This is an angle I can get behind, but just like the word gay itself, the word marriage has changed. Not that I disagree with the point being made, but there's a line at how far you can practically go back.
I mean, you're right. But marriage means what it means now. It's just how words work. Saussure and such.
Apparently, marriage doesn't mean what you think it means. I'm married, says so on the piece of paper I've got, and the church had nothing to do with it. My marriage is recognized in all 50 states and every country on the face of the earth. It was performed by a secular authority. Why? Because I'm an atheist.
So, why is it that atheists can get married, and have that marriage recognized everywhere on the planet, if marriage is by definition a religious institution in the modern world?
wrd on
Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror. -Ming the Merciless
My fundamental argument is nothing to do with that. My fundamental argument is that the state has no business interfering with marriage, as it is religious.
Marriage is first and foremost a legal contract, and has a considerably longer history as a state-recognized relationship than a religious one. The church likes people to think it invented the institution, but it was a latecomer to the game by centuries at least (marriage predates recorded history, but appears in recorded history for some time before mention of religious marriage).
If the religious world doesn't wish to share marriage with the secular world, that's fine, but they're the ones who are going to have to find a new word for it, not us.
This is an angle I can get behind, but just like the word gay itself, the word marriage has changed. Not that I disagree with the point being made, but there's a line at how far you can practically go back.
I mean, you're right. But marriage means what it means now. It's just how words work. Saussure and such.
I don't see the word marriage as carrying religious connotations. To me, marriage is two people being legally committed.
So would civil union, not marriage, be the term applied when a man and woman have a civil ceremony instead of a wedding?
JohnDoe on
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
FWIW I see nothing in the Catholic faith that is inconsistent with the idea of same-sex civil unions, or heterosexual civil unions for that matter. The four(?) priests I have discussed the matter with agree with me, as do many of my church peers.
We have a long and storied history of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars (with occasional bits of killing Caesar and stealing his stuff mixed in).
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
My fundamental argument is nothing to do with that. My fundamental argument is that the state has no business interfering with marriage, as it is religious.
Marriage is first and foremost a legal contract, and has a considerably longer history as a state-recognized relationship than a religious one. The church likes people to think it invented the institution, but it was a latecomer to the game by centuries at least (marriage predates recorded history, but appears in recorded history for some time before mention of religious marriage).
If the religious world doesn't wish to share marriage with the secular world, that's fine, but they're the ones who are going to have to find a new word for it, not us.
This is an angle I can get behind, but just like the word gay itself, the word marriage has changed. Not that I disagree with the point being made, but there's a line at how far you can practically go back.
I mean, you're right. But marriage means what it means now. It's just how words work. Saussure and such.
I don't see the word marriage as carrying religious connotations. To me, marriage is two people being legally committed.
So would civil union, not marriage, be the term applied when a man and woman have a civil ceremony instead of a wedding?
Not in the US. If you have a totally civil ceremony in a courthouse and sign the certificate, you are married, and a marriage was performed.
The only thing missing is the religious sanctity of marriage, and how the hell is that anything to do with anybody but the church?
But there are many churches which already sanctify gay marriages, although these marriages do not carry the recognition of law.
You suggest that these churches are somehow less worthy of the right to sanctify marriages which they consider valid because other, in many cases totally unrelated churches, which hold no ecclesiastical authority over them whatsoever don't want them to.
There is no "THE CHURCH" in the US. There are many faiths, and all are equal before the Constitution.
No, again, you misinterpret. I specifically said that sanctity is a matter for the church. However, whilst popular religious opinion within the overarching faith is set on one opinion you cannot expect that fringe opinions are going to be given credence. I've already said that's unfair. BUT that's more to do with the fundamental question of whether you can bless a gay marriage or not. They can schism all they like on the issue; it'll be supported eventually. Just like women priests.
Sanctity of marriage aside, the Government - as in, Obama's proposals, and what we have here - will provide everything but said Sanctity. What you're doing is muddying the waters between:
a) [X] faith's mandate to bless gay marriages.
and
b) Endorsement of this via civil rights.
And I still hold that marriage and civil rights are seperate things.
As far as I can tell, for a fully satisfactory gay marriage, you need the following:
1) Legitimate blessing from a religious official. The authority of this is up to the religion, not the government, and that's how it should be.
