User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 180

  1. #21
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I would support a non marriage equivalent of marriage before I'll support SSM, but I prefer SSM to non equivalent civil unions.
    When are you going to assume power in the Republican Party? You already have the belly for it.

  2. #22
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I am not trying to destroy marriage. Those who seriously want a part of it deserve all that comes with it. But ask the married, ask Jennifer if marriage is such a wonderful idea.
    You don't mind if marriage remains as a state institution?
    I don't think whether marriage is a good idea is wrapped up in one person's experience.

    Is it possible marriage is only kept alive by money from the lobby of marital lawyers and power-hungry priests?
    Lawyers only started making money off of marriage when it was weakened with no-fault divorce.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  3. #23
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    You don't mind if marriage remains as a state institution?
    For the time being, I do not. I would prefer marriage to be something between people instead of something between people and the state, but until there is another way to easily establish between partners certain rights currently linked with marriage, I think keeping it as a state institution is the most reasonable solution. I would, however, prefer it to be a federal institution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    I don't think whether marriage is a good idea is wrapped up in one person's experience.
    But one person's experience can show the potential of marriage, because, as you would have it, one person's marriage is substantially equal to any other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Lawyers only started making money off of marriage when it was weakened with no-fault divorce.
    Weakened, because people can get out of it faster? You really are something.

  4. #24
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    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.

    But hey it's just the first Amendment and one of the reasons this country exists, what harm could be done.
    You referred to the two institutions granting equal legal rights in your hypothetical. The moment you talk about granting legal rights, your talking about something I don't think religion should have any say in. If marriage were strictly related to a person's church with no legal significance, then I would not care what people call it or how they define it because it would matter only to those who subscribe to that church.

    What you are proposing suggests that the entire, secular law should let heterosexual partnerships be symbolically more significant, and what's worse, is doing so by letting some religious sect have the say in how that law should work.

    If it matters only the a church, let whatever passes in that church as authority decide. If it is civil law, then voters and judges should be deciding. And you may have noticed that lately they've been siding with gay marriage.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #25
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    I'm pretty much with Magic on this. My first choice on this issue would be to disconnect religious and civil marriage altogether- make civil marriage available to all and then allow those who wish to have their marriage blessed/recognized religiously to do so in their own faith. That way religious institutions could marry or refuse to marry whomever they choose but the same civil institution of marriage (the legally binding one) would be available to all. I doubt that's going to happen, though.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    I wish someone had the balls to just rename the legal institution currently in place, perhaps to HC845.

  7. #27
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I'm pretty much with Magic on this. My first choice on this issue would be to disconnect religious and civil marriage altogether- make civil marriage available to all and then allow those who wish to have their marriage blessed/recognized religiously to do so in their own faith. That way religious institutions could marry or refuse to marry whomever they choose but the same civil institution of marriage (the legally binding one) would be available to all. I doubt that's going to happen, though.
    Since I got name-dropped into the thread...
    .... this is my opinion too.

    Yes, peeps: Call me a sick idealist if you must.
    I shan't complain
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #28
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Shortest answer I can give:

    The waters are muddied by the fact that marriage is not just a religious concept but a legal one that exists (now) outside of religion. By having two names it introduces the possibility of legally altering the privileges of one group.

    Otherwise, all privileges being the same, I don't really care, but I don't see why you can't just call it marriage and accept that within religious life, (as applicable) a marriage is only between male and female, but legal life is separate.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I'm pretty much with Magic on this. My first choice on this issue would be to disconnect religious and civil marriage altogether- make civil marriage available to all and then allow those who wish to have their marriage blessed/recognized religiously to do so in their own faith. That way religious institutions could marry or refuse to marry whomever they choose but the same civil institution of marriage (the legally binding one) would be available to all. I doubt that's going to happen, though.
    I'll go with this one.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  10. #30
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    What you are proposing suggests that the entire, secular law should let heterosexual partnerships be symbolically more significant, and what's worse, is doing so by letting some religious sect have the say in how that law should work.
    That is not what I'm saying at all.

    The only thing it suggests is that in a perfect world all things being equal, I would much prefer separate names for the lifelong (hopefully) joining of two people.

    If it matters only the a church, let whatever passes in that church as authority decide.
    That's almost verbatim what I said.

    That the church has the right to come to its own conclusions in it's own time.

    By coopting the religious nomenclature of marriage, the SSM movement is seeking to turn LGBT rights (and atheism) into a secular religion with equal capacity to define religious institutions (such as marriage). This is where the constitutional protections have to come in because the precedent of this will allow the Ivory tower set to force religions to practice their beliefs differently any time they decide to stop approving of something they do. That kind of shit worries me even though I'm not all that religious. If religious organizations have to toe the party line on every opinion to come out of the DC-NY corridor as we are seeing with the BC mandate for Catholic hospitals etc. and the gay marriage debate, where does it end? Is there no allowable objection?

    Worryingly, the tone coming from left indicates that there can be no principled objection to these movements. That one need not address the concerns of the religious because they are just bigots, even though many religious people have reasonable worries about these issues like I do. Stifling debate, especially with a poor argument like that is profoundly un-American.

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