Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[LGBT]: Bigots can go eat a bag of [Chick-Fil-A]

195969798100

Posts

  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    I kinda get what he's saying... But kinda don't.

    I'm thinking he's saying we should have love for one another, regardless of gender, etc., and that you shouldn't treat people differently when you "love" them but not "romantically love" them, in lieu of trying to find "romantic love". We should all be "gay" in this light, whereas "homosexual" applies only to the "romantic love" aspect?

    I've gone cross-eyed.

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    saint2e wrote: »
    I kinda get what he's saying... But kinda don't.

    I'm thinking he's saying we should have love for one another, regardless of gender, etc., and that you shouldn't treat people differently when you "love" them but not "romantically love" them, in lieu of trying to find "romantic love". We should all be "gay" in this light, whereas "homosexual" applies only to the "romantic love" aspect?

    I've gone cross-eyed.

    The difference between agape, phila, and eros?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    I may be gay, but I ain't no homo.


  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    I think that's the distinction he's trying to make.

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • BandableBandable Registered User regular
    If Bert was instead Beth and slept in the same bedroom as Ernie, I don't think there would be such a problem with the sugestion that they are a couple. Since it is a children's show, the characters probably aren't going to be dealing with many "relationship" issues, whether they are romantic or not. There might be some blowback from religious people not liking children watch a couple living in sin, but it wouldn't be odd to think that they were together. So while, yes, Bert and Ernie could just be good friends, I don't see why it is odd to assume that they might also be romantic with eachother.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Bert and Ernie do not need to be made explicitly gay what the hell guys.

  • Sweeney TomSweeney Tom Registered User regular
    One Million Moms boycott Amazon

    ahhahahahhaahhahaah, yeah, OK, I'm sure that will work out well for OMM

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I'm the only one who thinks this?



    Just because you don't wanna bonk a person doesn't mean you can't love them and be with them forever

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm the only one who thinks this?



    Just because you don't wanna bonk a person doesn't mean you can't love them and be with them forever

    I mean, I think that two people should be able to get married if they want regardless of the reasons (we let straight couples do this now, before anyone comes in ranting about protecting the Sanctity of Marriage).

    Agape, phila, and eros are the three types of love.

    Agape (unconditional, like a parent to a child), philia (brotherly love), and eros (romantic or erotic love).

    Is that what you were getting at?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    One Million Moms boycott Amazon

    ahhahahahhaahhahaah, yeah, OK, I'm sure that will work out well for OMM

    If there's two constants about OMM, it's that they're going to boycott something new almost weekly and that it won't have any appreciable effect at all.

    You know, except for backfiring.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Wow... so the Bezos' donated 2.5 million of their own personal wealth?

    Wow.

    That's cool.

    I would repay them with business but they already have tons of my business and I only need so much stuff

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    And yet, you're still giving them money.

    I say I am taking more money away by taking up time in line, buying something of low profit, and taking a seat in a visual way for the cause eating at that profit, then by passively not going there, but creating PR for the company to get more support from the otherside. "Awareness" through passive reaction is destructive in situations like these.

    steam_sig.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm the only one who thinks this?



    Just because you don't wanna bonk a person doesn't mean you can't love them and be with them forever

    I mean, I think that two people should be able to get married if they want regardless of the reasons (we let straight couples do this now, before anyone comes in ranting about protecting the Sanctity of Marriage).

    Agape, phila, and eros are the three types of love.

    Agape (unconditional, like a parent to a child), philia (brotherly love), and eros (romantic or erotic love).

    Is that what you were getting at?

    Why are romantic and erotic love conflated? Our legal structure uses marriage to make it easier for people to share finances and parental responsibility. How does the willingness to do the sideways shuffle qualify them for that?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm the only one who thinks this?



    Just because you don't wanna bonk a person doesn't mean you can't love them and be with them forever

    I mean, I think that two people should be able to get married if they want regardless of the reasons (we let straight couples do this now, before anyone comes in ranting about protecting the Sanctity of Marriage).

    Agape, phila, and eros are the three types of love.

    Agape (unconditional, like a parent to a child), philia (brotherly love), and eros (romantic or erotic love).

