I must be slipping
-
I think you misunderstand. The gov't isn't telling any church what does and does not constitute a marriage. NJ has legalized gay unions, but that doesn't mean that gays can be married in the Catholic Church in NJ.
oilFactotum wrote:
I think you misunderstand. The gov't isn't telling any church what does and does not constitute a marriage. NJ has legalized gay unions, but that doesn't mean that gays can be married in the Catholic Church in NJ.
What is it then, some form of civil union?
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I think you misunderstand. The gov't isn't telling any church what does and does not constitute a marriage. NJ has legalized gay unions, but that doesn't mean that gays can be married in the Catholic Church in NJ.
What is it then, some form of civil union?
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
Yes.
-
liona wrote:
Good for them, for me living in Canada we already have the right to marry. It seems that the US is just catching on although I think it will take a lot longer to spread to other states. Sometimes I don't understand people. oh well.
In all honesty, the government shouldn't be regulating marriage to begin with. Interestingly enough, if the group that is silently supporting the gay-marriage push has their way, marriage will become rather meaningless anyway ...
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
So you're saying atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry?
-
So you're saying atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Red Stateler wrote:
So you're saying atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry?
No, he meant protestants.
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
-
I think you misunderstand. The gov't isn't telling any church what does and does not constitute a marriage. NJ has legalized gay unions, but that doesn't mean that gays can be married in the Catholic Church in NJ.
oilFactotum wrote:
I think you misunderstand. The gov't isn't telling any church what does and does not constitute a marriage. NJ has legalized gay unions, but that doesn't mean that gays can be married in the Catholic Church in NJ.
In a sense (if the supporters have their way) the state will be telling the church what is and isn't marriage (remember, they flat out said they want it called "marriage" in the article). Getting married "in" a church and getting married (period) are different things. Marriage is little more (legally) than a contract that binds the assets of two people (until you get into the crowd that is pushing for polygamy, but that is a different matter). That kind of thing is fine for the state to maintain (just as they would for any contract) records of, but they should not regulate what is and is not a valid contract (with the exception of contracts that attempt to take away freedoms, which are inherently invalid). The definition of such is rather religious in nature. That is, there really is no need for any marriage laws (gay or straight).
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
So you're saying atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Red Stateler wrote:
So you're saying atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Despite what some claim, atheism is a religion ;P Ironically, many of them derive their concept of marriage from the Judeo-Christian concept of it.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Red Stateler wrote:
So you're saying atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Despite what some claim, atheism is a religion ;P Ironically, many of them derive their concept of marriage from the Judeo-Christian concept of it.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
You conveniently avoided the question...
-
liona wrote:
Good for them, for me living in Canada we already have the right to marry. It seems that the US is just catching on although I think it will take a lot longer to spread to other states. Sometimes I don't understand people. oh well.
In all honesty, the government shouldn't be regulating marriage to begin with. Interestingly enough, if the group that is silently supporting the gay-marriage push has their way, marriage will become rather meaningless anyway ...
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
marriage will become rather meaningless anyway ...
Mostly it has been meaningless anyway but our archaic legal systems approach to it is still anchored in the 50's. Marriage these days it is mostly "about the money honey" especially at divorce & social security time. I imagine that the idiots who run our legal system will eventually update and remove the builtin stupidities that exist in the system. Especially when they figure out the new costs they add to the system.
-
You conveniently avoided the question...
Red Stateler wrote:
You conveniently avoided the question.
Marriage shouldn't be regulated by the government. So, if you want to put it in terms who is allowed and isn't allowed to marry: No one should be allowed to marry (legally).
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Red Stateler wrote:
So you're saying atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Despite what some claim, atheism is a religion ;P Ironically, many of them derive their concept of marriage from the Judeo-Christian concept of it.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Ive heard this a few times, could you explain this?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
Zac Howland wrote:
marriage will become rather meaningless anyway ...