2) Comprehensive and equal civil rights to orthodox marriage being supplied upon this marriage. Which is what it seems Obama want to do.
They are two seperate parts of the resultant whole, and if you acknowledge that you can maybe understand why the first question, which in my mind is what the debate has been referring to all this time, is in no respect whatsoever the business of the government.
edit:
So would civil union, not marriage, be the term applied when a man and woman have a civil ceremony instead of a wedding?
That's how we do it here in England. If you take into account the above post, a gay marriage is in all respects a civil union that has been blessed by a religious official.
Much like allowing women and black people access to education is unfair to white men, I imagine.
Oh, hey, fuck you. I have been nothing but comprehensive and polite thus far. I'm even sticking up late to go over this with you because I'm interested in having this discussion. I am specifically trying to address everything people are saying. I don't deserve that kind of crap.
Especially as it's utterly, completely an unrelated strawman.
I don't see it as a strawman at all.
People often suggest that gay and lesbian human rights need to be vetted before the court of public opinion in order to be valid. You certainly seem to have done this.
When contrasted with the human rights of other groups, often taken for granted, people suddenly cry foul. Just like you did.
And while my viewpoint may be less than objective, the fact that you are bi-curious lends no special authority to your claim that religious groups must be placated and appeased in order to grant gays and lesbians equal rights.
Legalizing gay marriage would not force any religious group to sanctify gay marriages, nor perform them. I've stated this multiple times, and I'm getting sick of this being thrown out as an argument. This is the real strawman here.
Man, you just keep finding a way to misinterpret each new post.
As far as I can tell, for a fully satisfactory gay marriage, you need the following:
1) Legitimate blessing from a religious official. The authority of this is up to the religion, not the government, and that's how it should be.
2) Comprehensive and equal civil rights to orthodox marriage being supplied upon this marriage. Which is what it seems Obama want to do.
They are two seperate parts of the resultant whole, and if you acknowledge that you can maybe understand why the first question, which in my mind is what the debate has been referring to all this time, is in no respect whatsoever the business of the government.
Here's where the disagreement stems from. In America, you only need #2 to be considered married. You don't ever have to set foot in a church to be "married" under US law.
In the UK, you would call something with only #2 a "civil union." Here, we call that "marriage."
EDIT: I think this is all a simple misunderstanding. Sounds like everybody wants the same thing, but we just can't agree what to call it.
1) Legitimate blessing from a religious official. The authority of this is up to the religion, not the government, and that's how it should be.
understand why the first question, which in my mind is what the debate has been referring to all this time, is in no respect whatsoever the business of the government.....
I'm still wondering why you don't seem to think that the first part is the business of individual churches, denominations, and faiths.
Because there are many churches which bless gay unions. Here are some:
The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Unitarian Universalist Association bless same-gender relationships as a matter of policy.
The United Church of Christ, and various Quaker groups leave the decision to clergy, congregations or local governing bodies.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
EDIT: Ah, didn't see the message above... I think the subject matter of this debate is relevant though. Well, at least it looks like it started as something relevant. Nevermind... damn, I was excited to talk about it too. =( Content above deleted for the sake of thread integrity. Maybe we can start another thread on this topic? I had a cool example relating the passing of Marriage to control of the state to the passing of a protocol specification to the IETF and everything.
Much like allowing women and black people access to education is unfair to white men, I imagine.
Oh, hey, fuck you. I have been nothing but comprehensive and polite thus far. I'm even sticking up late to go over this with you because I'm interested in having this discussion. I am specifically trying to address everything people are saying. I don't deserve that kind of crap.
Especially as it's utterly, completely an unrelated strawman.
How so?
You're serious?
Marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights that accompany marriage are civil rights. The same civil rights that you can get from a civil union.
The only thing missing is the religious sanctity of marriage, and how the hell is that anything to do with anybody but the church?
This is simply untrue. Civil unions and marriages are not at all treated equally in the legal code. Marriage confers numerous benefits not available to civil unions. Perhaps if you proposed eliminating the government sponsored institution of "marriage," replacing it with a broad concept of "civil unions," which encapsulated both religiously sanctified marriages and all other long term relationships between two consenting adults, more people would be on board.