    Is that what you were getting at?

    Why are romantic and erotic love conflated? Our legal structure uses marriage to make it easier for people to share finances and parental responsibility. How does the willingness to do the sideways shuffle qualify them for that?

    And this is the very reason we now have the terms 'Bromance' and 'Down low'

    steam_sig.png
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Why are romantic and erotic love conflated? Our legal structure uses marriage to make it easier for people to share finances and parental responsibility. How does the willingness to do the sideways shuffle qualify them for that?

    Well if you want to get technical, originally romance was a concept that arose out of the middle ages in regards to a knight and his "Lady in waiting." With whom he was supposed to never ever have sex with (since the knight was beneath her class and she had to marry a Lord for political purposes.) Romance was actually like, the middle ages biggest tease ever to get men all frustrated so they had the testosterone to go fight in whatever war/conflict they were needed in.

    Personally though, I agree with the concept you're expressing on a General level, and I can't remember it off hand but there was a TED talk I saw that supported the idea we have three distinct types of loving attachment to other people (and one can occur without the other.) I do find myself though in that situation where due to my own past I can say I certainly couldn't be in a relationship without that physical component. But that's only because as a nerd I have to make up for lost time! hah. But I think the conflation here with Sex is that most people cannot imagine any form of "Love" other than romance and that "Romance" is inexorably tied to sex. Of course people don't notice that you can have a romance-less/sexless and otherwise child-sanitary portrayal of heterosexual relationships since we take them for granted so much they become invisible until someone like yourself points out the obvious.

    At least that's what I'd currently posit.

    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Bah. Marriage has always been more trouble than it was worth. I say do away with this gay marriage/straight marriage nonsense and reduce it to what it really is: a domestic legal agreement between two (or more!) parties concerning child rearing, taxes, and divorce agreements. What you do up the aisle and on the night and on the honeymoon is of no legal or government concern, and it is stupid anyway to be throwing rice or smashing glass during what can only be described as a loosely binding agreement. Marriage has always been a social and spiritual issue, and government is only looking for a beating when it interferes. Legalize gay marriage? Why don't we legalize their use of the rainbow as an emblem? It has as much to do with the actual ramifications to actual law. Balderdash

    This is why I have no idea what the republicans are doing

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bah. Marriage has always been more trouble than it was worth. I say do away with this gay marriage/straight marriage nonsense and reduce it to what it really is: a domestic legal agreement between two (or more!) parties concerning child rearing, taxes, and divorce agreements.
    So... marriage?

    This has never, ever been a politically viable approach. And there's no reason to switch to working towards this now when we've won. We're just waiting for it to wrap up.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bah. Marriage has always been more trouble than it was worth. I say do away with this gay marriage/straight marriage nonsense and reduce it to what it really is: a domestic legal agreement between two (or more!) parties concerning child rearing, taxes, and divorce agreements.
    So... marriage?

    This has never, ever been a politically viable approach. And there's no reason to switch to working towards this now when we've won. We're just waiting for it to wrap up.

    making the institution of marriage a legal one apparently dependent on two people willing to have sex with each other has always been a legal landmine that has done nothing good for society. It will continue to do harm as gay people enter into the lovely world of divorce settlements and botched prenuptials and ruined lives and careers based upon the erroneous decision to let a ritualistic procedure into the legal sphere. It's like fixing the Y2K bug by putting an asterisk next to year 2000+ entries. It's all well and good for the next thousand years but you know in 2999 we're going to start the whole process all over again.

    I dream of a world where people can get married any way they want and it means nothing legally to anyone but them. They can later after the reception go down to the notary's office and have a ritual signing of the form for a strengthened domestic partnership with all the traditional rights of what we used to call marriage if we really want, but they don't have to do it, and people too world weary to go through the cake and the speech and the ado can just sign it with no fuss and no social expectations. Ridiculous. Corporations don't need to jump through so many clownish hoops to get founded.

