PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

[Chibibar]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I also support Civil Union. I think the word "marriage" has too much religion in it. The religious people don't like to share with people they don't like (wait.... isn't most religion suppose to love thy neighbors? I guess as long they are not gays but that is a different topic)

There are benefits BY the government for married people. This should be equal across the board.

 

[Krisken]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Hm. Yup, gays should be able to get married. I got married by a civil servant to my wife. I see no reason others should be denied just because it's two men or two women.

The reason it has to be the word "married" has already been explained by Dave. Healthcare and property laws all state the word "married" and it would cost a fortune to change it.

They don't have to be married in a church, so that argument is pretty weak.

 

[Piotyr]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I think the most frustrating thing about this issue is that it's an overblown semantics issue. The word marriage has come to take on both religious and civil/legal meanings. I think even the most devout fundamentalist (ok, probably not the MOST devout) would be willing to relinquish the civil/legal ability of the marriage if they got to keep the word for its religious meaning.

Let the churches perform "marriages" as each church sees fit for religious purposes, and let the civil and legal benefits to such unions be covered in a blanket "civil union", performed by a legal institution. Separate the ceremony from the legal benefit, separate the semantics, provide legal benefits in an unbiased manner to all couples (is it cool to just ignore the possibility of the 3+ person union for now?), and everybody's happy...well, within reason.

 

[Andromache]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Holy shit. Where did that come from?

A) That is the most incredible strawman I have ever seen constructed, and in true Wizard of Oz style too: brainless. I didn't say anything that even a retarded monkey could possibly even twist into anti-gay-marriage. I can appreciate that what was said might inspire you to create a dialogue about it, but to structure it as a rebuttal to a post that takes no stance on the issue just makes it look dumb.

B) If you are not a zealot, and you are going to argue against a religious anti-gay-marriage zealot, for the love of God, do not do it on his ground. He is the zealot in the situation. If you say things like 'Because god only loves people who love other people the way ... ' then it means that he gets to judge the validity of your argument. Argue with things like 'we live in a secular society, and even though marriage might have religious roots, we would like to modify it for use in our modern age.' Any protests to this will put him in direct conflict with the entirety of civilization. Zealots are used to that, but it helps one sleep better to know that the bears at the zoo like their enclosures too.

C) This part is off topic, but it needs to be said, since I was so maliciously quoted in the OP, and I like people thinking that I'm a functional member of society (as opposed to a bigot.) My point wasn't that Orson Scott Card was right. My point wasn't even that Orson Scott Card was entitled to his view. My point was that it's a bit silly to radically alter your opinion from \"like this person\" to \"dislike this person\" based on only one of their opinions.

I again refer to my example with Philip Pullman: I think his criticism of organized religion is shortsighted and elitist. I think he is quite frankly wrong, in his opinion, and I would certainly argue with him about it. But I don't change my measure of his work based on it, or declare that I dislike him as a human being.

Now, you may continue.

Did a Christian just say holy shit and for the love of god on the same post?

awesome.

On the subject of your point's clarification, that it's just as silly that people should change their opinion of a person based on one opinion that person holds-- if he wasn't sitting on the board of a lobbying organization try to legislate that opinion into law I wouldn't have given a flying fuck about the man.

However, the moment a person's "opinion" becomes "action" to remove or otherwise block equal access to legal rights enjoyed by married couples, then people who think it's silly to dislike those who hold such opinions can go give a razor bladed pinecone a blowjob, and deserve no civility from me.

 

[Covar]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

The reason it has to be the word "married" has already been explained by Dave. Healthcare and property laws all state the word "married" and it would cost a fortune to change it.

no it wouldn't. Find and replace aside, simply pass a law changing all existing references to marriage to refer to civil unions and then be sure to define civil union as a legal contract in the joining of two persons, or some such legalese.