That is wrong and needs to be changed. That is also not the case here in the UK. And, as I understand, would not be the case under Obama. And that's what I've always said I supported.
Even as President, Obama would likely be unable to prevent the individual states from treating marriages and civil unions differently, as typically most laws dealing with the regulation of marriage are state laws, rather than federal laws. The easiest way to explain the position of most liberal Americans is to imagine "marriage" as two separate institutions: a religious marriage that you go to church to get, and a legal marriage that you get a license for from the government. While the two often overlap, they are separate.
Advocates of gay marriage are generally advocating for legal marriage to be opened up to homosexual couples, rather than religious marriage. It would be unconstitutional for Congress or any other government body, states included, to attempt to interfere in religious marriage, so there's really no sense at all in worrying about churches being somehow forced to marry people.
Yes. The notion of the government stepping in and telling a particular church how to baptise people or marry them or christen them etc. is laughably stupid. If this is your fear, abandon it. It would be mostly unthinkable, and totally illegal in any case.
This is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I have found the issue here.
Between this post, wrd's post, the issue on states rights (pesky), and JohnDoe, I think this entire damn thing has been caused by a fundamental difference of terminology.
To me, well. Britain is 70-80% atheist. Marriages are not especially ubiquitous any more. Those that take place take place in a church (or mosque, etc whatever) and are inherently religious.
When a marriage takes place in Britain, the new couple signs the registrar. This is an official move and unrelated to the religious aspect, but it registers you as a legally bound couple in the eyes of the Government.
Gay marriage is literally the same thing - just signing the registrar, as are many modern 'marriages' - but these are technically called Civil Unions or Partnerships. So in Britain, 'marriage' is heavily religious because most people don't get religiously married. People use the term 'married' as a shorthand, of course, but when you talk about it to most people you'll see that our mostly irreligious society tends to visualize the trappings of the ecclesiastical.
In the USA, it appears, marriage is de facto the word for that legal status as opposed to a by-word. I can see now why this has caused so much confusion (and for me, a headache). You must have thought I was saying something totally different due to different definitions (I think).
In fact, if you read my last post, you'll probably realise we're talking about the same thing - much like myself reading the limed section and the following reply by jeep made me realise I had exactly the same view, but it was just a matter of terminology.
Though actually, I rather suspect the idea that marriage is a religious institution only is the exact same rationale that actual anti-gay-marriageers are employing. With the same fallout.
Though actually, I rather suspect the idea that marriage is a religious institution only is the exact same rationale that actual anti-gay-marriageers are employing. With the same fallout.
You're absolutely right about this. The people in charge of those efforts simply don't believe in the separation of church and state. It's that simple.
I doubt it's so much that, but that if you use marriage as the default word for partnership despite the fact it may not have any religious overtones... yeah, that's pretty daft. No wonder people get riled up.
Someone needs to explain that the legal and religious aspects of marriage are seperate.
I suspect that someone is Obama.
/triple tirade xxx back on topic bonus multiplier!
I am now going to bed.
Flippy_D on
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Though actually, I rather suspect the idea that marriage is a religious institution only is the exact same rationale that actual anti-gay-marriageers are employing. With the same fallout.
Yup. In the U.S. the fight against gay marriage has a lot of "we don't want to despoil the religous term marriage, I.E. one man and one woman bonded under God, by letting gay people do it" It's a giant debate about terminology because the religous right has latched onto the word "marriage" like a lamprey.
I personally think, like many people, that the term marriage be stricken from every government document and replaced with civil union. As much as I want marriage to be a non-religous word it isnt going to happen any time soon in the U.S.
"Dur, Well Missy, I'm not going to answer the questions and just say what I think the listeners at home want to hear, that's straight talk (out of my ass)."
<Wink><Wink><Wink>
"Increase pay for teachers? No no no, they'll get their reward in heaven!"
<Wink>
"I know what it's like to worry about losing... *sob* a kid." "... Well then, did I mention I'm a MAVERICK?! HEE HEE!" <Wink>
"I think the VP, which I couldn't even tell what DID before Cheney and Rove pulled me into an 'Undisclosed Location' and grilled me for weeks, needs more power! That's totally my idea and NOT Cheney making me say that. Tee hee!"