    Again, republicans dropped the ball. what bigger encroachment of government on social freedoms is there than encouraging us to love a certain way and have a family a certain way? Pull them out. This, here, is where big government is making its most egregious encroachments, even to the financial ruin of many of its citizens, and yet the precise opposite position is taken. My teeth are gnashing.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bah. Marriage has always been more trouble than it was worth. I say do away with this gay marriage/straight marriage nonsense and reduce it to what it really is: a domestic legal agreement between two (or more!) parties concerning child rearing, taxes, and divorce agreements.
    So... marriage?

    This has never, ever been a politically viable approach. And there's no reason to switch to working towards this now when we've won. We're just waiting for it to wrap up.

    making the institution of marriage a legal one apparently dependent on two people willing to have sex with each other has always been a legal landmine that has done nothing good for society. It will continue to do harm as gay people enter into the lovely world of divorce settlements and botched prenuptials and ruined lives and careers based upon the erroneous decision to let a ritualistic procedure into the legal sphere. It's like fixing the Y2K bug by putting an asterisk next to year 2000+ entries. It's all well and good for the next thousand years but you know in 2999 we're going to start the whole process all over again.

    I dream of a world where people can get married any way they want and it means nothing legally to anyone but them. They can later after the reception go down to the notary's office and have a ritual signing of the form for a strengthened domestic partnership with all the traditional rights of what we used to call marriage if we really want, but they don't have to do it, and people too world weary to go through the cake and the speech and the ado can just sign it with no fuss and no social expectations. Ridiculous. Corporations don't need to jump through so many clownish hoops to get founded.
    So again... marriage?

    There is literally nothing stopping you from holding a religious marriage ceremony, and not electing to get legally married. Or vice-versa.

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    There is literally nothing stopping you from holding a religious marriage ceremony, and not electing to get legally married.

    This is exactly what I would like to do.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    making the institution of marriage a legal one apparently dependent on two people willing to have sex with each other has always been a legal landmine that has done nothing good for society. It will continue to do harm as gay people enter into the lovely world of divorce settlements and botched prenuptials and ruined lives and careers based upon the erroneous decision to let a ritualistic procedure into the legal sphere. It's like fixing the Y2K bug by putting an asterisk next to year 2000+ entries. It's all well and good for the next thousand years but you know in 2999 we're going to start the whole process all over again.

    I dream of a world where people can get married any way they want and it means nothing legally to anyone but them. They can later after the reception go down to the notary's office and have a ritual signing of the form for a strengthened domestic partnership with all the traditional rights of what we used to call marriage if we really want, but they don't have to do it, and people too world weary to go through the cake and the speech and the ado can just sign it with no fuss and no social expectations. Ridiculous. Corporations don't need to jump through so many clownish hoops to get founded.

    Again, republicans dropped the ball. what bigger encroachment of government on social freedoms is there than encouraging us to love a certain way and have a family a certain way? Pull them out. This, here, is where big government is making its most egregious encroachments, even to the financial ruin of many of its citizens, and yet the precise opposite position is taken. My teeth are gnashing.

    That's a separate fight for a separate time. If you think fundies got upset over Gay Marriage just wait until we try to de-couple marriage from religion. Remember, what sets the fundies off is anything that signals to them their culture is losing its status as dominant. Marriage is still probably the only event where you can be guaranteed to get a chance to get someone into a church in their lives so I doubt they'd want to ever give that up without a fight.

    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bah. Marriage has always been more trouble than it was worth. I say do away with this gay marriage/straight marriage nonsense and reduce it to what it really is: a domestic legal agreement between two (or more!) parties concerning child rearing, taxes, and divorce agreements.
    So... marriage?

    This has never, ever been a politically viable approach. And there's no reason to switch to working towards this now when we've won. We're just waiting for it to wrap up.

    making the institution of marriage a legal one apparently dependent on two people willing to have sex with each other has always been a legal landmine that has done nothing good for society. It will continue to do harm as gay people enter into the lovely world of divorce settlements and botched prenuptials and ruined lives and careers based upon the erroneous decision to let a ritualistic procedure into the legal sphere. It's like fixing the Y2K bug by putting an asterisk next to year 2000+ entries. It's all well and good for the next thousand years but you know in 2999 we're going to start the whole process all over again.