 

[Norris]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I agree with GasBandit *shudder* in that it is the word "marriage" that is likely causing some of the biggest problems. It allows politicians who know better (know that what is most at issue here are the rights and benefits a legal marriage) to prey upon their base that doesn't (marriages happen at churches, the church says gays are wrong, why do gays want into our churches?) to get votes. I certainly agree that gay couples deserve the rights of marriage as much as straight couples. Even VAGUELY legit arguments against such a thing don't hold up:

Argument: Next you'll be fighting for NAMBLA's rights.
Rebuttal: Non-starter, children can not form legal consent to sex and this is one of several things where parental consent has been deemed void.

Argument: Next you'll be fighting for polygamous marriage!
Rebuttal: Maybe. It will depend upon how one defines the terms of marriage contract, but gay marriage will not necessarily make legalizing polygamy/polyandry any easier (not the other way around).

Argument: What about people who want to marry their dog?
Rebuttal: Dogs can not form legal consent. What you do in your own home is your business...so long as you don't get caught raping your dog.

Argument: Can inanimate objects form consent?
Rebuttal: No. Don't even try.

Argument: But two straight guys or girls could get married for health insurance benefits and stuff, totally abusing the system like on Boston Legal!
Rebuttal: And what stops straight people from doing the same thing right now?

Argument:......
Rebuttal: Exactly.

Argument: But Jesus!
Rebuttal: Don't marry gays in your church.

 

[GasBandit]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Hm. Yup, gays should be able to get married. I got married by a civil servant to my wife. I see no reason others should be denied just because it's two men or two women.

The reason it has to be the word "married" has already been explained by Dave. Healthcare and property laws all state the word "married" and it would cost a fortune to change it.

They don't have to be married in a church, so that argument is pretty weak.

Meh, it wouldn't be expensive at all. It would just take:

"WHEREAS: it has been determined that the religious institution of the marriage must be considered separate from the legal recognition of familial civil unions to promote equality and tranquility, all legal and civil rights, responsibilities and arrangements that have involved marriage are now conferred upon the term "Civil Union," and all verbiage in existing law addressing "MARRIAGE" shall now be understood to be referencing Civil Unions, since the Civil Union is now the only such binding arrangement recognized by governmental authority"

or some such. Make it so anybody can say they are married, but it literally doesn't mean a damn thing legally unless they also have a civil union. That way, I could start my own religion, and call the union of two people in love "Eternal wingdingdoodle" and the grand poobah of my church can perform the wingdingdoodle ceremony, and those united in holy eternal wingdingdoodle will still have the same rights as those in that "marriage" thing because they hold the exact same legal documents of civil union.

 

[Krisken]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

no it wouldn't. Find and replace aside, simply pass a law changing all existing references to marriage to refer to civil unions and then be sure to define civil union as a legal contract in the joining of two persons, or some such legalese.

Wait, you're telling me I'm wrong, that it wouldn't take a fortune in time and money to change the word in 50 states, thousands of counties, hundreds of thousands of cities documents?

Covar, I'm sorry. You are oversimplifying to support your position.

 

[GasBandit]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Wait, you're telling me I'm wrong, that it wouldn't take a fortune in time and money to change the word in 50 states, thousands of counties, hundreds of thousands of cities documents?

Covar, I'm sorry. You are oversimplifying to support your position.

That's not how american law works. Even in our own constitution, the repealed amendments are still there. It's just a few amendments down, there are the "this repeals that" in there. You don't have to go back and find/replace all the verbiage and re-pass the laws over again or any such nonsense. You just pass a new law saying what the change is and what it means, and you're done.

 

[nufan]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Really, as often as not, protesting damages the protester's position as much if not more than that which they are protesting against, because often the protester on the street is a brainless twat, representative of the weakest and least resourceful minds of his or her subgroup.

Just so I am clear, anti-gay marriage protest groups are just as inane as militant pro-gay marriage groups then?

 

[GasBandit]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Just so I am clear, anti-gay marriage protest groups are just as inane as militant pro-gay marriage groups then?