<Wink>
After this, she won't be let out of her cage until after the election. I especially like how they FINALLY noticed the Newt Gingrich GOPAC technique of "not answering -> talking point" thing she has going on. I bet Newt is sooooo glad her and Couric ruined that for Republicans everywhere. I just hope they start calling ALL the little baby (read: small time) Republicans on it when they pull it from now on.
I personally think, like many people, that the term marriage be stricken from every government document and replaced with civil union. As much as I want marriage to be a non-religous word it isnt going to happen any time soon in the U.S.
Nah, as a guy who actually is married in a legal sense, the word's important to me, and I'm not willing to give it up. I'm happy to share it with the religious groups; if they don't want to share it with me, they're going to have to find another word. May I suggest "religious unions"?
Regarding the debate, I am of course extremely disappointed that even my chosen ticket hasn't got the guts to tell the churches to get stuffed on this issue. They're smart guys, they've got to know the history of the institution, they've got to be aware that excluding gays from marriage hasn't got a secular leg to stand on, and they've got to know that since that's the case, it's constitutionally indefensible to do so. But I suppose it's still political suicide to say so if you're running for national office.
wrd on
Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror. -Ming the Merciless
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
I personally think, like many people, that the term marriage be stricken from every government document and replaced with civil union. As much as I want marriage to be a non-religous word it isnt going to happen any time soon in the U.S.
Nah, as a guy who actually is married in a legal sense, the word's important to me, and I'm not willing to give it up. I'm happy to share it with the religious groups; if they don't want to share it with me, they're going to have to find another word. May I suggest "religious unions"?
Regarding the debate, I am of course extremely disappointed that even my chosen ticket hasn't got the guts to tell the churches to get stuffed on this issue. They're smart guys, they've got to know the history of the institution, they've got to be aware that excluding gays from marriage hasn't got a secular leg to stand on, and they've got to know that since that's the case, it's constitutionally indefensible to do so. But I suppose it's still political suicide to say so if you're running for national office.
Thats the thing. It's still political suicide. Even if the democrats win the election, theres still a huge minority of people who would be permanently pissed at the goverment if it allows same sex "marriage". I think the best way is to let each state authorize same sex marriage. then when there is a major majority of states that allow it we go ahead at the federal level allow it and tell the few leftover states to catch up to the rest of the class.
with the possible shift away from the moral majority though, we might possibly just be able to skip to the whole federal level authorization thing in a few years.
back on topic about the debates. Damn did the Nucular thing piss me off. Damn say it right. As much as I don't like Palin as a person, damn do I love accents. I curse my generic sounding dialect. The Northwest just doesn't have any fun accents. I think thats a big selling point for Palin though, people are going to like the way she talks. She sounds trustworthy, until you actually listen anyways.
Are there any studies out there showing if people have any feelings one way or another toward another person based on accent?
As much as I don't like Palin as a person, damn do I love accents. I curse my generic sounding dialect. The Northwest just doesn't have any fun accents. I think thats a big selling point for Palin though, people are going to like the way she talks. She sounds trustworthy, until you actually listen anyways.
I was actually wishing for subtitles. Not so much because of her accent, but because of the "cutesy" inflection. It just sounded ditzy and grating.
I just gotta give props to Flippy_d for busting out a venn diagram to make his point.
This shows that partisans were partisan and indies favored Biden by about 2:1.
Don't know how trust worthy a poll it is, though.
I don't trust it if only because some of the percentages add up to 99%.
I mean, yeah, sure, they say they may not add up to 100 due to rounding, but when you've only got two candidates, and it's a binary scale, there's no mathematical way to end up with 99%, and the only time you end up with 101% is if you have exactly .5% as the decimal.
Between this post, wrd's post, the issue on states rights (pesky), and JohnDoe, I think this entire damn thing has been caused by a fundamental difference of terminology.
To me, well. Britain is 70-80% atheist. Marriages are not especially ubiquitous any more. Those that take place take place in a church (or mosque, etc whatever) and are inherently religious.
When a marriage takes place in Britain, the new couple signs the registrar. This is an official move and unrelated to the religious aspect, but it registers you as a legally bound couple in the eyes of the Government.