    I dream of a world where people can get married any way they want and it means nothing legally to anyone but them. They can later after the reception go down to the notary's office and have a ritual signing of the form for a strengthened domestic partnership with all the traditional rights of what we used to call marriage if we really want, but they don't have to do it, and people too world weary to go through the cake and the speech and the ado can just sign it with no fuss and no social expectations. Ridiculous. Corporations don't need to jump through so many clownish hoops to get founded.
    So again... marriage?

    There is literally nothing stopping you from holding a religious marriage ceremony, and not electing to get legally married. Or vice-versa.

    There is in that marriage is basically an agreement to combine finances and legal guardianship with also interested executorship if the need arises. Having it follow the idea of a religious ritual - where adultery, while not necessarily legal, can be seen as adequate grounds for assigning damages in a divorce settlement much like running into the back of a car makes you responsible, and where people can actually enter into it without settling a divorce clause "because it would be too cynical" - as if that's a good reason for anything in law - is only stabbing yourself in the back. It must be stopped immediately before further damage can be done.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    The right to share custody of a child, the right to act as a family member in a hospital setting, the right to treat your income as a single unit (because it is) for the purposes of improved leverage for loans...

    No, the fiscal structure of Marriage actually carries a lot of good, and the reasons to dissolve it outright are too few to even consider that an option.

    If you personally want nothing to do with legal unions, then don't have one; but don't assume that people share your world view regarding them.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    The right to share custody of a child, the right to act as a family member in a hospital setting, the right to treat your income as a single unit (because it is) for the purposes of improved leverage for loans...

    No, the fiscal structure of Marriage actually carries a lot of good, and the reasons to dissolve it outright are too few to even consider that an option.

    If you personally want nothing to do with legal unions, then don't have one; but don't assume that people share your world view regarding them.

    There should be an institution where people are allowed to do this, but it shouldn't be dependent on what it's dependent on now.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Sesame Street isn't in NYC?

    i guess you're going to have to tell me how to get how to get there.

    Bravo sir. :^:

    Also who cares if Bert and Ernie are or are not gay? I realize it's a kid's show, but I don't see how it matters one way or the other. I always thought it was a cute idea that they were a couple. I mean realistically they were probably more centered around an "Odd Couple" type of relationship.

    Well, who cares if Rosita's an immigrant or (I think it was Kami? On the African version Sesame Square) is HIV-positive? Tolerance is one of the over-arching themes in most of Sesame Street, and quite a few characters exist mainly for that theme. I mean, at one point they had a racist seagull who hated Snuffleupagus. Bert and Ernie interactions have mostly been with each other, and have mainly been about getting along in the face of personality clashes, but interactions between them as a pair and the rest of the cast could be made into a new lesson.

    Why is it neccisary to introduce preschoolers to any kind of sexuality? This is an age where they still think babies come from storks. They have the rest of their lives to become entangled in the can of worms that is sexuality, can we wait until they've learned to count to ten before dropping that bomb on them?

    Personally I've never liked using kids TV shows to indoctrinate political stances into them, not even good ones.

    If they were a gay couple, it would be perfectly simple to portray them as such without any reference to sexuality. I'm pretty sure kids' shows depict hetero marriages without talking about sex, it would be no different with a homosexual marriage.

    You're falling into the trap of "homosexuals are defined only by the sex they have." anything hetero couples do on a kids show could be done by a homosexual couple.

    Are there any heterosexual couples on Sesame Street? The whole street seems to be built on the perceptions and assumptions of toddlers, with the puppets basically being adultified children, and as such have no real perception of romantic love.

    Of course, there's also the fact that the two, as an odd couple, would make a terribly incompatible marriage and would need a divorce.

    Luis and Maria not only had a "fall in love and get married" story on the show, they also had at least one child over the course of the show, iirc. Gordan and Susan were also married and had children during the course of the show.
    Both couples and their children interacted numerous times on the street and in their respective apartments with the puppets and have conversations about family and children and growing up, etc. So not only are there heterosexual couples, they are there modelling healthy adult relationships and family roles.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    The right to share custody of a child, the right to act as a family member in a hospital setting, the right to treat your income as a single unit (because it is) for the purposes of improved leverage for loans...

