You know, while I am generally okay with telling people to sodomize themselves with their stupid convictions
its pretty hard to deny the connection between religion and marriage
Marriage is a part of some religions. But in this country you can still be just as married without ever stepping into a church. My wife and I could have gone to the judge and we would still be "married". Why should it be any different for two men or women who go through the same process?
That's why I'm saying that marriage as a legal and social institution should be abolished for everyone. You want to get married, fine, pick a church and a minister and all that malarkey. But until you sign a legal document saying that you're in a civil partnership, being "married" doesn't mean squat apart from God not judging you for boning your wife.
You know, while I am generally okay with telling people to sodomize themselves with their stupid convictions
its pretty hard to deny the connection between religion and marriage
Marriage is a part of some religions. But in this country you can still be just as married without ever stepping into a church. My wife and I could have gone to the judge and we would still be "married". Why should it be any different for two men or women who go through the same process?
That's why I'm saying that marriage as a legal and social institution should be abolished for everyone. You want to get married, fine, pick a church and a minister and all that malarkey. But until you sign a legal document saying that you're in a civil partnership, being "married" doesn't mean squat apart from God not judging you for boning your wife.
wait, are you the same dude from the d&d prop 8 thread months back that voted yes on prop 8 because he wanted no one to get married ever, since he was an oppressed single person, and he felt that denying the gays the right to marry was the first step to this plan? because that guy was bugfuck crazy
You know, while I am generally okay with telling people to sodomize themselves with their stupid convictions
its pretty hard to deny the connection between religion and marriage
Marriage is a part of some religions. But in this country you can still be just as married without ever stepping into a church. My wife and I could have gone to the judge and we would still be "married". Why should it be any different for two men or women who go through the same process?
That's why I'm saying that marriage as a legal and social institution should be abolished for everyone. You want to get married, fine, pick a church and a minister and all that malarkey. But until you sign a legal document saying that you're in a civil partnership, being "married" doesn't mean squat apart from God not judging you for boning your wife.
But, in this country, people still aren't technically married until the papers are filed with the government. Why change the system that is already in place just to appease a bunch of people who don't understand this concept?
Or just let anyone get married and tell people that think that the word "marriage" is special and for churches only that they can go fuck themselves.
But then the state is interfering with affairs of the church. Wasn't America founded on the notion that these two entities were separate? Or have I got it the wrong way, and you guys think the church is the state etc. Genuine question, my American history is patchy. Here in the UK the Government has no control over the Church of England whatsoever, which is why we have civil unions that have exactly the same legal benefits of marriage but the church still does not allow same sex marriage.
Im not saying that churches have to be forced to marry gays if they don't want to. I'm saying that the term marriage should be applied to all unions, heterosexual or homosexual. If you think that telling churches that marriage counts the same either way is a violation of church state separation. Wouldn't letting the churches take ownership of the term marriage be the same type of violation of church state separation?
Interesting point, which I agree with.
But then again, wouldn't it be sort of like writing a novel and titling it The Bible. I mean it's just a word, but a word which carries significant historical and religious connotations. If you apply marriage to all unions then for Christians at least isn't that devaluing an important piece of terminology to them. I guess this is their main defense against gay marriage, they want to hold onto their religious beliefs which include the definition of religious terms.
I firmly agree and will fight for the right of gay people to have legal unions which attribute them all the legal benefits of marriage. But are they really wanting it to be called 'marriage' as such, and carry religious meaning. How many people does that apply to. I'm still undecided on that issue, because on one hand I want gay people to have all the freedoms I do, but on the other doesn't appropriating the definition of marriage impede the religious freedoms of the church in the same way. Where is the happy medium here? As far as I can tell there isn't a huge gay rights movement in the UK because they are afforded all legal rights as hetero married couples. Perhaps that is the happy medium, civil unions just not marriage. I don't know.
Whichever way you slice it, the state is changing the rights of a group of people one way or another.
Doesn't marriage in a church pretty much mean squat anyways unless you sign legal documents? It's just a ceremony.
Well from a legal standpoint, no, religious marriage doesnt mean anything without legal documentation. But don't discount how important the union is for people from a religious standpoint. The religious meaning of the word is important, just not legally relevant.
If anything is under the umbrella of the government, including marriage, then it shouldn't be denied to anyone based on race, sexual orientation, or religious preference.
If religion wants to hold onto the word marriage, then abolish the word from government, change it to civil unions, and then let the churches use "marriage" in their ceremonies if they want to.
Same, hopefully in a few years this will happen and we can quash out another form of bigotry that our country hasn't yet learned by large how to get past.
Also, remember folks. BEARS!!! #1 Threat to the Nation's Security!!!
You know, while I am generally okay with telling people to sodomize themselves with their stupid convictions
its pretty hard to deny the connection between religion and marriage
Marriage is a part of some religions. But in this country you can still be just as married without ever stepping into a church. My wife and I could have gone to the judge and we would still be "married". Why should it be any different for two men or women who go through the same process?