Gay marriage is literally the same thing - just signing the registrar, as are many modern 'marriages' - but these are technically called Civil Unions or Partnerships. So in Britain, 'marriage' is heavily religious because most people don't get religiously married. People use the term 'married' as a shorthand, of course, but when you talk about it to most people you'll see that our mostly irreligious society tends to visualize the trappings of the ecclesiastical.
I know this post doesn't add much but you're being technically wrong on the internet so I must act. This is what the British government has to say about marriages
A marriage can take place in England and Wales at a register office, at a building approved for civil marriage, in an Anglican church or in any other religious building that is registered for the solemnisation of marriage.
Later on the same page (LINK, and the similar LINK for Scotland) it lists sub headings for religious marriage and civil marriage. Marriage is not exclusively religious at all and indeed an non-religious marriage is an explicitly recognised action by the British government. It is what people do at a registry office. To my eyes it is fundamentally demeaning that gay couples cannot get a civil marriage, given that CU's give all the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It's playing word games over a label at that point.
Marriage, as defined by the British government is not an exclusively religious institution.
In the Netherlands, it's essentially the same thing, except it's called a "civil marriage" and "church marriage". Noone seems to mind much anymore, over a decade after the fact. (In contrast to the drug thing, which is widely debated continually).
Of all the "wedge" issues, this surely seems the silliest thing though. Noone is getting hurt if you allow this, all you do is make live easier for some people. With abortion, euthenasia or other stem cell research, there is at least moral debate possible, because these actions have consequences. With gay marriage it's only "My book tells me this is WRONG!".
Over here in jolly old England the debate was reported as a win for Biden in terms of substance but a win for Palin in terms of not screwing up too badly and connecting with the people she was brought in to corral. True, or a gross simplification?
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited October 2008
I thought that she did depressingly well. She stayed on message, and when she didn't like the question she didn't answer it. Which didn't come off as poorly as it could have because there were no followups.
Biden should be whipped for his wandering oration.
I thought that she did depressingly well. She stayed on message, and when she didn't like the question she didn't answer it. Which didn't come off as poorly as it could have because there were no followups.
Biden should be whipped for his wandering oration.
I thought that she did depressingly well. She stayed on message, and when she didn't like the question she didn't answer it. Which didn't come off as poorly as it could have because there were no followups.
Biden should be whipped for his wandering oration.
She didn't have a train wreck campaign ending disaster of a debate, but if this was anyone other than Palin, it would have been considered a huge screwup.
There's a reason they spent weeks cramming talking points into her head while playing down expectations like all hell -- they needed to bring her up to merely "depressingly horrible" levels while bringing down expectations so that "depressingly horrible" was the level that everyone was expecting.
Still, it was painfully obvious to everyone watching that she wasn't answering questions. That didn't play too bad last night, but over the next few days it's going to be played up in the media. SNL and TDS are going to have field days with it.
The meme building is "Palin just talked until everyone was confused then said a talking point, winked and tittered."
Oh, and "Biden choked up about his wife and kid dying, and Palin completely ignored him. The BITCH."
Posts
Apparently, marriage doesn't mean what you think it means. I'm married, says so on the piece of paper I've got, and the church had nothing to do with it. My marriage is recognized in all 50 states and every country on the face of the earth. It was performed by a secular authority. Why? Because I'm an atheist.
So, why is it that atheists can get married, and have that marriage recognized everywhere on the planet, if marriage is by definition a religious institution in the modern world?
I don't see the word marriage as carrying religious connotations. To me, marriage is two people being legally committed.
So would civil union, not marriage, be the term applied when a man and woman have a civil ceremony instead of a wedding?
We have a long and storied history of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars (with occasional bits of killing Caesar and stealing his stuff mixed in).
Exactly. Predictions are overrated. Get out and vote.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Not in the US. If you have a totally civil ceremony in a courthouse and sign the certificate, you are married, and a marriage was performed.
Sanctity of marriage aside, the Government - as in, Obama's proposals, and what we have here - will provide everything but said Sanctity. What you're doing is muddying the waters between:
a) [X] faith's mandate to bless gay marriages.
and
b) Endorsement of this via civil rights.
And I still hold that marriage and civil rights are seperate things.
As far as I can tell, for a fully satisfactory gay marriage, you need the following:
1) Legitimate blessing from a religious official. The authority of this is up to the religion, not the government, and that's how it should be.