    No, the fiscal structure of Marriage actually carries a lot of good, and the reasons to dissolve it outright are too few to even consider that an option.

    If you personally want nothing to do with legal unions, then don't have one; but don't assume that people share your world view regarding them.
    There should be an institution where people are allowed to do this, but it shouldn't be dependent on what it's dependent on now.
    What should it be dependent on?

  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    The right to share custody of a child, the right to act as a family member in a hospital setting, the right to treat your income as a single unit (because it is) for the purposes of improved leverage for loans...

    No, the fiscal structure of Marriage actually carries a lot of good, and the reasons to dissolve it outright are too few to even consider that an option.

    If you personally want nothing to do with legal unions, then don't have one; but don't assume that people share your world view regarding them.
    There should be an institution where people are allowed to do this, but it shouldn't be dependent on what it's dependent on now.
    What should it be dependent on?
    The desire to pay less taxes, or to legally immigrate obv.


  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Not sex

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Not sex

    So are you arguing, for example, for the ability to marry a parent or a sibling because you plan to spend the rest of your life with them?

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Not sex

    So are you arguing, for example, for the ability to marry a parent or a sibling because you plan to spend the rest of your life with them?

    unfortunately that's a bit redundant, but yes

    Marriage in the legal sense should not carry any social stigma or meaning. All it should say is that these two people trust each other with these responsibilities.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Not sex

    So are you arguing, for example, for the ability to marry a parent or a sibling because you plan to spend the rest of your life with them?

    You can't deny marriage rights to consenting adults that want them.

    AllenW97Mariage23dec97.jpg

  • sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    making the institution of marriage a legal one apparently dependent on two people willing to have sex with each other has always been a legal landmine that has done nothing good for society. It will continue to do harm as gay people enter into the lovely world of divorce settlements and botched prenuptials and ruined lives and careers based upon the erroneous decision to let a ritualistic procedure into the legal sphere. It's like fixing the Y2K bug by putting an asterisk next to year 2000+ entries. It's all well and good for the next thousand years but you know in 2999 we're going to start the whole process all over again.

    I dream of a world where people can get married any way they want and it means nothing legally to anyone but them. They can later after the reception go down to the notary's office and have a ritual signing of the form for a strengthened domestic partnership with all the traditional rights of what we used to call marriage if we really want, but they don't have to do it, and people too world weary to go through the cake and the speech and the ado can just sign it with no fuss and no social expectations. Ridiculous. Corporations don't need to jump through so many clownish hoops to get founded.

    Again, republicans dropped the ball. what bigger encroachment of government on social freedoms is there than encouraging us to love a certain way and have a family a certain way? Pull them out. This, here, is where big government is making its most egregious encroachments, even to the financial ruin of many of its citizens, and yet the precise opposite position is taken. My teeth are gnashing.

    That's a separate fight for a separate time. If you think fundies got upset over Gay Marriage just wait until we try to de-couple marriage from religion. Remember, what sets the fundies off is anything that signals to them their culture is losing its status as dominant. Marriage is still probably the only event where you can be guaranteed to get a chance to get someone into a church in their lives so I doubt they'd want to ever give that up without a fight.

    Umm, marriage kind of is religion-based. Why would you think you get to de-couple it from religion? You always have the option to not be married in a church, or to simply have a JP do the deed, but you're basically so rabid against religion that you think you can take marriage from religion?

    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bah. Marriage has always been more trouble than it was worth. I say do away with this gay marriage/straight marriage nonsense and reduce it to what it really is: a domestic legal agreement between two (or more!) parties concerning child rearing, taxes, and divorce agreements.
    So... marriage?

    This has never, ever been a politically viable approach. And there's no reason to switch to working towards this now when we've won. We're just waiting for it to wrap up.

    making the institution of marriage a legal one apparently dependent on two people willing to have sex with each other has always been a legal landmine that has done nothing good for society. It will continue to do harm as gay people enter into the lovely world of divorce settlements and botched prenuptials and ruined lives and careers based upon the erroneous decision to let a ritualistic procedure into the legal sphere. It's like fixing the Y2K bug by putting an asterisk next to year 2000+ entries. It's all well and good for the next thousand years but you know in 2999 we're going to start the whole process all over again.