That's why I'm saying that marriage as a legal and social institution should be abolished for everyone. You want to get married, fine, pick a church and a minister and all that malarkey. But until you sign a legal document saying that you're in a civil partnership, being "married" doesn't mean squat apart from God not judging you for boning your wife.
Unfortunately, marriage is a common part of the language and was used interchangeably in both government (legal) and social-religious settings. It's not as easy as that.
Somewhere, someone is going to have to compromise. Either the religious right/those who want to keep the word marriage in a more traditional means will have to give in or the homosexual community will have to give in. Personally, I think it's any adult American's right to enter into a legal union with another person with protections and benefits including next of kin and property ownership. That's the important thing. That's what the homosexual community deserves. The word is not that important except to prove a point.
Is it worth all the time, energy, and money to argue over a point rather than take the basic concept and go fix bigger issues, like the economy, war, poverty, AIDS, cancer, energy, etc.
Fuck, I'll even concede my marriage and introduce my wife as my domestic partner under a legally binding contract of protections and rights. Marriage is just a word. Nothing more. I'm fine with letting anyone use it, but there are people who take this shit way to seriously on both sides that are looking more to piss someone off then to truly move forward.
But then again, wouldn't it be sort of like writing a novel and titling it The Bible. I mean it's just a word, but a word which carries significant historical and religious connotations. If you apply marriage to all unions then for Christians at least isn't that devaluing an important piece of terminology to them. I guess this is their main defense against gay marriage, they want to hold onto their religious beliefs which include the definition of religious terms.
But to equate it to the US specifically any book filed with the government would be a "bible" too. This would just be changing an already existing system to appease those who think their definition of bible is extra special and people they don't like can't use it.
Fuck, I'll even concede my marriage and introduce my wife as my domestic partner under a legally binding contract of protections and rights. Marriage is just a word. Nothing more. I'm fine with letting anyone use it, but there are people who take this shit way to seriously on both sides that are looking more to piss someone off then to truly move forward.
I do agree with you on this Hunter. I would do the same thing if it meant that everyone got equal rights. A compromise will have to come from somewhere, and if this is something that people want to change soon it will probably not be the super religious who do the compromising.
Marathon on
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
The US has a seperation of church and state, but it was still a country founded by Judeo-Christians and based on centuries of Judeo-Christian society. It's ingrained. You can't pigeon hole marriage. It's a moot point and it's time to concede it. Marriage will always have a legal, social, and religious meaning to it. The end.
The problem is that his fans love him too much sometimes.
Because, like all people, sometimes he is wrong.
But then I end up having to explain to people why just because we had a financial bailout doesn't mean that we have to have an automotive bailout as well, out of "fairness".
You know, I actually liked Colbert way better when he was on the Daily Show, mainly because he was a special commodity I got every so often, his humor was much more subtle (now it's just IN YOUR FACE ASSHOLE ALL THE TIME), I dunno. I mean, I'll watch the Colbert Report and still crack smiles and chuckles, but I think he was funnier when there was...less....of him..?
I don't think I can make very much sense beyond here.
You know, I actually liked Colbert way better when he was on the Daily Show, mainly because he was a special commodity I got every so often, his humor was much more subtle (now it's just IN YOUR FACE ASSHOLE ALL THE TIME), I dunno. I mean, I'll watch the Colbert Report and still crack smiles and chuckles, but I think he was funnier when there was...less....of him..?
I don't think I can make very much sense beyond here.
You make perfect sense.
The Daily Show I could watch, well, daily, without being dissappointed.
But Colbert I only watch occassionally, or when I completely run out of other things to watch on the DVR.
He is a talented man, but most of his show is just him regurgitating what Jon said a halfhour ago, only scowling as he says it.
The part I don't understand is how some people will agree that gay couples should have the exact same rights and privileges as a married couple, but still don't want it to be called marriage. It makes no sense.
It's called a compromise. By compromising the actual word, people get the heart of what they want without having to piss off another large chunk of the population.
Why is it such a big deal to the other side of the coin then? Is the point to get the rights and privileges of marriage or to piss off people? If it's to just piss in the other side's cheerios, then they're not in the game for the right reasons either and have no moral highground to stand on when religious right people go off on the "next you'll marry goats and ocelots" tangents.
Also, to even be dedicating this much time to gay marriage while the economy is in the shitter and 2 wars are going on is ridiculous. The concept of marriage means nothing when you don't have a place to live, food, or medical care.
I see your point, but I think their arguments aren't just to make people angry. It's to get people to admit that they're doing nothing wrong.
Saying, "Okay, you can have the same benefits but it won't actually be a marriage" is admitting that it's different, and therefore segregating them from the group.
Do you think no one would have questioned segregated bathrooms in the 1960's if the bathrooms just happened to be of the same quality? They were still separate, and a clear indication that people didn't want to be associated with "them."
oh good coldstone. my roommates birthday was yesterday, and his fiancee bought a coldstone ice cream cake (for 30 fuckin dollars!) and oh god, it was sooo good. i had ice cream cake for breakfast this morning.