2) Comprehensive and equal civil rights to orthodox marriage being supplied upon this marriage. Which is what it seems Obama want to do.
They are two seperate parts of the resultant whole, and if you acknowledge that you can maybe understand why the first question, which in my mind is what the debate has been referring to all this time, is in no respect whatsoever the business of the government.
edit: That's how we do it here in England. If you take into account the above post, a gay marriage is in all respects a civil union that has been blessed by a religious official.
Man, you just keep finding a way to misinterpret each new post.
Post about this incoming. Don't reply to the one above.
Here's where the disagreement stems from. In America, you only need #2 to be considered married. You don't ever have to set foot in a church to be "married" under US law.
In the UK, you would call something with only #2 a "civil union." Here, we call that "marriage."
EDIT: I think this is all a simple misunderstanding. Sounds like everybody wants the same thing, but we just can't agree what to call it.
I'm still wondering why you don't seem to think that the first part is the business of individual churches, denominations, and faiths.
Because there are many churches which bless gay unions. Here are some:
The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Unitarian Universalist Association bless same-gender relationships as a matter of policy.
The United Church of Christ, and various Quaker groups leave the decision to clergy, congregations or local governing bodies.
Might I humbly suggest we discuss the actual debate instead of whatever the hell this is before the thread gets locked?
Yes. The notion of the government stepping in and telling a particular church how to baptise people or marry them or christen them etc. is laughably stupid. If this is your fear, abandon it. It would be mostly unthinkable, and totally illegal in any case.
This is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I have found the issue here.
Between this post, wrd's post, the issue on states rights (pesky), and JohnDoe, I think this entire damn thing has been caused by a fundamental difference of terminology.
To me, well. Britain is 70-80% atheist. Marriages are not especially ubiquitous any more. Those that take place take place in a church (or mosque, etc whatever) and are inherently religious.
When a marriage takes place in Britain, the new couple signs the registrar. This is an official move and unrelated to the religious aspect, but it registers you as a legally bound couple in the eyes of the Government.
Gay marriage is literally the same thing - just signing the registrar, as are many modern 'marriages' - but these are technically called Civil Unions or Partnerships. So in Britain, 'marriage' is heavily religious because most people don't get religiously married. People use the term 'married' as a shorthand, of course, but when you talk about it to most people you'll see that our mostly irreligious society tends to visualize the trappings of the ecclesiastical.
In the USA, it appears, marriage is de facto the word for that legal status as opposed to a by-word. I can see now why this has caused so much confusion (and for me, a headache). You must have thought I was saying something totally different due to different definitions (I think).
In fact, if you read my last post, you'll probably realise we're talking about the same thing - much like myself reading the limed section and the following reply by jeep made me realise I had exactly the same view, but it was just a matter of terminology.
Man, that was a waste of time =P
edit: What Mat said.
I think you'd have liked the IETF comparison I made. I was all proud of it.
You're absolutely right about this. The people in charge of those efforts simply don't believe in the separation of church and state. It's that simple.
Someone needs to explain that the legal and religious aspects of marriage are seperate.
I suspect that someone is Obama.
/triple tirade xxx back on topic bonus multiplier!
I am now going to bed.
Yup. In the U.S. the fight against gay marriage has a lot of "we don't want to despoil the religous term marriage, I.E. one man and one woman bonded under God, by letting gay people do it" It's a giant debate about terminology because the religous right has latched onto the word "marriage" like a lamprey.
I personally think, like many people, that the term marriage be stricken from every government document and replaced with civil union. As much as I want marriage to be a non-religous word it isnt going to happen any time soon in the U.S.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
"Dur, Well Missy, I'm not going to answer the questions and just say what I think the listeners at home want to hear, that's straight talk (out of my ass)."
<Wink><Wink><Wink>
"Increase pay for teachers? No no no, they'll get their reward in heaven!"
<Wink>
"I know what it's like to worry about losing... *sob* a kid." "... Well then, did I mention I'm a MAVERICK?! HEE HEE!" <Wink>
"I think the VP, which I couldn't even tell what DID before Cheney and Rove pulled me into an 'Undisclosed Location' and grilled me for weeks, needs more power! That's totally my idea and NOT Cheney making me say that. Tee hee!"