Yes. Basically, anybody standing on a sidewalk with a sign is probably a douchebag, no matter what side of what issue he's on.

 

[Norris]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Wait, you're telling me I'm wrong, that it wouldn't take a fortune in time and money to change the word in 50 states, thousands of counties, hundreds of thousands of cities documents?

Covar, I'm sorry. You are oversimplifying to support your position.

You wouldn't have to physically change the word in every individual document, just equate the terms retroactively and then decide to use the secular term from here on in. I.E., if it came up in a criminal bigamy case where one spouse was wed before the changeover and the other afterward, the "marriage license" and the "civil union license" would be the exact same thing.

 

[Covar]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Covar, I'm sorry. You are oversimplifying to support your position.

and you're over complicating it. Of course something would have to be changed in all 50 states, Marriage is currently a state issue (thankfully). However a state law changing the status of marriage is enough to affect every state, county, and city law that involves marriage. By your logic we would have needed to ratify a new constitution to allow for the public election of senators.

 

[Espy]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Yes. Basically, anybody standing on a sidewalk with a sign is probably a douchebag, no matter what side of what issue he's on.

And should really get a job. Seriously, who the hell has time to do all that protesting?

 

[fade]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Nowhere in my post did I say any of that (and frankly, they're NOT "in power"). But since you brought it up, I'd have to say those people have been less damaging to the gay rights cause than the militant gays have been. Things were actually going pretty fast down the track to acceptance and equality until activists started stamping their feet and shouting NOW NOW NOW a couple years ago. That just gave the gay-haters a caricature to rally around and organize against.

Really, as often as not, protesting damages the protester's position as much if not more than that which they are protesting against, because often the protester on the street is a brainless twat, representative of the weakest and least resourceful minds of his or her subgroup. The better and brighter ones are bringing about change in other ways, sometimes even within the system itself, and possibly even in such a way that nobody notices the change until it's already become normal. Or at the very least, they have a day job.

I don't think I agree with you. I think things were fast going down the "it's okay as long as I don't know for sure." path of acceptance (which isn't really much of an acceptance), but I think there's still quite a bit of open dislike that never skipped a beat. Middle america is still very fundamental, and the only rallying the caricatures every made for was a little "See I told you so.", and not "Well, I was okay with you until your buddy over there started protesting." Furthermore, I disagree about who is in power in this situation. We're not just talking about political power. We're talking about everyday social power, which still very much resides in the hands of the majority.

 

[Chibibar]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Most laws just retroactively enforced (depending on the law or grandfather in) they (the government) usually don't have to REPLACE previous text unless they are planning to print new ones.

Our Constitution is like that (the U.S. on and Texas). Personally I think the government should do either to make everyone equal

No benefits for married couples (thus no union) or have any family benefits at all. this of course will cost billions in legal services since many laws allow couples to make decision for each other, estate issues, children, parents, etc etc...

OR

Allow unions and just call it Civil Union and gain all the benefits like everyone else. Seriously folks, it is not that complicated.

People in the military (people that I know) takes ADVANTAGE of the marriage bonus just to get extra money. Yes Hetro people takes advantage of the system too. So the argument of two same sex people may get union just for benefits. nothing wrong with that.

And don't even talk about divorce rate. Right now marriage is SOLELY on hetro couples and the numbers are sky rocket. I know many of my gay friends who are together after all the hardship. I don't see them "divorcing" anytime soon. (note: the oldest couple I know have been together for over 50 years now)

 

[GasBandit]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I don't think I agree with you. I think things were fast going down the "it's okay as long as I don't know for sure." path of acceptance (which isn't really much of an acceptance), but I think there's still quite a bit of open dislike that never skipped a beat. Middle america is still very fundamental, and the only rallying the caricatures every made for was a little "See I told you so.", and not "Well, I was okay with you until your buddy over there started protesting." Furthermore, I disagree about who is in power in this situation. We're not just talking about political power. We're talking about everyday social power, which still very much resides in the hands of the majority.