Mostly it has been meaningless anyway but our archaic legal systems approach to it is still anchored in the 50's. Marriage these days it is mostly "about the money honey" especially at divorce & social security time. I imagine that the idiots who run our legal system will eventually update and remove the builtin stupidities that exist in the system. Especially when they figure out the new costs they add to the system.
_alank wrote:
Mostly it has been meaningless anyway but our archaic legal systems approach to it is still anchored in the 50's.
Yes, it has been meaningless to the left which basically seeks to destroy marriage such that the individual is bonded above all else to the state. They have worked hard to destroy the social institutions that bring us together on a personal level (like church and marriage) while promoting an expansive and cold state (with indisputable power) as its replacement. The concept of the "commune" is still alive and well among leftists.
-
Ive heard this a few times, could you explain this?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Ive heard this a few times, could you explain this?
I believe he's referring to my insistance that atheism be regarded as a religion. It has a defined theology and a dogma which is increasingly standardized (moving towards a church-like structure), but regards itself as inherently entitled to national establishment as the state religion. I contend that by recognizing it for what it is, atheists will not be able to continue forcing the public to adhere to their dogma through various non-democratic means.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
You conveniently avoided the question.
Marriage shouldn't be regulated by the government. So, if you want to put it in terms who is allowed and isn't allowed to marry: No one should be allowed to marry (legally).
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
Marriage shouldn't be regulated by the government.
Do you have any particular reason support this belief? Civil marriage is important for the sake of the product of marriage...children. The church has basically lost moral influence and can no longer persuade two people to continue mutual dedication for each other. This therefore requires a legal bond between husband and wife such that if one party is irresponsible and breaks his/her vows, the marriage can be dissolved in such a manner that promises are upheld (similar to a legally-binding contract). The abandonment of spouse and child would simply be too easy (not that it already isn't) if the bond between a husband and wife was not defined.
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Ive heard this a few times, could you explain this?
I believe he's referring to my insistance that atheism be regarded as a religion. It has a defined theology and a dogma which is increasingly standardized (moving towards a church-like structure), but regards itself as inherently entitled to national establishment as the state religion. I contend that by recognizing it for what it is, atheists will not be able to continue forcing the public to adhere to their dogma through various non-democratic means.
so whats it called when i just flat out do not believe in god or the possibility of a god? Is that still atheism, or is there another non religion affiliated term? Or, are you just saying that all atheists, since they have similar beliefs qualify as a religion?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
so whats it called when i just flat out do not believe in god or the possibility of a god? Is that still atheism, or is there another non religion affiliated term? Or, are you just saying that all atheists, since they have similar beliefs qualify as a religion?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
You would be a non-denominational atheist. ;)
-
Zac Howland wrote:
Marriage shouldn't be regulated by the government.
Do you have any particular reason support this belief? Civil marriage is important for the sake of the product of marriage...children. The church has basically lost moral influence and can no longer persuade two people to continue mutual dedication for each other. This therefore requires a legal bond between husband and wife such that if one party is irresponsible and breaks his/her vows, the marriage can be dissolved in such a manner that promises are upheld (similar to a legally-binding contract). The abandonment of spouse and child would simply be too easy (not that it already isn't) if the bond between a husband and wife was not defined.
Red Stateler wrote:
Civil marriage is important for the sake of the product of marriage...children.
I'd go one step further, and add that civil marriage is also to protect the legal rights of the two people entering into the civial marriage. Even in the absense of children, you can not walk away from your legal responsibilities that you agreed to when you entered into the civil marriage. In my mind the whole same-sex marriage issue should only be about ensuring these same legal responsibilities between the two individuals.
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler] Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp] The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson] I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I think you misunderstand. The gov't isn't telling any church what does and does not constitute a marriage. NJ has legalized gay unions, but that doesn't mean that gays can be married in the Catholic Church in NJ.