Posts
swoon
That's why I'm saying that marriage as a legal and social institution should be abolished for everyone. You want to get married, fine, pick a church and a minister and all that malarkey. But until you sign a legal document saying that you're in a civil partnership, being "married" doesn't mean squat apart from God not judging you for boning your wife.
wait, are you the same dude from the d&d prop 8 thread months back that voted yes on prop 8 because he wanted no one to get married ever, since he was an oppressed single person, and he felt that denying the gays the right to marry was the first step to this plan? because that guy was bugfuck crazy
But, in this country, people still aren't technically married until the papers are filed with the government. Why change the system that is already in place just to appease a bunch of people who don't understand this concept?
Interesting point, which I agree with.
But then again, wouldn't it be sort of like writing a novel and titling it The Bible. I mean it's just a word, but a word which carries significant historical and religious connotations. If you apply marriage to all unions then for Christians at least isn't that devaluing an important piece of terminology to them. I guess this is their main defense against gay marriage, they want to hold onto their religious beliefs which include the definition of religious terms.
I firmly agree and will fight for the right of gay people to have legal unions which attribute them all the legal benefits of marriage. But are they really wanting it to be called 'marriage' as such, and carry religious meaning. How many people does that apply to. I'm still undecided on that issue, because on one hand I want gay people to have all the freedoms I do, but on the other doesn't appropriating the definition of marriage impede the religious freedoms of the church in the same way. Where is the happy medium here? As far as I can tell there isn't a huge gay rights movement in the UK because they are afforded all legal rights as hetero married couples. Perhaps that is the happy medium, civil unions just not marriage. I don't know.
Whichever way you slice it, the state is changing the rights of a group of people one way or another.
Well from a legal standpoint, no, religious marriage doesnt mean anything without legal documentation. But don't discount how important the union is for people from a religious standpoint. The religious meaning of the word is important, just not legally relevant.
paaaaraaadoxxxx
Same, hopefully in a few years this will happen and we can quash out another form of bigotry that our country hasn't yet learned by large how to get past.
Also, remember folks. BEARS!!! #1 Threat to the Nation's Security!!!
i don't know how i didn't see this before
but the fact is i didn't
and now that i have, jesus
jesus
i fucking love this human being.
Or just tell them "too fucking bad" and go about your business.
Unfortunately, marriage is a common part of the language and was used interchangeably in both government (legal) and social-religious settings. It's not as easy as that.
Somewhere, someone is going to have to compromise. Either the religious right/those who want to keep the word marriage in a more traditional means will have to give in or the homosexual community will have to give in. Personally, I think it's any adult American's right to enter into a legal union with another person with protections and benefits including next of kin and property ownership. That's the important thing. That's what the homosexual community deserves. The word is not that important except to prove a point.
Is it worth all the time, energy, and money to argue over a point rather than take the basic concept and go fix bigger issues, like the economy, war, poverty, AIDS, cancer, energy, etc.
Fuck, I'll even concede my marriage and introduce my wife as my domestic partner under a legally binding contract of protections and rights. Marriage is just a word. Nothing more. I'm fine with letting anyone use it, but there are people who take this shit way to seriously on both sides that are looking more to piss someone off then to truly move forward.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
If only it were that easy, and I'd love to see a politician try it.
Lewis Black said it best. The only thing worse than Republicans and Democrats is when those pricks work together. It will never happen. Ever.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
But to equate it to the US specifically any book filed with the government would be a "bible" too. This would just be changing an already existing system to appease those who think their definition of bible is extra special and people they don't like can't use it.
I do agree with you on this Hunter. I would do the same thing if it meant that everyone got equal rights. A compromise will have to come from somewhere, and if this is something that people want to change soon it will probably not be the super religious who do the compromising.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
The problem is that his fans love him too much sometimes.
Because, like all people, sometimes he is wrong.
But then I end up having to explain to people why just because we had a financial bailout doesn't mean that we have to have an automotive bailout as well, out of "fairness".
I don't think I can make very much sense beyond here.
You make perfect sense.
The Daily Show I could watch, well, daily, without being dissappointed.
But Colbert I only watch occassionally, or when I completely run out of other things to watch on the DVR.
He is a talented man, but most of his show is just him regurgitating what Jon said a halfhour ago, only scowling as he says it.
But I have been developing this severe aversion to excessive liberality despite my own lefty staus
Shit, I never saw this either, but I am incredibly surprised it got this far
He is sayin' some shit
isnt that a flavor at coldstone
ben & jerrys
if that's the clip that I think it is (work block on youtube) then it is indeed incredibly awesome.
it's just unfortunate that Stewart's audience generally seemed to ignore it.
If true, then marriage needs to no longer be a government sanctioned institution. Separation of church and state, and all that.
I see your point, but I think their arguments aren't just to make people angry. It's to get people to admit that they're doing nothing wrong.
Saying, "Okay, you can have the same benefits but it won't actually be a marriage" is admitting that it's different, and therefore segregating them from the group.
Do you think no one would have questioned segregated bathrooms in the 1960's if the bathrooms just happened to be of the same quality? They were still separate, and a clear indication that people didn't want to be associated with "them."