User Tag List

First 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 180

  1. #31
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    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'm on this band wagon with both feet and would be fine with going to the courthouse or whatever to get my marriage recognized as a civil union and pay the fee if there was one.
    “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

  2. #32
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    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.
    Right, it's just your end goal that's being prevented by practical issues and until you can reach that goal you want to impose your preferences on as many people as possible. Which is an interesting contrast to historical marriage laws in America which have generally been on a more local level.


    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.
    I don't see how anything I've written could be construed to claim that the marriage experience is equal. Besides the state interest in marriage really isn't based on the mutual enjoyment of marriage (which is why no-fault divorce is a relatively new occurrence in marriage law). The state interest is making sure that children have parents. I myself am the product of at least two generations of dysfunctional marriages and am grateful for it.


    Weakened, because people can get out of it faster? You really are something.
    Yes, because it goes against the purpose of marriage.
    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. #33
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    When are you going to assume power in the Republican Party? You already have the belly for it.
    May have an opportunity to help run a campaign for the Sheriff of Jacksonville. Sheriff is small peanuts in podunk backwaters, but J-ville has well over a million in the metro area, and Sheriff while still not a huge deal (like mayor) is still enough to work my way onto a bigger campaign, maybe State Leg. etc...

  4. #34
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    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.
    It will be interesting to see if your parent church will retain the same power.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultur...e-sex-weddings
    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

  5. #35
    ^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
    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.
    Okay, so let's wind the circle around here, and tell me what for purpose you want this minor detail?


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    That's almost verbatim what I said.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    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).
    I have no idea what the secular religion comment means, but I'm telling you that people only want change the definitions of these things in terms of the civil law. They could not care less what definitions churches use for themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    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.
    Only in circumstances where the practice is law. I see no problem and in fact see a great deal of good in not allowing a religious practice of some particular sect to define the law for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    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?
    Like I said, it comes into the voting publics' opinion, and the process of legislators writing laws and judges upholding them. If there is an allowable objection, it is through that means. If your objections are failing on those fronts, then I'm afraid that's how it works, that's how we handle governance (or we're supposed to anyway).

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    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.
    No one gives a shit what the religions want to do within their own institutions. Thus, addressing the concerns of the religious does not enter into this. Unless the concern of the religious is that they won't get to write the laws for us, in which case I'm gladly going to say we should disregard their concerns. There's really only two positions you can take as far as I'm concerned. You can remove government from marriage altogether, which would make your current argument the wrong argument to focus on and a waste of time, or you can allow gays to marry.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  6. #36
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Assume for a moment that civil unions are legally equivalent to marriage, and that the only difference between the two is the name.

    Keeping in mind that Civil Unions are open to hetero folks. Who if they wished, could get CU'd as an objection to the exclusion of gay folks in Marriage.

    Why then argue to call it marriage?

    EDIT - I really didn't want to post this, as I know I'm going to take insane amounts of shit for it, but I really want an answer to that question.
    Because not doing so would maintain unequal rights and privileges in practice, which I believe to be unduly detrimental to the happiness of gay couples and (to a lesser extent) society itself, and because I do not believe calling it gay marriage poses sufficient threat to heterosexual marriage to justify the status quo in most states.

    That said, I AM a 'hetero-normative', 'heterosexist' (I think it's simply irrational not to be) who believes that male-female* and parental relationships are inherently the fundamental components of human society and socialization and that because of this, all else being equal, a father and mother give a more balanced upbringing than two mothers or two fathers. This is balanced by three other beliefs: a.) all else is never equal b.) that particular inequality can mostly be compensated for simply by routinely exposing the children of gay couples to family and friends in heterosexual relationships and c.) its much more important for parents (or a single parent) to provide a loving, responsible, and stable upbringing, which gay parents are no less equipped for.

    Altogether, that means I don't believe that sexuality and race are equivalent bases for discrimination, but I also don't think there's a good reason to prohibit gay marriage. Even putting aside my concerns regarding Constitutional interpretations, judicial activism and unintended consequences, that seems to be enough to ensure that I always end up debating against both sides of these threads.

    *Oh, I also believe that typical differences in body chemistry between the sexes will tend to result in major behavioral differences between men and women even without cultural influences to magnify them (which is not to say that gender norms are beyond criticism, especially not when any element of coercion is involved-a qualification that should be too obvious to have to make, but I thought I would pre-empt any words being put in my mouth).

    Edit: Also, by hetero-normative and hetero-sexists, I simply mean that I think its appropriate for heterosexuality to be considered 'normal', just like people without color-blindness are 'normal', with certain aspects of culture and society revolving around that assumption for reasons of necessity, prioritization, and convenience.....in other words, there is no moral relevance attached to those words.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Right, it's just your end goal that's being prevented by practical issues and until you can reach that goal you want to impose your preferences on as many people as possible. Which is an interesting contrast to historical marriage laws in America which have generally been on a more local level.
    Since my preference is to allow all preferences, it should be uncontroversial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    I don't see how anything I've written could be construed to claim that the marriage experience is equal.
    That is not what I said. I said your arguments amount to the idea that one person's marriage is substantially equal to any other; which it must be, otherwise you could not say that any man and woman who perform such and such rites are joined in an instance of marriage while two men performing the same rites are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Besides the state interest in marriage really isn't based on the mutual enjoyment of marriage (which is why no-fault divorce is a relatively new occurrence in marriage law). The state interest is making sure that children have parents.
    Biology takes care of children having parents. Also, things change. Apparently there is a relatively new occurrence in marriage law suggestive of such a change in what is considered the purpose of marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    I myself am the product of at least two generations of dysfunctional marriages and am grateful for it.
    I pity you for this mindset.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Yes, because it goes against the purpose of marriage.
    As understood by Beorn and his buddies.

  8. #38
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    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.
    Aside from the belittling "separate but equal" thing (which I do have a problem with) this is the main issue. The term "marriage" meaning different things to different people. The only aspect of that I have any concern with is the legal definition. I don't care what church A, mosque B, or temple C consider "marriage". What I do have a concern with is the legal definition and equal protection under the law. As long as there are two legal concepts, "marriage" and "civil union" that are accessible to different populations of people - there is both the possibility and precedent for inequalities to creep in. Now -- if you had proposed abolishing the word "marriage" from every level of the legal system, public consciousness and everyday terminology, to be replaced with the term "civil union", leaving religious institutions a completely separate, heterosexuals-only "marriage", fine, whatever. But that's clearly unrealistic.


    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    If I were gay and wanted civil benefits with my husband Hugh Jackman, I wouldn't give two shits about what it was called as long as, under the law, I am equally protected.

    It would seem easier to change a law than it does to change a culture. Sure I want acceptance within society, in culture, etc, but I don't think that's necessarily the job of law.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #39
    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 only thing marriage says is that the partnership is religious.
    LOL, I guess my atheist wife and I are really making a statement then.

    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.
    Christians did not invent marriage. Therefore, they have no grounds to claim any special privilege in defining the term.
    "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. #40
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    If we disconnected religious marriage from civil marriage, then churches could have complete control over whom they marry and nobody could say boo about it. (Well, they could SAY boo, thanks to their own first amendment rights.)

    Are there any other religious rites that are legally binding?

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