<Wink>
After this, she won't be let out of her cage until after the election. I especially like how they FINALLY noticed the Newt Gingrich GOPAC technique of "not answering -> talking point" thing she has going on. I bet Newt is sooooo glad her and Couric ruined that for Republicans everywhere. I just hope they start calling ALL the little baby (read: small time) Republicans on it when they pull it from now on.
Nah, as a guy who actually is married in a legal sense, the word's important to me, and I'm not willing to give it up. I'm happy to share it with the religious groups; if they don't want to share it with me, they're going to have to find another word. May I suggest "religious unions"?
Regarding the debate, I am of course extremely disappointed that even my chosen ticket hasn't got the guts to tell the churches to get stuffed on this issue. They're smart guys, they've got to know the history of the institution, they've got to be aware that excluding gays from marriage hasn't got a secular leg to stand on, and they've got to know that since that's the case, it's constitutionally indefensible to do so. But I suppose it's still political suicide to say so if you're running for national office.
Thats the thing. It's still political suicide. Even if the democrats win the election, theres still a huge minority of people who would be permanently pissed at the goverment if it allows same sex "marriage". I think the best way is to let each state authorize same sex marriage. then when there is a major majority of states that allow it we go ahead at the federal level allow it and tell the few leftover states to catch up to the rest of the class.
with the possible shift away from the moral majority though, we might possibly just be able to skip to the whole federal level authorization thing in a few years.
back on topic about the debates. Damn did the Nucular thing piss me off. Damn say it right. As much as I don't like Palin as a person, damn do I love accents. I curse my generic sounding dialect. The Northwest just doesn't have any fun accents. I think thats a big selling point for Palin though, people are going to like the way she talks. She sounds trustworthy, until you actually listen anyways.
Are there any studies out there showing if people have any feelings one way or another toward another person based on accent?
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
I was actually wishing for subtitles. Not so much because of her accent, but because of the "cutesy" inflection. It just sounded ditzy and grating.
This shows that partisans were partisan and indies favored Biden by about 2:1.
Don't know how trust worthy a poll it is, though.
I mean, yeah, sure, they say they may not add up to 100 due to rounding, but when you've only got two candidates, and it's a binary scale, there's no mathematical way to end up with 99%, and the only time you end up with 101% is if you have exactly .5% as the decimal.
I know this post doesn't add much but you're being technically wrong on the internet so I must act. This is what the British government has to say about marriages
Later on the same page (LINK, and the similar LINK for Scotland) it lists sub headings for religious marriage and civil marriage. Marriage is not exclusively religious at all and indeed an non-religious marriage is an explicitly recognised action by the British government. It is what people do at a registry office. To my eyes it is fundamentally demeaning that gay couples cannot get a civil marriage, given that CU's give all the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It's playing word games over a label at that point.
Marriage, as defined by the British government is not an exclusively religious institution.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Of all the "wedge" issues, this surely seems the silliest thing though. Noone is getting hurt if you allow this, all you do is make live easier for some people. With abortion, euthenasia or other stem cell research, there is at least moral debate possible, because these actions have consequences. With gay marriage it's only "My book tells me this is WRONG!".
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Biden should be whipped for his wandering oration.
Yeah, we caught that on my friend's DVR.
Then how stupid are you going to feel if someone pulls a Lee Harvey Oswald?
i've seen 3 polls so far and they all say biden won
the only thing palin accomplished was not drooling on herself and therefore beating expectations
That's not stupid, that's proving him right.
This is my feeling also.
it looks worse than Bush
She didn't have a train wreck campaign ending disaster of a debate, but if this was anyone other than Palin, it would have been considered a huge screwup.
There's a reason they spent weeks cramming talking points into her head while playing down expectations like all hell -- they needed to bring her up to merely "depressingly horrible" levels while bringing down expectations so that "depressingly horrible" was the level that everyone was expecting.
Still, it was painfully obvious to everyone watching that she wasn't answering questions. That didn't play too bad last night, but over the next few days it's going to be played up in the media. SNL and TDS are going to have field days with it.
The meme building is "Palin just talked until everyone was confused then said a talking point, winked and tittered."
Oh, and "Biden choked up about his wife and kid dying, and Palin completely ignored him. The BITCH."