I must be slipping
-
oilFactotum wrote:
What does that have to do with religion? Does it say anywhere that they won't be satisfied until the state forces the Catholic Church to allow a gay couple to get married by the church?
Where did the Catholic Church come into all of this?
oilFactotum wrote:
Yet, you seem to have a problem with gay marriage.
No, I have a problem with the state regulating marriage period.
oilFactotum wrote:
If you have a contract, the state is involved. It's the state that will enforce it if there is a dispute(the courts,for example). How about insurance? A business my not recognize your "civil union", only the state can ensure that it will be recognized. Child custody disputes can be an issue. The state has to recongize the contract because it is the state that will determine custody.
That is fine. Having a contract that binds the assets of 2 people (which is essentially what a marriage license does in effect) is all well and good. Don't have a dedicated section of law that describes who can and cannot enter such a contract ... and don't give it special status over any other contract. You assume that I mean we should just do away with "marriage" and leave everything else the same. When laws change, business's and other laws are affected and have to adjust accordingly.
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:
Where did the Catholic Church come into all of this?
Replace Catholic church with any religion you wish. The point is that no one is demanding that any religion recognize any union, ever.
Zac Howland wrote:
That is fine. Having a contract that binds the assets of 2 people (which is essentially what a marriage license does in effect) is all well and good. Don't have a dedicated section of law that describes who can and cannot enter such a contract ... and don't give it special status over any other contract.
It appears you are saying that we should be not passing laws that ban gay marriage or define marriage as between one man and one woman. But it appears you are going further. You seem to be saying that state should not recognize marriage at all. It should only recognize the contracts created between individuals that will define their relationship. I doesn't sound like a very good solution to me. What it boils down to is "Let the lawyers define marriage." Besides the state will still get involved, estates, children, SS benefits, whatever. Individual custom contracts will always end up leaving out important questions that will have to be answered, and odds are the state will be involved.
-
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
Zac Howland wrote:
Despite what some claim, atheism is a religion
No, it isn't. Atheism is the absence of religion. You don't go to a special building once a week in special clothes to become an atheist. There's no membership fees, or secret handshake or special beliefs.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Zac Howland wrote:
In all honesty, the government shouldn't be regulating marriage to begin with.
I agree - marriage is the territory of the church. I don't think the government has the right to decide for the church what does and does not constitute marriage. Once you redefine marriage like that, what's to stop a government from defining more aspects of a religion?
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
Governments should reject religions as mumbo jumbo, and make no special considerations for them.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I don't think the government has the right to decide for the church what does and does not constitute marriage.
Why not? It's not like the christian church has exclusive rights to the concept of marriage. What legally constitutes marriage is up to the government to decide. The christian marriage ritual is the church's business. And they can put whatever silly restrictions they want on their ritual. Gay people can marry somewhere else. Gay or not - the marrying couple becomes legally married. I don't think gay people have a problem with that, only religious people with unjustified beliefs do.
-- Larva-Tested, Pupa-Approved
-
Governments should reject religions as mumbo jumbo, and make no special considerations for them.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I don't think the government has the right to decide for the church what does and does not constitute marriage.
Why not? It's not like the christian church has exclusive rights to the concept of marriage. What legally constitutes marriage is up to the government to decide. The christian marriage ritual is the church's business. And they can put whatever silly restrictions they want on their ritual. Gay people can marry somewhere else. Gay or not - the marrying couple becomes legally married. I don't think gay people have a problem with that, only religious people with unjustified beliefs do.
-- Larva-Tested, Pupa-Approved
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why not? It's not like the christian church has exclusive rights to the concept of marriage. What legally constitutes marriage is up to the government to decide. The christian marriage ritual is the church's business. And they can put whatever silly restrictions they want on their ritual. Gay people can marry somewhere else. Gay or not - the marrying couple becomes legally married. I don't think gay people have a problem with that, only religious people with unjustified beliefs do.
I kind of look at it this way: if you get married in a church, it's the church's business and thus religious. Marriage is defined by the government as a civil contract between two people, in that sense it's the business of the state as there are legal ramifications that come along with getting married. Now, if gay people want to get married at city hall, that's all fine and dandy, but if the government starts telling the Catholic Church that they should start marrying gays, etc... I have a problem with the state intervening on the policy of the church. It's not that I particularly support the Catholic church or anything, but I believe that religion and the government should be very, very separate. In that sense, I think it's good to distinguish between civil union and the religious version of marriage. Anyways, I think I misunderstood the article. :doh:
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why not? It's not like the christian church has exclusive rights to the concept of marriage. What legally constitutes marriage is up to the government to decide. The christian marriage ritual is the church's business. And they can put whatever silly restrictions they want on their ritual. Gay people can marry somewhere else. Gay or not - the marrying couple becomes legally married. I don't think gay people have a problem with that, only religious people with unjustified beliefs do.