Well, you have your subjective opinion and I have mine. The way I see it, the cultural acceptance of homosexuality was moving along full steam ahead. Nobody wanted to be called a homophobe, as it was the new scarlet letter. Now it's just an eyeroll. Everywhere you looked, on TV, in newspapers, on the radio, everywhere... homosexuality was becoming more accepted and less feared. Then a vocal minority (of this minority) decided they'd had enough and wanted not only equality but restitution and they wanted it NOW and they were going to chant slogans and hold up traffic until they got it, by gum. Instant backlash. I'd even go so far to say that there'd have been legal gay marriage by 2010 if not for the backlash against the "we're here, we're queer, we're gonna get married in your church, get used to it" crowd.

 

[Norris]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I kind of have to agree with GasBandit. Back in the days of Stonewall (which is fascinating to read about), it was advantageous for gays to be out and proud and facing off with the cops in kick lines. It worked to rise up and say they were mad as hell and they weren't gonna take it anymore. Now, the more flamboyant elements of the gay community (which are exactly as entitled to the rights as their less flamboyant elements) who seem to appear at every protest and parade only serve to give the more conservative and religious elements of our society someone to point to and say "look at that guy in the banana hammock grabbing that other man's crotch! we were right this whole time!".

 

[figmentPez]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Argument: But Jesus!
Rebuttal: Don't marry gays in your church.

Sorry, too late. Churches have already been forced by the government to allow homosexual weddings to happen in church owned bulidings.

 

[Andromache]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I expect you have a link to that handy?

 

[figmentPez]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I expect you have a link to that handy?

No, I didn't, but I found one fast enough:

NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

"A church group that owns beachfront property discriminated against a lesbian couple by not allowing them to rent the locale for their civil union ceremony, a New Jersey department ruled Monday in a case that has become a flash point in the nation's gay rights battle."

 

[Andromache]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

thanks. Also I lied, your mom was in great form.

 

[tegid]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Sorry, too late. Churches have already been forced by the government to allow homosexual weddings to happen in church owned bulidings.

:blue:


WTF?? The link you provided is not a case of people being married neither BY the church or IN the church!

I didn't read it right now, but did a while ago and if I recall correctly, it was just a matter of discriminating what they rented the building/room/whatever for? Which is NOT 'marrying gays in your church'.

I mean, it's like I was saying: 'fuckin' ******s shouldn't be allowed to marry with us normal people, my church don't allow inter-racial marriage!!' (I know I'm stretching my point a bit). In this case, should a building that is rented by an organisation that belongs to my church be denied to such a couple? No, because that's DISCRIMINATION.

 

[Cajungal]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Let civil unions still be marriage and let the religious folk have Super Ultra Pious Marriage. (We have something like that in my old Parish, but it's not called that...)

 

[figmentPez]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

In this case, should a building that is rented by an organisation that belongs to my church be denied to such a couple? No, because that's DISCRIMINATION.

I'm not sure you wrote that sentence correctly. If a church owned a building anywhere but a beachfront in NJ it could legally discriminate and not rent for homosexual weddings. Not all discrimination is illegal, not all discrimination is wrong. That church was, or will be, forced by the government to allow homosexuals to rent that church buildling to have their marriages performed there. That's not the normal course of action for any organization that rents spaces, and certainly not churches.

 

[GasBandit]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

:blue:


WTF?? The link you provided is not a case of people being married neither BY the church or IN the church!

I didn't read it right now, but did a while ago and if I recall correctly, it was just a matter of discriminating what they rented the building/room/whatever for? Which is NOT 'marrying gays in your church'.

I mean, it's like I was saying: 'fuckin' ******s shouldn't be allowed to marry with us normal people, my church don't allow inter-racial marriage!!' (I know I'm stretching my point a bit). In this case, should a building that is rented by an organisation that belongs to my church be denied to such a couple? No, because that's DISCRIMINATION.

