already is, except the civil union is also called marriage (even when it's not presided over by a religious official- courthouse weddings still result in a union that is called a marriage), and gays can't have either one (in many states).

  5. #145
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    What matters to the SSM movement is legal equivalency.

    What matters to some religious folks is maintaining some distinction between the holy right of matrimony and SS civil unions.

    Homo's don't want to live under and unequal legal regime, and the religious want to be able to maintain marriage as it has existed for the them for thousands of years.

    By making them legally equivalent, and using different names, you allow the religious to have their distinction, and the homo's to have equal rights.

    I'm assuming that you have no way of fathoming why a tradition like that would be important to the religious, while it amounts to merely a name for others.
    For thousands of years? There is no thousand year tradition of marriage. That is a fairy tale. The concept of marriage existed before any of the Abrahamaic religions, perhaps before any religion. And there is no evidence that it began as a religious rite. Christians usurped the concept of marriage, claiming it as their own, asserting that it is a religious rite, but that is a relatively recent development in the scope of human history. Marriage was never the possession of Christians, to begin with.
    "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."

  6. #146
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Nothing happens. They can call themselves married all they want, as the certainly would, the title on the documents just wouldn't contain the word marriage.

    Either way, I'm thoroughly exhausted with this whole thread.
    Even under oath in court?

    You're exhausted because your position is indefensible.
    "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. #147
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Even under oath in court?
    The lawyer would ask the them to clarify that they were CU'd, or if the judge is nasty he/she could hold them for perjury, or if they're being a pain in the ass just hold them in contempt.

    Given that doing so would amount to a personal protest, and not the gay person trying to mislead the court on the facts in contention, I would doubt prosecution for perjury.

    If you act like an ass you will be held in contempt though.

  8. #148
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    For thousands of years? There is no thousand year tradition of marriage. That is a fairy tale. The concept of marriage existed before any of the Abrahamaic religions, perhaps before any religion. And there is no evidence that it began as a religious rite. Christians usurped the concept of marriage, claiming it as their own, asserting that it is a religious rite, but that is a relatively recent development in the scope of human history. Marriage was never the possession of Christians, to begin with.
    They and the other religions have been in possession of it for quite some time.

  9. #149
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    They and the other religions have been in possession of it for quite some time.
    As has the state.

  10. #150
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    I skipped a bunch of posts ... so what is it if you get married in a Justice of the Peace's office? There's no religion going on there. Isn't that a civil union? Not everybody gets married by an officer of the church.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] INFJ - Question about your inner monolouge
    By Shinzon in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 03-13-2009, 12:40 AM
  2. 3 questions about MBTI
    By alcea rosea in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-10-2007, 08:49 AM
  3. Quick question about a concert venue...
    By Cindyrella in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 01:30 AM

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