Incognitus
Member
Cruelty":l989nh85 said:
Troll?! An obvious troll! :sad: How dare you sir!
There's a difference between trolling and commentary laden with irony. :P
Yay for Gays!!!!~~
- Thread starter Venetia
- Start date
Troll?! An obvious troll! :sad: How dare you sir!
There's a difference between trolling and commentary laden with irony. :P
rey meustrus
Sponsor
You should remember that comment, which states that non-marital sex is illegal, next time you're having sex yourself, be it with a "dickhead" or otherwise. That is to say, it hasn't been illegal for a long time. The most controversial legal benefit of marriage in this case is the right to adopt children, but the benefits mostly amount to tax relief (designed to make it easier for one person to remain at home and care for children), right of attorney (sign legal documents in absence of your partner, such as medical release forms which allow for surgery which could be important if you're unconscious), and many other smaller things like establishing legal independence from one's parents if you're under 25.
I'm in Iowa myself, and I'm happy about the decision. Frankly it feels a bit familiar, because I used to live in California, where I was rather surprised to see the constitution itself amended to specifically deny a civil liberty. It's good to know that the constitution is a bit less flexible in this state--constitutions really should be something closer to set in stone than normal laws.
I'm in Iowa myself, and I'm happy about the decision. Frankly it feels a bit familiar, because I used to live in California, where I was rather surprised to see the constitution itself amended to specifically deny a civil liberty. It's good to know that the constitution is a bit less flexible in this state--constitutions really should be something closer to set in stone than normal laws.
rey meustrus":s4tuxupm said:
Yup, and laws saying that it's illegal have been ruled unconstitutional since 2003.
and the dominoes begin to tumble down ...
Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage
(ty to sophie for alerting me on the news :3)
Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage
(ty to sophie for alerting me on the news :3)
Incognitus
Member
Venetia":16m2a8o3 said:
Alas! Another victory for the Axis of Radical Islamists and Secular Humanists. You'd better start praying Vermontians!
Yay! Welcome to the modern world America! You're close to being overcome with decadent liberalism!
bashful crobat
Sponsor
So, does anywhere in america still crucify bulldykes?
Incognitus
Member
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnou ... EnoughNews
Alas! A minor setback for Gay Rights in Europe. Bloody Poles.
Alas! A minor setback for Gay Rights in Europe. Bloody Poles.
jerome_denis
Member
<<Make no mistake, my friends, this is a victory for Radical Islam.>>
<<Alas! Another victory for the Axis of Radical Islamists [...]>>
O_o ???
Beiing gay may be against the Bible, but I don't think it's rather very Islamic ...
<<[..]and Secular Humanists. [..]>>
Yes, thats right ...
But I don't see the usefullness of laws prohibiting it, to be gay ...
I mean - do you think the Gays would be less gay if you claim beeing gay to be illegal ... ???
<<Alas! A minor setback for Gay Rights in Europe. Bloody Poles.>>
Oh, come on - It's just about elephants ... LOL ...
<<Alas! Another victory for the Axis of Radical Islamists [...]>>
O_o ???
Beiing gay may be against the Bible, but I don't think it's rather very Islamic ...
<<[..]and Secular Humanists. [..]>>
Yes, thats right ...
But I don't see the usefullness of laws prohibiting it, to be gay ...
I mean - do you think the Gays would be less gay if you claim beeing gay to be illegal ... ???
<<Alas! A minor setback for Gay Rights in Europe. Bloody Poles.>>
Oh, come on - It's just about elephants ... LOL ...
rey meustrus
Sponsor
You, sir, have problems with satire.
Incognitus
Member
*facedesk*
^ What he said.
Although I am surprised it has taken this long for one of the minor members overcome with religiosity to comment - I'm just surprised it took this long!
^ What he said.
Although I am surprised it has taken this long for one of the minor members overcome with religiosity to comment - I'm just surprised it took this long!
Venetia":13vsacpt said:
I kind of agree in a way. Im a fairly conservative person but I feel that this issue causes damage to the conservative movement, people cant come up with any decent arguments against gay marriage so they always bring religion into it, usually to mask a thinly veiled "gayness is disgusting" attitude. I wish people would be more up front about their reasons for beleiving what they do, not hide behind the bible to make their hate feel "just" and stop besmirching the christian faith with their cruel and meanspirited comments.
I think a good number of opponents to gay marriage are just following the trend of their conservative bretheren without actually thinking of their own feelings on the subject. Which is not a totally new thing, really. Sean Hannity for one excels at following the party line like a zombie, I dont think he has ever had an original thought in his life. Im sure theres plenty of liberal pundits who do the same thing, but I dont much listen to them anyway.
What Im trying to say is, yes...marriage is a religious institution. If the beleivers want it to remain defined in the traditional sense, then they need to demand that marriage stop being sanctioned and awarded by the govt. No more tax breaks and what have you for married couples. When the church is in control of marriage, then they can deny whomever they wish on whatever grounds they can think of. Then the govt can give their tax breaks to couples who have lived together for more than two years or something.
:O i agree w/ nikki
O:!
but the problem there is that no one would ever go for that idea.
it'd be much easier to meet everyone halfway and just get all marriages/unions observed than to say "oops now it's all unrecognized".
you have to think about what's easier for the voting sheeple to swallow.
O:!
but the problem there is that no one would ever go for that idea.
it'd be much easier to meet everyone halfway and just get all marriages/unions observed than to say "oops now it's all unrecognized".
you have to think about what's easier for the voting sheeple to swallow.
