The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Ok seriously regardless of whatever the fuck marriage has traditionally been, gay couples should be able to get the government marriage licence and not have to deal with people shitting around with "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships."
edit-thank you dru.
whats wrong with civil unions and domestic partnerships?
They shed every aspect of religion from the title. If we'd just buck up and establish the same benefits from them this wouldn't be an issue at all and everyone would be happy.
Ok seriously regardless of whatever the fuck marriage has traditionally been, gay couples should be able to get the government marriage licence and not have to deal with people shitting around with "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships."
edit-thank you dru.
whats wrong with civil unions and domestic partnerships?
They shed every aspect of religion from the title. If we'd just buck up and establish the same benefits from them this wouldn't be an issue at all and everyone would be happy.
This is exactly how I feel. If I had it my way, there would be no such thing as legally recognized marriage and people would have to leave the spiritual part of it to, well, their spiritual leaders.
Fandyien on
0
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
Just because it hasn't solely defined it since the dawn of man doesn't mean that you can't refer to it's traditionally religious position in pretty much every society ever.
let's pretend that fandy
are we also going to pretend that all of those faiths view marriage the same way? do we here in the U.S. have different legal definitions of marriage rights and responsibilities depending on one's faith? then it's fucking irrelevant. marriage is a secular as well as religious institution and the legal aspect of marriage is pretty strictly secular.
Druhim on
0
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
Edit: I'm sorry that was a poop thing to say and I am going to go sit in a corner because I am tired.
If it were up to me the legal document would be a civil union, which would basically replace the current marriage license. The marriage license could then be designated by a religious establishment when people are married in their church, temple, whatever as a certificate of the event taking place and nothing more.
Everybody wins. Everyone can have a civil union, and religious establishments still hold the right to say "no thanks" to someone wanting to get married.
Unknown User on
0
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
We shouldn't conform to it, it just doesn't do any good to iconoclastically ignore it's status as a tradition.
Why not just get rid of marriage concerning the government? Why distinguish them at all, and just call them all civil unions or domestic partnerships, and let the religions deal with whatever they want to call them?
I think the reason why we haven't done this is because "marriage" as a term has been far ingrained into our society since like, forever. So getting rid of the title is an extremely hard habit to beak.
We shouldn't conform to it, it just doesn't do any good to iconoclastically ignore it's status as a tradition.
there's no good reason why we can't continue treating marriage as we have been
as both a secular institution as defined by the state and a religious institution as defined by the couple getting married
if they want to have a traditional voodoo wedding with chicken blood and the whole nine yards, that should have absolutely nothing to do with how the state views their marriage
same should apply to gay marriage
if a church chooses not to acknowledge a gay couple's union, that's their right
but they would still legally be married
bam, separation of church and state
not so hard, was it?
Druhim on
0
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
We shouldn't conform to it, it just doesn't do any good to iconoclastically ignore it's status as a tradition.
there's no good reason why we can't continue treating marriage as we have been
as both a secular institution as defined by the state and a religious institution as defined by the couple getting married
if they want to have a traditional voodoo wedding with chicken blood and the whole nine yards, that should have absolutely nothing to do with how the state views their marriage
same should apply to gay marriage
if a church chooses not to acknowledge a gay couple's union, that's their right
but they would still legally be married
bam, separation of church and state
not so hard, was it?
This is pretty much exactly how I feel and I'm not even sure what I'm arguing about anymore. Maybe the word 'marriage'? Fuck, what do I know.
We shouldn't conform to it, it just doesn't do any good to iconoclastically ignore it's status as a tradition.
Which tradition are we talking about, here? The one where men could have as many wives as they want? Or the one where married men still get to fuck around on the side, including with other men? Or the one where wives are considered property? Or the one where the local nobleman gets to fuck your wife on your wedding night? Or the one where you have to marry within your own race?
We shouldn't conform to it, it just doesn't do any good to iconoclastically ignore it's status as a tradition.
Which tradition are we talking about, here? The one where men could have as many wives as they want? Or the one where married men still get to fuck around on the side, including with other men? Or the one where wives are considered property? Or the one where the local nobleman gets to fuck your wife on your wedding night? Or the one where you have to marry within your own race?
I think the reason why we haven't done this is because "marriage" as a term has been far ingrained into our society since like, forever. So getting rid of the title is an extremely hard habit to beak.
robothero this was the exact same argument I tried to make the last time this came up
If I were a gay dude I'd get married to one of my really good gay female friends, and my partner could get married to her partner. It's the loophope in the system... until we get into a big fight and I move to St. Martin to become a romance novelist.
Unknown User on
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
It is funny that Unitarian Universalists use the term church.
Coven would be a more accurate description.
What?
