trillionaire
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,881
Date: 6/21/2008 1:40:31 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy
I wanted to say good for you wishful.
I always liked the argument that gay marriage cheapend marriage. As though George Takai who married his partner of 21 years harms my personal attachment and that it somehow brings down the calibre of marriege less than the quickie chapels in Vegas. I think if two people who love each other but are different than you threaten your marriage, then you have a lot of problems in the mariage that need to get looked at.
Gotta love Canada!Date: 6/27/2008 10:04:32 AM
Author: LitigatorChick
Canada has had gay marriage since 2005, thanks to our Supreme Court followed by our Parliament. I''m all for it. It''s all about love anyway!!!!![]()
Date: 6/27/2008 12:49:35 AM
Author: Fancy605
Good point. I''ve always thought to myself that it would be MUCH more honorable to be a same-sex couple in a loving committed marriage than it is to be a heterosexual couple in a loveless, adulterous marriage.
IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.
Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.
Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov't is not defining where the 'line' is.
I think that is a very good point, AGBF. As a child who grew up with married parents who didn''t divorce "for the children" [later divorced when I was in my late teens] I have a personal experience with this. I think, again, it really depends on the specific situation. If people can live in harmony I think it is one thing, but many people, my parents included, could not, and it severely affected me growing up. Perhaps a topic for a different thread, but a good point nonetheless. I think the underlying problem in all of these situations is the idea that there is one right way to do things, when people and peoples'' relationships with one another and their families are all unique and complicated. I think that does no one any favors.Date: 8/1/2008 5:24:17 AM
Author: AGBF
I agree with everything you wrote, WishfulThinking. I even like the style in which you wrote it. However, I do think that there are some areas that have been left unaddressed: like what happens to children in a marriage when there is no policy recommended to the consenting adults on whether couples should divorce or whether they should stick it out. But not everything can be hashed out in one thread!
Deborah
![]()
Date: 7/30/2008 12:27:35 PM
Author: aprilcait
Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.
Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.
IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.
If this division of church and state is really created, then religious organizations may not feel such a pressure to allow gay marriage (even though I, personally, believe that they should allow it).
Yes, couples need to get an offical state marriage license but the religious official who marries the couple signs the form, meaning that the religious official has the right to legally marry the couple (not just marry the couple within that specific religion). This means that there is not a full separation of church and state.Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 7/30/2008 12:27:35 PM
Author: aprilcait
Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.
Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.
IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.
If this division of church and state is really created, then religious organizations may not feel such a pressure to allow gay marriage (even though I, personally, believe that they should allow it).
There is indeed a separation of church and state. I believe in most states a couple needs a legal marriage license which has nothing to do with a religious ceremony.
As far as religious institutions allowing gay marriages, they should have every right to say ''no'' to performing these ceremonies. In the US, we are also given the right to religious freedom and no congregation should be forced into performing such marriages. Separation of church and state works both ways.
By the way, the idea of ''Separation of church and state'' was introduced to protect the churches from government dictates, not the other way around. While I find most people who invoke the ''separation'' idea are fearful of the church intervening with the law and the ''state'', it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country.
To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!
I don''t know how to highlight, so I am addressing the section above that I have bolded.Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 7/30/2008 12:27:35 PM
Author: aprilcait
Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.
Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.
IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.
If this division of church and state is really created, then religious organizations may not feel such a pressure to allow gay marriage (even though I, personally, believe that they should allow it).
There is indeed a separation of church and state. I believe in most states a couple needs a legal marriage license which has nothing to do with a religious ceremony.
As far as religious institutions allowing gay marriages, they should have every right to say ''no'' to performing these ceremonies. In the US, we are also given the right to religious freedom and no congregation should be forced into performing such marriages. Separation of church and state works both ways.
By the way, the idea of ''Separation of church and state'' was introduced to protect the churches from government dictates, not the other way around. While I find most people who invoke the ''separation'' idea are fearful of the church intervening with the law and the ''state'', it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country.
To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!
clear and concise.....Date: 8/4/2008 5:23:26 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
I don''t know how to highlight, so I am addressing the section above that I have bolded.Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 7/30/2008 12:27:35 PM
Author: aprilcait
Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.
Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.
IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.
If this division of church and state is really created, then religious organizations may not feel such a pressure to allow gay marriage (even though I, personally, believe that they should allow it).
There is indeed a separation of church and state. I believe in most states a couple needs a legal marriage license which has nothing to do with a religious ceremony.
As far as religious institutions allowing gay marriages, they should have every right to say ''no'' to performing these ceremonies. In the US, we are also given the right to religious freedom and no congregation should be forced into performing such marriages. Separation of church and state works both ways.
By the way, the idea of ''Separation of church and state'' was introduced to protect the churches from government dictates, not the other way around. While I find most people who invoke the ''separation'' idea are fearful of the church intervening with the law and the ''state'', it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country.
To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!
I think it''s disingenuous to bring up the argument that religious institutions should not ''have'' to marry gay couples. First of all, that isn''t what aprilcait said to begin with. She said it should happen; as in, she thinks they *should* change their views [presumably of their own volition], not that she thinks they should be forced to do so by the state. The only people I have ever heard discuss the issue of forcing churches to marry same sex couples are those who claim they will have to if same sex marriages are legalized. It''s a strawperson argument meant to scare people who are religious into fearing that same sex marriages will interfere with their religious freedoms. I''ve been doing work in marriage equality for about 9 years now, and I have never heard anyone in favor of marriage equality claim that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples. It would be a direct violation of separation of church and state, and quite obviously unconstitutional Although, notably, I do recall more than one minister I know expressing sadness and disgust that the same sex marriages they freely and voluntarily perform in their church are not able to be recognized by the law.
As for the second part of what you said, ksinger did a good job explaining the more in-depth context of the separation of church and state.
ksinger''s comments about de facto state religion are also completely valid. The only reason I have ever heard put forth about why people do not want same sex marriages legalized are religious reasons. If there is no official religion, why is it that the religious beliefs of the majority are allowed to be imposed on the minority? If there is no state religion, why is it that I am unable to get married because my marriage supposedly violates the tenants of a religion that I do not believe in? The answer is pretty simple: because, unofficially, religion dictates the laws of this country, and it does so to the detriment of those of us who are blatantly discriminated against as a result.
Also, to say that ''it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country'' is rather unfair. I value religious freedom, but I also value MY OWN freedom, which ought to include equal protection under the law. It also includes freedom FROM religion; I should not be required to obey the rules of a religion that I choose not to practice. I legitimately fear that the interference of religion in my government will deny me those constitutional rights which I ought to be granted as a citizen of the United States. In fact, more accurately, I *experience* rather than fear the effects or interference that has and continues to occur. I experience every single day of my life the imposition of the religion of other people on my own beliefs and life choices. It impacts my ability to function in an every day capacity.
I am, however, confused as to how people in the church currently need to fear the state''s intervention. There has been, to my knowledge, no legislation or court decisions passed in recent decades that would constitute such interference by the state. I follow these things very closely, as a student of law and politics. Is there something I have missed, perhaps? I am curious as to where you are coming from with those claims.
You''re exactly right, Wishful. That''s exactly what I meant... you just said it better.Date: 8/4/2008 5:23:26 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
I don''t know how to highlight, so I am addressing the section above that I have bolded.Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 7/30/2008 12:27:35 PM
Author: aprilcait
Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.
Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.
IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.
If this division of church and state is really created, then religious organizations may not feel such a pressure to allow gay marriage (even though I, personally, believe that they should allow it).
There is indeed a separation of church and state. I believe in most states a couple needs a legal marriage license which has nothing to do with a religious ceremony.
As far as religious institutions allowing gay marriages, they should have every right to say ''no'' to performing these ceremonies. In the US, we are also given the right to religious freedom and no congregation should be forced into performing such marriages. Separation of church and state works both ways.
By the way, the idea of ''Separation of church and state'' was introduced to protect the churches from government dictates, not the other way around. While I find most people who invoke the ''separation'' idea are fearful of the church intervening with the law and the ''state'', it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country.
To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!
