User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 180

  1. #151
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    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.
    Calling a civil union a marriage is "acting like an ass"? Even if legally-speaking they are identical? Someone could be held in contempt of court over this? This sounds like a violation of the first amendment, Congress establishing a religion.
    "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."

  2. #152
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    They and the other religions have been in possession of it for quite some time.
    No, they've claimed possession, but they've never had the "deed". At best, they're squatters. It's time to kick the squatters out. The term marriage belongs to our culture, our civilization, not to a group of religious zealots.
    "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."

  3. #153
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    No, they've claimed possession, but they've never had the "deed". At best, they're squatters. It's time to kick the squatters out. The term marriage belongs to our culture, our civilization, not to a group of religious zealots.
    Adverse possession.

  4. #154
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Were they Catholic priests?
    They see me rolling, they hating,

    < Jag

  5. #155
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Adverse possession.
    You can't assume possession of something that is commonly owned.
    "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. #156
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The only thing marriage says is that the partnership is religious.

    And to answer your prior question there is a reason I want to limit the use of marriage to hetero couples. The Episcopal church of which I consider myself an adherent recently in 2012 gave it's consent to the blessing of Same-Sex Unions. To quote the article

    I want the Church to be able to define institutions it created in the first place because I believe in the Freedom of Religion as outlined in the 1st Amendment to our Constitution.

    The Church and it's adherents, should be allowed to come the the understanding of what Marriage means to them now, and how that might be changing, on their own without being forced (by the very people that have the strongest disregard for them) to up and change their belief system.
    You have identified the crux of the matter here. The debate over same sex marriage deals with the legal aspect of relationships, and the fact that gay couples are not treated the same as straight ones. All the government should be able to give any couple, straight or gay, is a civil union - legal recognition of their commitment to each other.

    Religious groups, on the other hand, should be able to do exactly as you describe, for the reasons you cite. They can reserve marriage for straight couples, and institute a new sort of union for gays, or refuse to include gay partnerships at all. We already see the Fundamentalist LDS church recognizing polygamy, though the law does not. Gay people who want religious blessing or sanction can find a religious group that recognizes same sex unions. This is all as it should be. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #157
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Religious groups, on the other hand, should be able to do exactly as you describe, for the reasons you cite. They can reserve marriage for straight couples, and institute a new sort of union for gays, or refuse to include gay partnerships at all. We already see the Fundamentalist LDS church recognizing polygamy, though the law does not. Gay people who want religious blessing or sanction can find a religious group that recognizes same sex unions. This is all as it should be. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.

    But the legal inequity is only part of it. There is a traditional meaning of the word “marriage” which extends beyond any religious significance. I know a lot of married people- very few of them would say religion has anything to do with their union. In fact, at least half would be heavily opposed to the insinuation that religion has anything to do with what makes their union a “marriage” but they refer to that union as a marriage nonetheless. And the presumption that they should stop referring to their union as a “marriage” because some religious nuts suddenly can’t handle sharing that word with the rest of the human race is stunning.

    The whole point here is that the word “marriage” no longer belongs exclusively to the church (if it ever did, I don’t know the history of it). This expectation for the rest of society to change the meaning of it at this point- to something exclusively affiliated with religion- is just kind of bizarre. It’s too ingrained in our vernacular. It’s like asking an entire society of people to stop using the word “eating” and to start using the word “ingesting” instead….all because they want “eating” to mean something special and if any ol’ body can “eat” than it doesn’t mean something special anymore. [Pro tip: one could try to make it *special* by actually being mindful and appreciating the crap out of the person you’re married to, instead of focusing on securing an elite label for it.]

    And sure, to humor these people and concede the meaning of this word might smooth a few ruffled feathers…..but it’s a little too much like a Booker T Washington solution agreeing to second-class citizenship because it’s ‘better than nothing’. In the end, it doesn’t affect me directly because I’m not gay. And I don’t really see myself caring that much even if I were- even though I’m more a fan of DuBois, I’d be satisfied with legal equality. But I do know a few people who are gay, for them the term ‘marriage’ is important and I don’t really think it’s my place to tell them to settle.

    If it’s really so important for these people to have a different label, then why can they institute their own new term or phrase instead of choosing one that’s already been in service for a long time? They could start referring to it as Holy Matrimony or something. “Marriage” is just too far removed from the church at this point, its traditional meaning now is more of ‘romantic partnership’ than anything religious for too many people.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  8. #158
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545
    Religious marriage is a sacrament while civil marriage is a contract.

  9. #159
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    But the legal inequity is only part of it. There is a traditional meaning of the word “marriage” which extends beyond any religious significance. I know a lot of married people- very few of them would say religion has anything to do with their union. In fact, at least half would be heavily opposed to the insinuation that religion has anything to do with what makes their union a “marriage” but they refer to that union as a marriage nonetheless. And the presumption that they should stop referring to their union as a “marriage” because some religious nuts suddenly can’t handle sharing that word with the rest of the human race is stunning.

    The whole point here is that the word “marriage” no longer belongs exclusively to the church (if it ever did, I don’t know the history of it). This expectation for the rest of society to change the meaning of it at this point- to something exclusively affiliated with religion- is just kind of bizarre. It’s too ingrained in our vernacular. It’s like asking an entire society of people to stop using the word “eating” and to start using the word “ingesting” instead….all because they want “eating” to mean something special and if any ol’ body can “eat” than it doesn’t mean something special anymore. [Pro tip: one could try to make it *special* by actually being mindful and appreciating the crap out of the person you’re married to, instead of focusing on securing an elite label for it.]

    And sure, to humor these people and concede the meaning of this word might smooth a few ruffled feathers…..but it’s a little too much like a Booker T Washington solution agreeing to second-class citizenship because it’s ‘better than nothing’. In the end, it doesn’t affect me directly because I’m not gay. And I don’t really see myself caring that much even if I were- even though I’m more a fan of DuBois, I’d be satisfied with legal equality. But I do know a few people who are gay, for them the term ‘marriage’ is important and I don’t really think it’s my place to tell them to settle.

    If it’s really so important for these people to have a different label, then why can they institute their own new term or phrase instead of choosing one that’s already been in service for a long time? They could start referring to it as Holy Matrimony or something. “Marriage” is just too far removed from the church at this point, its traditional meaning now is more of ‘romantic partnership’ than anything religious for too many people.
    Most where I live would say religion has a lot to do with their marriage...

  10. #160
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Most where I live would say religion has a lot to do with their marriage...
    They would where I am, too. No matter how many times they get married.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

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