Where is the line? Where does discrimination start and freedom of association end? Usually when I read "church-owned beachfront property rented for functions" I think church retreat. Maybe that's just me, or maybe it isn't enough that property be OWNED by a church for it to be given the same exemptions as a church. But clearly we don't have enough details one way or the other here to determine what actually happened in Jersey there.

 

[Espy]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I got no problem with what anyone wants to do or whom they want marry. If the government forces private churches, business, whatever to not be able to say no to renting their space out I have very, VERY big problems with that.
I have a private business. I rent it out to groups all the time. I also say NO WAY to some groups. It's my business. I get to decide to whom I rent it out to, end of story.

 

[tegid]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Well yes, then the judge should have judged, and I hope he did, what was the actual use of the place.

Besides that, fig, at least we'll agree that the owner can refuse renting the place depending on what it is going to be used for, but not depending on sexual orientation (see:race, religion, etc.) of the people who're renting it, right? I've given it a bit (a very tiny one) of thought and I think that's probably were the line is.

EDIT: Well I understand that Espy, but should everyone be allowed to deny service based on something like skin color? Or should it be at least something justified like 'those punks looked like they were going to trash my place'*?

*Just to say something, not that I think that's valid.

 

[Espy]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Well yes, then the judge should have judged, and I hope he did, what was the actual use of the place.

Besides that, fig, at least we'll agree that the owner can refuse renting the place depending on what it is going to be used for, but not depending on sexual orientation (see:race, religion, etc.) of the people who're renting it, right? I've given it a bit (a very tiny one) of thought and I think that's probably were the line is.

Why is that? There is a particular group of people I don't rent to because I have concerns that if we do the community around us will associate us with them. Why is that not my prerogative? I'm trying to do what is best for my business and being associated with them could severely hurt our business. Why is it bad that I make that call?

 

[Rob King]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Did a Christian just say holy shit and for the love of god on the same post?

awesome.

On the subject of your point's clarification, that it's just as silly that people should change their opinion of a person based on one opinion that person holds-- if he wasn't sitting on the board of a lobbying organization try to legislate that opinion into law I wouldn't have given a flying fuck about the man.

However, the moment a person's \"opinion\" becomes \"action\" to remove or otherwise block equal access to legal rights enjoyed by married couples, then people who think it's silly to dislike those who hold such opinions can go give a razor bladed pinecone a blowjob, and deserve no civility from me.

Alright, are you interpreting this back-and-forth as a fight? Because I'm not really sure what my diction has to do with anything, unless you're trying to attack me on personal grounds, asserting that I'm not a "good Christian" or whatever. And what I do with my pinecones is quite frankly none of your business. Perhaps I reacted with a bit more indignation than was due, but just remember who asserted that I held the exact opposite opinion that I actually do.

Now, to the thrust of your reply: I saw the links the first time through, and my opinion still holds. This man sitting on a board for a anti-gay-marriage organization is not qualitatively any different than another man sitting on a board for an organization trying to push gay-marriage into law. I mean, the other man has an opinion too. Is it somehow more valid because it's the opposite of Orson Scott Card's opinion?

You'll probably argue yes, because you seem to be of the opinion that - because the gay rights movement is taking some sort of positive action, trying to spread new rights to those who didn't have them before, it's somehow more justified. But what if I started an organization trying to win voting rights for six year olds? People would remind me that voting is something that a six year old should not be able to do. This guy is saying the same thing: just instead of six year olds, his target is homosexuals, and instead of voting, the issue at hand is marriage.

I realize that six year olds voting and grown adults marrying persons of the same gender have a few qualitative differences that set them apart. But I don't care enough to find a better example, because as I alluded to in the first paragraph of this reply, I'm actually for gay marriage.