I think it''s disingenuous to bring up the argument that religious institutions should not ''have'' to marry gay couples. First of all, that isn''t what aprilcait said to begin with. She said it should happen; as in, she thinks they *should* change their views [presumably of their own volition], not that she thinks they should be forced to do so by the state. The only people I have ever heard discuss the issue of forcing churches to marry same sex couples are those who claim they will have to if same sex marriages are legalized. It''s a strawperson argument meant to scare people who are religious into fearing that same sex marriages will interfere with their religious freedoms. I''ve been doing work in marriage equality for about 9 years now, and I have never heard anyone in favor of marriage equality claim that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples. It would be a direct violation of separation of church and state, and quite obviously unconstitutional Although, notably, I do recall more than one minister I know expressing sadness and disgust that the same sex marriages they freely and voluntarily perform in their church are not able to be recognized by the law.
As for the second part of what you said, ksinger did a good job explaining the more in-depth context of the separation of church and state.
ksinger''s comments about de facto state religion are also completely valid. The only reason I have ever heard put forth about why people do not want same sex marriages legalized are religious reasons. If there is no official religion, why is it that the religious beliefs of the majority are allowed to be imposed on the minority? If there is no state religion, why is it that I am unable to get married because my marriage supposedly violates the tenants of a religion that I do not believe in? The answer is pretty simple: because, unofficially, religion dictates the laws of this country, and it does so to the detriment of those of us who are blatantly discriminated against as a result.
Also, to say that ''it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country'' is rather unfair. I value religious freedom, but I also value MY OWN freedom, which ought to include equal protection under the law. It also includes freedom FROM religion; I should not be required to obey the rules of a religion that I choose not to practice. I legitimately fear that the interference of religion in my government will deny me those constitutional rights which I ought to be granted as a citizen of the United States. In fact, more accurately, I *experience* rather than fear the effects or interference that has and continues to occur. I experience every single day of my life the imposition of the religion of other people on my own beliefs and life choices. It impacts my ability to function in an every day capacity.
I am, however, confused as to how people in the church currently need to fear the state''s intervention. There has been, to my knowledge, no legislation or court decisions passed in recent decades that would constitute such interference by the state. I follow these things very closely, as a student of law and politics. Is there something I have missed, perhaps? I am curious as to where you are coming from with those claims.
It depends on where the line is drawn, obviously. Like everything else in law, there is a line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. I am confused by the latter part of your comment, though. The tradition argument is in reference to NOT legalizing same sex marriage. It is used to justify the exclusion of same sex couples from the institution of marriage, not to argue for the legalization of same sex marriage. It logically follows that the "tradition argument" would be used to try to justify the legalization of polygamy by activists who argue in favor of it, due to the obvious historical circumstances of polygamy and marriage. Therefore, if one says no to polygamy, they might very well say yes to same sex marriage; after all, if the same sex marriage advocates are arguing that tradition is an irrelevant reason to deny peoples'' legal rights, why would they think that tradition was a compelling reason to legalize polygamy? However, if you''re talking about the governments'' saying no polygamy while waxing philosophic about preserving the historical sanctity of traditional marriage, there is a huge contradiction. That government is not saying yes to same sex marriage, though, so your statement doesn''t logically follow.Date: 8/5/2008 5:45:28 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
Should the government recognize marriages of more than two people? What if three or four want to bond into a family unit?
I don''t see how one can say no to polygamy and yes to SSM. I would think that the ''tradition'' argument is at least as strong for polygamy as for unigenderamy.
Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM
Author: beebrisk
To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!
This really only became an issue when divorce became an option. Society was (and still to a large degree, even here) patriarchal. Of course men are not going to want to lose the primary mare in their stable. Duh. And the patriarchal societal rules made it so a woman just had to put up with it basically. It was hardly this high-minded concern for the sanctity of marriage. People couldn''t get divorced, women couldn''t support themselves even if they could have gotten away, and so they "tolerated" affairs by their men. Nowadays, we have a choice. And choosing to stay is just that - a choice, not a necessity. It certainly makes it more meaningful, when you CAN leave yet do not.Date: 8/5/2008 7:27:48 PM
Author: AGBF
Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM
Author: beebrisk
To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!
beebrisk, I want to address the part of your posting that you wrote to me, that is the part that I quoted above. I do not think you understood what I was saying, which was not entirely your fault. In fact, my writing was so poor that it is amazing that anyone understood what I was trying to say! However, R/A did. As you know, since you also quoted him, he wrote to me:
''Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair''....''