I kind of look at it this way: if you get married in a church, it's the church's business and thus religious. Marriage is defined by the government as a civil contract between two people, in that sense it's the business of the state as there are legal ramifications that come along with getting married. Now, if gay people want to get married at city hall, that's all fine and dandy, but if the government starts telling the Catholic Church that they should start marrying gays, etc... I have a problem with the state intervening on the policy of the church. It's not that I particularly support the Catholic church or anything, but I believe that religion and the government should be very, very separate. In that sense, I think it's good to distinguish between civil union and the religious version of marriage. Anyways, I think I misunderstood the article. :doh:
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
Looks like we are in agreement. :) I'd just like to state that even though I'm not gay, I don't want to marry in a religious establishment (especially not in a draconian catholic church). :)
-- For proper viewing, take red pill now
-
Zac Howland wrote:
In all honesty, the government shouldn't be regulating marriage to begin with.
I agree - marriage is the territory of the church. I don't think the government has the right to decide for the church what does and does not constitute marriage. Once you redefine marriage like that, what's to stop a government from defining more aspects of a religion?
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
Well in that case, there should be no tax rammifications of marriage and no shared jobs benefits, etc.
Matt Gerrans
-
liona wrote:
So what do you define as the true role of marriage?
I already said... It creates a indissolvable bond between man and woman such that a stable home in which children can be conceived and raised. Adoption (which you're naming as justification for same-sex marriage) isn't the rule of marriage, but rather a method to rescue victims of a marriageless relationship such that they may have the same change in life as legitimate children.
liona wrote:
By the underlying comments in your responses it seems that you have a problem with gays that I can't and won't understand. Its sad.
I have an underlying objection to homosexuality (which I consider deviant behavior), but not homosexuals (who I view as victims of temptation). I don't think gays are inherently bad, but I certainly do object to their behavior. My underlying comments are geared towards the fact that marriage is a defined institution with a defined role and that by expanding its definition, you lessen it's significance. It is something that should be protected and advocated in its traditional form. If you begin to call everything a "lion", calling a lion a lion no longer has any significance.
I have an underlying objection to homosexuality (which I consider deviant behavior), but not homosexuals (who I view as victims of temptation). I don't think gays are inherently bad, but I certainly do object to their behavior. I have dealt with people like you all my life and you are a racist in my eyes. The people that share your views tend to spew religious comments on how homosexuality is forbidden. I don't know why you think it is so deviant but I am sure it relates to religion. sure homosexuals are a minority but that doesn't count for deviant behaviour. Mostly I think that the people that have issues with homosexuality have underlying issues about themself. IMO.
-
Zac Howland wrote:
You have a belief that God does not exist. That is a belief, just like the one saying that He does exist.
I recommend that you read the first chapter of "Atheism - A Case Against God" by George H. Smith (by all means, read the entire book, it's well written). In short terms - atheism isn't belief. It's the absence of belief. The book puts it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to achieve.
-- When you see the robot, drink!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I recommend that you read the first chapter of "Atheism - A Case Against God" by George H. Smith (by all means, read the entire book, it's well written). In short terms - atheism isn't belief. It's the absence of belief. The book puts it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to achieve.
I've skimmed the book, though I disagree with him on that. Agnosticism is absense of belief. Atheism is a disbelief (which is essentially a belief in the inverse). A coworker (who calls himself an atheist mind you) explained it well this way:
bool isGod = true; Boolean Religious = isGod; Boolean Atheist = !isGod; Boolean Agnostic = null;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:
That is fine. Having a contract that binds the assets of 2 people (which is essentially what a marriage license does in effect) is all well and good. Don't have a dedicated section of law that describes who can and cannot enter such a contract ... and don't give it special status over any other contract.
So then the blind should be entitled to driver's licenses and ex-cons should be permitted concealed weapons permits?
Red Stateler wrote:
So then the blind should be entitled to driver's licenses
That gets into another area of law that I have serious objections with and will easily take the thread on a completely different topic. Lets just say that I don't think driver's licenses should be issued.
Red Stateler wrote:
ex-cons should be permitted concealed weapons permits?
That is very different. Ex-cons (assuming you mean felons since misdemeanors in most states won't prohibit a CW permit) have given up their rights (most of them) by violating the law to an extreme point.
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