But you would effectively charge Orson Scott Card of a thoughtcrime, which isn't cool. And in the end, perhaps Orson Scott Card isn't justified in his opinion. I know if we were both sitting at a bar, and it came up, I would probably take issue with his view. But if you are of the opinion that he shouldn't want to, or shouldn't be allowed to express that opinion, then I definitely take issue with that.

 

[Espy]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

EDIT: Well I understand that Espy, but should everyone be allowed to deny service based on something like skin color? Or should it be at least something justified like 'those punks looked like they were going to trash my place'*?

*Just to say something, not that I think that's valid.

Sure, I agree with that, it shouldn't be based on something so basic. However, a PRIVATE group saying we do not rent out our business to group X due to political reasons is fine with me. That church in NJ can say, we don't want to support a political movement or take sides and allowing this would be to close to that for our liking. I'm alright with that. Don't go there if you don't like it, but to sue them since they don't want to be associated with a political movement? That bothers me.
Does that make sense? What I'm really getting at is that I don't think a group should be forced to do something that gives the impression they agree with "X" movement, no matter what. I guess in this case I don't see it as about skin color/sexual orientation/etc but about a political movement that the church group wants to not be associated with. That's not a bad thing, I don't think a GLBT office should be forced to allow a Pro-Life group to rent out their office space. They may not want to be associate with that movement. It's not because they hate religious people or pro-life people.

 

[Green_Lantern]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I'm not sure you wrote that sentence correctly. If a church owned a building anywhere but a beachfront in NJ it could legally discriminate and not rent for homosexual weddings. Not all discrimination is illegal, not all discrimination is wrong. That church was, or will be, forced by the government to allow homosexuals to rent that church buildling to have their marriages performed there. That's not the normal course of action for any organization that rents spaces, and certainly not churches.

Tell me, do you think there is actually a possibility that the church is right? That the homosexuals are sinners?

How about a religion that forbids heterosexualism? Would you be okay with that?

 

[Espy]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Tell me, do you think there is actually a possibility that the church is right? That the homosexuals are sinners?

How about a religion that forbids heterosexualism? Would you be okay with that?

I can't answer for him but there are many branches of christianity that have no problem with homosexuality and here is the thing about your first question: Any Christian worth his/her salt will tell you that EVERYONE is a sinner, christian, non-christian, etc. I don't think this is about homosexuality as much as it is about a political movement.

 

[Green_Lantern]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I can't answer for him but there are many branches of christianity that have no problem with homosexuality and here is the thing about your first question: Any Christian worth his/her salt will tell you that EVERYONE is a sinner, christian, non-christian, etc. I don't think this is about homosexuality as much as it is about a political movement.

right, where are those tons of fag-loving christians that I hear so much about?

and don't argue with "everyone is a sinner", you know that I meant that if homosexuality itself is a sin.

 

[figmentPez]

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Tell me, do you think there is actually a possibility that the church is right? That the homosexuals are sinners?

Yes, I think that homosexuality is a sin. (EDIT: I should note that I define homosexuality by action, not by temptation. Someone who is tempted to steal is not a thief. Therefore, someone who is attracted to the same gender is not sinning unless they have sex, or set their mind with intent to commit such deeds.) I also happen to think that every single person ever born is a sinner, in one way or another. It's just the way we're broken. I'm not sure why this is relevant to the discussion. If the church wanted to discriminate against a group that wanted to hold a sock hop I'd still be upset if the government said that was illegal discrimination to do so, even though I find nothing wrong with dancing around with no shoes.

How about a religion that forbids heterosexualism? Would you be okay with that?

Depends on what you mean by "okay". It would bother me on a personal level, and I would consider them to be wrong, but at the same time I'd be okay with that group existing and believing what they want. I'd certainly be fine if they didn't let heterosexual marriages happen on their property. I'd be fine with them insisting on hiring leaders and staff who agree with and follow their rejection of heterosexuality. They can make whatever strange faces they want at me, and tell me I'd be sinning if I were to get married, to a woman, all they want.