The point I had wanted to make was that some societies place the institution of marriage in a ''high'', that is a valued, position in the sense that an affair is not usually allowed to interfere with the marital institution. The cliché in western society today is that French women do not get divorced just because their husband have affairs. The English upper classes have been quoted as saying that Americans are strange because they think they have to get divorced every time they fall in love. I have written all of these things here before.
I am saying that there may be an intrinsic tension between a societal intolerance of affairs and long marriages...not because I want that to be so, but because that is so.
Deborah
![]()
Rank Amateur, this could have also been said in favor of maintaining the ban on inter-racial marriage. However society grew beyond that limited view of marriage and human beings and worked to correct its discriminatory policies regarding marriage. Perhaps (and hopefully) our society has now grown to have at least a slightly broader range of acceptance over the past almost 20 years and we can amend our view of marriage so that it is not so close-minded. Truly, no offense intended.Date: 8/6/2008 12:44:19 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
I don't agree with the equal protection agrument. Equal protection is afforded all who choose to legally marry.
Now, you may not like one or more aspects of how marriage is defined, but that does not mean you are deprived of 'equal protection'. You want to change the rules as you see fit and still want 'equal protection'. Our society has decided that marriage is TWO people of OPPOSITE sex over a certain AGE and NOT RELATED or ALREADY MARRIED. You meet these criteria, you get equal protection. If you want to throw these out, maybe you want to marry someone too young, or someone too closely related to you, or you want a marriage of three or more people, or of the same gender, you don't get equal protection unless you can get the people to change the laws. The people so far are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the rules as they are.
Maybe it's not fair. I don't know. Our society has decided to give some advantages to certain people, and those not in that group consider it unfair. If you own a home you get a mortgage interest deduction - not fair if you can't or don't want to own a home. Kids get a big tax credit. Not fair if you can't have or don't want kids. My personal favorite, if you work for the gov't, or a teachers or railroad union you don't pay FICA tax. NOT FAIR!
Like I said, it is equal protection for like situations. You can't choose to not conform to a portion or the requirements and then expect equal protection.
AprilCait nailed it.Date: 8/6/2008 1:44:50 PM
Author: aprilcait
Date: 8/6/2008 12:44:19 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
I don't agree with the equal protection agrument. Equal protection is afforded all who choose to legally marry.
Now, you may not like one or more aspects of how marriage is defined, but that does not mean you are deprived of 'equal protection'. You want to change the rules as you see fit and still want 'equal protection'. Our society has decided that marriage is TWO people of OPPOSITE sex over a certain AGE and NOT RELATED or ALREADY MARRIED. You meet these criteria, you get equal protection. If you want to throw these out, maybe you want to marry someone too young, or someone too closely related to you, or you want a marriage of three or more people, or of the same gender, you don't get equal protection unless you can get the people to change the laws. The people so far are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the rules as they are.
Maybe it's not fair. I don't know. Our society has decided to give some advantages to certain people, and those not in that group consider it unfair. If you own a home you get a mortgage interest deduction - not fair if you can't or don't want to own a home. Kids get a big tax credit. Not fair if you can't have or don't want kids. My personal favorite, if you work for the gov't, or a teachers or railroad union you don't pay FICA tax. NOT FAIR!
Like I said, it is equal protection for like situations. You can't choose to not conform to a portion or the requirements and then expect equal protection.
Rank Amateur, this could have also been said in favor of maintaining the ban on inter-racial marriage. However society grew beyond that limited view of marriage and human beings and worked to correct its discriminatory policies regarding marriage. Perhaps (and hopefully) our society has now grown to have at least a slightly broader range of acceptance over the past almost 20 years and we can amend our view of marriage so that it is not so close-minded. Truly, no offense intended.