G.O.P. Senators Are Stalled in Talks on Marriage Bill

[MH]

Originally Posted by August

No the common usage will shift to "Civil Union", or whatever other secular name they come up with to describe a secular government license.

Leave the word "Marriage" to religion and you undercut their moral argument against including gays.

Probably you will have two guys or girls saying lets get married and then they will sign civil union certificate.
Problem solved.
Some still may claim that basic values go to hell and end is near but if that's the biggest problem then everything will be OK.
Some gays will probably want the pope to wear pink robe but who cares.

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

I would expect people to use the more familiar and established term, rather than some new phrase. It's possible, but I don't see it as likely.

At one time "thee" and "thou" were the more familiar and established terms so I don't buy that argument.

Except that "marriage" is not an exclusively religious term even now, nor has it ever really been an exclusively religious concept.

If you believe in separation of church and state then government has no business sharing any kind of rites or ceremonies with religion.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by razark

Wouldn't this be a case of the government not allowing churches to conduct gay marriages, even if the church feels it is appropriate?

Freedom of religion works both ways. No religion in government, no government in religion. That's true. But it also works both ways in the fact that the government can allow gays to marry and the church can view it as not valid, just as the other way around.

Originally Posted by August

If you believe in separation of church and state then government has no business sharing any kind of rites or ceremonies with religion.

So why can any man and woman of any religious or non-religious persuasion get married by the JOP and have it viewed as valid? Because marriage is not a religious institution and is not viewed that way by the government. In your world of marriage being a strictly religious thing, you'd have the Baptists saying the Catholic marriage wasn't valid, and the Catholics saying Jewish marriages don't count, and the Muslims saying none of the others were true marriages in the eyes of Allah.

These are the same old tired arguments that have been addressed a kajillion times before:

Top 10 Arguments Against Gay Marriage

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

So why can any man and woman of any religious or non-religious persuasion get married by the JOP and have it viewed as valid?

For the same reason that the government shouldn't be conducting bar-mitsvas or communions or baptisms or any other religious rite. Oh that's right, you'd be in favor of that because after all "Equality for equality's sake is all that matters"...

For the same reason that the government shouldn't be conducting bar-mitsvas or communions or baptisms or any other religious rite.

Whoda thunk that August was in favour of sharia law in America
After all if the government has to stay out of such things as "religious" marriage it can have no say in divorce inheritance or custody as that must be left to religious courts, I suppose this will lead of course to two year olds getting married and the unborn being traded as a future business commodity between families by religious elders who have wisdom from some old tale they pretend to have read and undertood.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

For the same reason that the government shouldn't be conducting bar-mitsvas or communions or baptisms or any other religious rite. Oh that's right, you'd be in favor of that because after all "Equality for equality's sake is all that matters"...

What kind of mental gymnastics did you go through to come up with that? And furthermore, what point are you even trying to make? You've twisted things so much that I have no idea what you're even on about now. In your attempt to twist my words to mean something I didn't mean (and that's a petty and immature way to argue a point), you've now entered the realm of the incomprehensible.

Marriage is not solely a religious institution. I doubt any same sex couple cares if their marriage is viewed as valid by a religious organization. All that matters is that they have the same right to marry as everyone else and have it viewed as valid by the government. Equality is a bedrock value of our country. Anyone that tries to deny that to others is a bigot and deserves all the scorn and shame in the world.

[Bakkels]

This thread is turning a little bit in the direction of personal attacks I think And I'm having a major déja vu here. Didn't we have the exact same discussion just a couple of weeks ago? Ah what the heck.

I got to agree with Mookie, August. What exactly is your point on this? Do you think gays shouldn't be allowed to be married? Or are you saying that they can, but that they can't call it marriage?
I really can't make it out...

Well anywyay, I say let them marry. Churches can decide for themselves if they want to allow gay marriages within their own church. The most important factor imo is that you are born gay. It's not a choice. You can't deny anyone a basic right because they are different by birth.

I agree with August on this by the way:

Originally Posted by August

Sounds good to me. People shouldn't get tax breaks for having children. If anything they should pay a penalty tax to cover the increased amount of public resources they will utilize.

And there are already too many people inhabiting this earth.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Whoda thunk that August was in favour of sharia law in America
After all if the government has to stay out of such things as "religious" marriage it can have no say in divorce inheritance or custody as that must be left to religious courts, I suppose this will lead of course to two year olds getting married and the unborn being traded as a future business commodity between families by religious elders who have wisdom from some old tale they pretend to have read and undertood.

I heard somewhere the above usually doesn't happen.
Its reserved only for really small group of people that is so small that almost doesn't exist.

Do you really try to read what August says or you looking for opportunity to add some smileys.
Carry on....

[FIREWALL]

...

Do you really try to read what August says or you looking for opportunity to add some smileys.

I read it, did you?
Then again you have shown today how hard you find it to even understand what you have written yourself.
But hey I will give you a chance to try and show that you have a point and are not just being a troll again.
If as August suggests governments should have no role in "religious" rites how many areas of legal disputes does the government therefore give over to solely religious law for settlement?

[August]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

August. What exactly is your point on this?

All I wanted to do is point out that the 100 million dollars that mookie claims my state made from gay marriage is bull. But apparently that doesn't matter much to him since he feels the goal of gay equality justifies anything including outright lies to get there. It sorta went downhill from there.

[August]

Originally Posted by MH

Do you really try to read what August says or you looking for opportunity to add some smileys.
Carry on....

Of course he doesn't. He's here to troll and that's all he does. I put him on ignore long ago. Now if you people would just stop quoting his flame bait it'd be like he wasn't even here.

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I read it, did you?
Then again you have shown today how hard you find it to even understand what you have written yourself.
But hey I will give you a chance to try and show that you have a point and are not just being a troll again.
If as August suggests governments should have no role in "religious" rites how many areas of legal disputes does the government therefore give over to solely religious law for settlement?

Trolling? Something about a pot and a kettle. Jeez Tribesman, I think we agree on this topic but you're making that very hard for me. Most threads you enter it usually takes only two posts or less before you start to personally attack people who don't agree with you, belittle them and resort to name-calling.
I haven't got a clue what you find so pleasing about doing this. Because it happens almost every time. Not just the occasional emotional slip-up, but almost every thread ends in you being obnoxious and rude.

I know this probably won't help one single bit, but I had to get that off my chest. Goodnight.

*edit* Just saw your post August. I've never put anybody on my ignore list in a forum before, but there's a first time for everything I guess.

Of course he doesn't. He's here to troll and that's all he does.

Pointing out that August wants sharia law is not trolling, its showing his position to be what it is.
The simple fact that he has left himself with a position which is indefensible shows that he hasn't thought much on the topic at all and is just spouting nonsense.

I put him on ignore long ago

Ignorance is bliss, I think those religous courts August is seemingly in favour of would agree with that sentiment, after all they wouldn't want thinking people involved in strictly religeous matters like marriage and divorce, far better for them to stick their fingers in their ears and live in their imaginary bubble
BTW when you put me on "ignore" was that by any chance when you got a warning for trolling?

Jeez Tribesman, I think we agree on this topic but you're making that very hard for me.

What is hard, if someone is taking a stance that government should have no role in marriage and extending it to be that government should have no role in any "religious rites" then they are supporting the introduction of religious courts to rule legally over a wide aspect of life and society.
It isn't hard to see that such a view is indefensible and can only be made by someone who either is a religious nut(which I don't think August is) or someone who simply is spouting a very strong view without thinking about it at all.