The belief system varies greatly among communities but there is definitely a pagan/wiccan style to a lot of their rituals.
Yes, but both church and coven have specificity of meaning with very little overlap. It most likely wouldn't be "more accurate" to use coven in 99% of uses of the word church by UUs.
It is funny that Unitarian Universalists use the term church.
Coven would be a more accurate description.
What?
The belief system varies greatly among communities but there is definitely a pagan/wiccan style to a lot of their rituals.
Yes, but both church and coven have specificity of meaning with very little overlap. It most likely wouldn't be "more accurate" to use coven in 99% of uses of the word church by UUs.
God damn it, Annie. I am making a joke by calling them a bunch of fucking witches.
Ok seriously regardless of whatever the fuck marriage has traditionally been, gay couples should be able to get the government marriage licence and not have to deal with people shitting around with "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships."
edit-thank you dru.
whats wrong with civil unions and domestic partnerships?
They shed every aspect of religion from the title. If we'd just buck up and establish the same benefits from them this wouldn't be an issue at all and everyone would be happy.
Why not just let them get the fucking marriage licence?
I'm pretty sure we're all relatively in agreement that same sex couples need to have the same legal representation and that anything outside of that is up to the religious communities. But people never can agree on just letting them get the licences, or just removing the term from government for everyone while leaving the social aspects up to their religious and/or secular communities and fuck it all.
The problem with the latter solution though are the non religious people who still get married just via the legal licence. How are the people who do the religious traditions any more real-married than the people who go the non religious route? I believe Jordyn and Fram are a pretty good example for this situation.
Posts
whats wrong with civil unions and domestic partnerships?
They shed every aspect of religion from the title. If we'd just buck up and establish the same benefits from them this wouldn't be an issue at all and everyone would be happy.
This is exactly how I feel. If I had it my way, there would be no such thing as legally recognized marriage and people would have to leave the spiritual part of it to, well, their spiritual leaders.
"Deal with it"
are we also going to pretend that all of those faiths view marriage the same way? do we here in the U.S. have different legal definitions of marriage rights and responsibilities depending on one's faith? then it's fucking irrelevant. marriage is a secular as well as religious institution and the legal aspect of marriage is pretty strictly secular.
Everybody wins. Everyone can have a civil union, and religious establishments still hold the right to say "no thanks" to someone wanting to get married.
edit: thread moves too fast
as both a secular institution as defined by the state
and a religious institution as defined by the couple getting married
if they want to have a traditional voodoo wedding with chicken blood and the whole nine yards, that should have absolutely nothing to do with how the state views their marriage
same should apply to gay marriage
if a church chooses not to acknowledge a gay couple's union, that's their right
but they would still legally be married
bam, separation of church and state
not so hard, was it?
This is pretty much exactly how I feel and I'm not even sure what I'm arguing about anymore. Maybe the word 'marriage'? Fuck, what do I know.
I am talking about all of those, yes.
Well, that's not a real marriage, now is it?
robothero this was the exact same argument I tried to make the last time this came up
It is funny that Unitarian Universalists use the term church.
Coven would be a more accurate description.
Doesn't Obama want to give funding to church programs or something
Community Function Centre would be even better.
That doesn't take the witchcraft into account.
What?
The belief system varies greatly among communities but there is definitely a pagan/wiccan style to a lot of their rituals.
Yes, but both church and coven have specificity of meaning with very little overlap. It most likely wouldn't be "more accurate" to use coven in 99% of uses of the word church by UUs.
Also me.
In a big way.
Evangelism is the sort of thing you just wish would disappear on its own.
Well, totally, but it sort of puts you on the same awful, degenerate level as them if you are actively planning to 'get rid of them'.
Yeah, like the ones that do community service. Clean up parks, sweep up glass, hand out food to homeless...
God damn it, Annie. I am making a joke by calling them a bunch of fucking witches.
I don't know what the deal is with those assholes and their religious qualifications.
Absolutely.
Really, it's wrose. You're plotting revenge against irrelevant douchbags? Really? Really?
Seriously. Us pretentious, enlightened liberals are supposed to be above that sort of shit.
I just kind of figured ignoring irrelevant douchebags was something everybody was supposed to do.
Why not just let them get the fucking marriage licence?
I'm pretty sure we're all relatively in agreement that same sex couples need to have the same legal representation and that anything outside of that is up to the religious communities. But people never can agree on just letting them get the licences, or just removing the term from government for everyone while leaving the social aspects up to their religious and/or secular communities and fuck it all.
The problem with the latter solution though are the non religious people who still get married just via the legal licence. How are the people who do the religious traditions any more real-married than the people who go the non religious route? I believe Jordyn and Fram are a pretty good example for this situation.