In a sense (if the supporters have their way) the state will be telling the church what is and isn't marriage (remember, they flat out said they want it called "marriage" in the article). Getting married "in" a church and getting married (period) are different things. Marriage is little more (legally) than a contract that binds the assets of two people (until you get into the crowd that is pushing for polygamy, but that is a different matter). That kind of thing is fine for the state to maintain (just as they would for any contract) records of, but they should not regulate what is and is not a valid contract (with the exception of contracts that attempt to take away freedoms, which are inherently invalid). The definition of such is rather religious in nature. That is, there really is no need for any marriage laws (gay or straight).
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
In a sense (if the supporters have their way) the state will be telling the church what is and isn't marriage (remember, they flat out said they want it called "marriage" in the article).
This has nothing to do with the state telling the church what is or is not marriage. Also, it is not a goal of supporters for this to happen.
Zac Howland wrote:
That is, there really is no need for any marriage laws (gay or straight).
Obviously, untrue. Child custody, insurance coverage, SS benefits are all impacted by who and who is not considered married.
-
so whats it called when i just flat out do not believe in god or the possibility of a god? Is that still atheism, or is there another non religion affiliated term? Or, are you just saying that all atheists, since they have similar beliefs qualify as a religion?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
VonHagNDaz wrote:
so whats it called when i just flat out do not believe in god or the possibility of a god?
Believing that something does not exist is no different (conceptually) than believing that it does exist. That is, you are still believing something with little evidence pointing either way.
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Is that still atheism, or is there another non religion affiliated term?
There is another term for those that don't know what to believe: Agnostic.
VonHagNDaz wrote:
since they have similar beliefs qualify as a religion?
When you have a formalized (or semi-formalized in this case) belief/value system, you have a religion.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Zac Howland wrote:
Marriage shouldn't be regulated by the government.
Do you have any particular reason support this belief? Civil marriage is important for the sake of the product of marriage...children. The church has basically lost moral influence and can no longer persuade two people to continue mutual dedication for each other. This therefore requires a legal bond between husband and wife such that if one party is irresponsible and breaks his/her vows, the marriage can be dissolved in such a manner that promises are upheld (similar to a legally-binding contract). The abandonment of spouse and child would simply be too easy (not that it already isn't) if the bond between a husband and wife was not defined.
Red Stateler wrote:
Do you have any particular reason support this belief?
Regulating what is primarily a religious-based institution is beyond the mandate of government (at least our governmental system).
Red Stateler wrote:
Civil marriage is important for the sake of the product of marriage...children
I have no problem with the state keeping a record of civil contracts between 2 people. They do that all the time. Marriage (legally) is really nothing more than that, and should be treated as such (from a governmental point of view).
Red Stateler wrote:
This therefore requires a legal bond between husband and wife such that if one party is irresponsible and breaks his/her vows, the marriage can be dissolved in such a manner that promises are upheld (similar to a legally-binding contract).
Which is exactly my point. It shouldn't be treated any different than a contract, and therefore should not have any special legal standing (as it does now).
Red Stateler wrote:
The abandonment of spouse and child would simply be too easy (not that it already isn't) if the bond between a husband and wife was not defined.
Which is why you would have to make sure that when you wrote your contract, you specified the penalties for breaking it (which, currently, is not part of a marriage license).
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
so whats it called when i just flat out do not believe in god or the possibility of a god?
Believing that something does not exist is no different (conceptually) than believing that it does exist. That is, you are still believing something with little evidence pointing either way.
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Is that still atheism, or is there another non religion affiliated term?
There is another term for those that don't know what to believe: Agnostic.
VonHagNDaz wrote:
since they have similar beliefs qualify as a religion?
When you have a formalized (or semi-formalized in this case) belief/value system, you have a religion.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
So, the IEEE is a religion because they have a formalized belief/value system in electricity? If I do not believe in god because there is no evidence that god exists, how does that constitute a formalized belief/value system? Does that mean that if I don't believe in unicorns because there is not evidence that they exist that I belong to a religion of unicorn disbelievers?