What Nikki has proposed specifically doesn't have a lot of backing, but there is an idea that's fairly similar that I get behind which does have a bit more support.
There are people who want the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. But they also concede that those tax-breaks, visitation rights, and other perks of marriage are kind of important. So the alternative is to just rebrand all existing marriages to a 'civil-union.' The definition of this civil union would be a binding contract between two consenting adults.*
The reason this has some support is it does actually legalize gay marriage. The problem with gay marriage legalization is that it requires religious institutions to perform the service indiscriminately. Unfortunately that's a violation of religious rights. A pastor/priest shouldn't be required to marry a couple that they believe shouldn't be married.** That being said, if there is a pastor/priest who does not take issue with homosexual marriages, they can perform the marriage ceremony.
The difference between this and nikki's proposal? Common-law marriage isn't what determines the tax-break rules.
*This definition of civil-union is used because it stops minors from getting hitched, as well as polygamy. The consent stops shot-gun weddings and weddings between family members.
**Priests/pastors can refuse to marry couples. For example, my brother is a pastor and will not marry a Christian to an atheist. He'll marry two atheists or two Christians, but not mix the two. (Something about the bible saying you don't join two of a different stripe or something similar.) The issue with the legalization is that pastors would not be able to deny a homosexual marriage on the grounds that it's homosexual. They might be able to find other reasons, but if the motivating factor is that it's homosexual, they legally would not be able to say no.
There are people who want the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. But they also concede that those tax-breaks, visitation rights, and other perks of marriage are kind of important. So the alternative is to just rebrand all existing marriages to a 'civil-union.' The definition of this civil union would be a binding contract between two consenting adults.*
The reason this has some support is it does actually legalize gay marriage. The problem with gay marriage legalization is that it requires religious institutions to perform the service indiscriminately. Unfortunately that's a violation of religious rights. A pastor/priest shouldn't be required to marry a couple that they believe shouldn't be married.** That being said, if there is a pastor/priest who does not take issue with homosexual marriages, they can perform the marriage ceremony.
The difference between this and nikki's proposal? Common-law marriage isn't what determines the tax-break rules.
*This definition of civil-union is used because it stops minors from getting hitched, as well as polygamy. The consent stops shot-gun weddings and weddings between family members.
**Priests/pastors can refuse to marry couples. For example, my brother is a pastor and will not marry a Christian to an atheist. He'll marry two atheists or two Christians, but not mix the two. (Something about the bible saying you don't join two of a different stripe or something similar.) The issue with the legalization is that pastors would not be able to deny a homosexual marriage on the grounds that it's homosexual. They might be able to find other reasons, but if the motivating factor is that it's homosexual, they legally would not be able to say no.
christians are still an overwhelming majority in america, including people who do not actively follow the church, but share christian values. slowly many of these people are learning to accept people and ideas separate from theirs, but they wouldn't just give up something so ingrained entirely. Acceptance to most is about adding understanding to bestow "privileges" to others, not subtracting from your own culture to meet outsiders halfway.
any measure to get rid of the word marriage entirely would never fly. not in any of our lifetimes, atleast. i agree with you, too, but you have to be realistic--running around talking about taking away something so massively ingrained in our culture as the word "marriage" would be the death throes of any political candidate.
any measure to get rid of the word marriage entirely would never fly. not in any of our lifetimes, atleast. i agree with you, too, but you have to be realistic--running around talking about taking away something so massively ingrained in our culture as the word "marriage" would be the death throes of any political candidate.
silver wind
Member
There's a saying, Don't say something if you know no one will listen. Seeing as 100% of the responds are positive, I won't respond negatively.
I'll only tell you I just came back from a lovely wedding. Man and woman in love- so much you could see it on their face, a ring, an exciting religious ceremony, and.. I can't explain this, it felt right. The thought of something so sacred as marriage being ruined makes me sad. But, it's a lost battle. No one cares how we, as religious people, feel. We're too 'old' and not enough 'progressed' to be taken seriously.
I'll only tell you I just came back from a lovely wedding. Man and woman in love- so much you could see it on their face, a ring, an exciting religious ceremony, and.. I can't explain this, it felt right. The thought of something so sacred as marriage being ruined makes me sad. But, it's a lost battle. No one cares how we, as religious people, feel. We're too 'old' and not enough 'progressed' to be taken seriously.
silver wind":2kqyumae said:There's a saying, Don't say something if you know no one will listen. Seeing as 100% of the responds are positive, I won't respond negatively.
I'll only tell you I just came back from a lovely wedding. Man and woman in love- so much you could see it on their face, a ring, an exciting religious ceremony, and.. I can't explain this, it felt right. The thought of something so sacred as marriage being ruined makes me sad. But, it's a lost battle. No one cares how we, as religious people, feel. We're too 'old' and not enough 'progressed' to be taken seriously.
100% positive? What about me? Im not "for" gay marriage. Im against opposing it with no logical arguments. I can come up with no reason other than "gays are icky" to deny it to others in a free society as long as the government sanctions and rewards it. The govt intervention has turned it into something other than what its supposed to be. Reclaim it as strictly a religious tradition, like communion, fasting or confession. Then no laws of equality can force it to be made available to anyone and everyone.
Like I said before, the whole issue is damaging to the conservative and christian movements. Id much prefer to have it settled once and for all. I dont care what people do with each other honestly, marriage just isnt near the top of my list of things to be concerned about.