    I dream of a world where people can get married any way they want and it means nothing legally to anyone but them. They can later after the reception go down to the notary's office and have a ritual signing of the form for a strengthened domestic partnership with all the traditional rights of what we used to call marriage if we really want, but they don't have to do it, and people too world weary to go through the cake and the speech and the ado can just sign it with no fuss and no social expectations. Ridiculous. Corporations don't need to jump through so many clownish hoops to get founded.
    So again... marriage?

    There is literally nothing stopping you from holding a religious marriage ceremony, and not electing to get legally married. Or vice-versa.

    Common law marriage, which was originally to protect the rights of women who'd been used by the men living with them and then left out to dry (since we all know women can't have real jobs and make money), does explicitly prevent long term cohabitation without the burdens of traditional marriage.

    What is this I don't even.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    making the institution of marriage a legal one apparently dependent on two people willing to have sex with each other has always been a legal landmine that has done nothing good for society. It will continue to do harm as gay people enter into the lovely world of divorce settlements and botched prenuptials and ruined lives and careers based upon the erroneous decision to let a ritualistic procedure into the legal sphere. It's like fixing the Y2K bug by putting an asterisk next to year 2000+ entries. It's all well and good for the next thousand years but you know in 2999 we're going to start the whole process all over again.

    I dream of a world where people can get married any way they want and it means nothing legally to anyone but them. They can later after the reception go down to the notary's office and have a ritual signing of the form for a strengthened domestic partnership with all the traditional rights of what we used to call marriage if we really want, but they don't have to do it, and people too world weary to go through the cake and the speech and the ado can just sign it with no fuss and no social expectations. Ridiculous. Corporations don't need to jump through so many clownish hoops to get founded.

    Again, republicans dropped the ball. what bigger encroachment of government on social freedoms is there than encouraging us to love a certain way and have a family a certain way? Pull them out. This, here, is where big government is making its most egregious encroachments, even to the financial ruin of many of its citizens, and yet the precise opposite position is taken. My teeth are gnashing.

    That's a separate fight for a separate time. If you think fundies got upset over Gay Marriage just wait until we try to de-couple marriage from religion. Remember, what sets the fundies off is anything that signals to them their culture is losing its status as dominant. Marriage is still probably the only event where you can be guaranteed to get a chance to get someone into a church in their lives so I doubt they'd want to ever give that up without a fight.

    Umm, marriage kind of is religion-based. Why would you think you get to de-couple it from religion? You always have the option to not be married in a church, or to simply have a JP do the deed, but you're basically so rabid against religion that you think you can take marriage from religion?

    On the contrary. Give marriage completely to religion. Break its umbilical chord with the state, leaving only the placenta of necessary legal agreements unrelated to ou social perception of marriage. Make marriage entirely a legally nonbinding spiritual affair, and if you want to make some legal agreements later that's your business. Don't call it marriage if you want to be anal about it.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Paladin, what you're proposing will be labeled as putting an end to marriage, and while pedantic it will be correct and whoever proposes it might as well resign because that's how politically suicidal it'd be.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • Mmmm... Cocks...Mmmm... Cocks... Registered User regular
    I have a question, whenever I read about the Chick-fil-a situation the articles always just say something vague like "they are donating money to anti-gay organizations."
    What the heck do these organization do?

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    making the institution of marriage a legal one apparently dependent on two people willing to have sex with each other has always been a legal landmine that has done nothing good for society. It will continue to do harm as gay people enter into the lovely world of divorce settlements and botched prenuptials and ruined lives and careers based upon the erroneous decision to let a ritualistic procedure into the legal sphere. It's like fixing the Y2K bug by putting an asterisk next to year 2000+ entries. It's all well and good for the next thousand years but you know in 2999 we're going to start the whole process all over again.

    I dream of a world where people can get married any way they want and it means nothing legally to anyone but them. They can later after the reception go down to the notary's office and have a ritual signing of the form for a strengthened domestic partnership with all the traditional rights of what we used to call marriage if we really want, but they don't have to do it, and people too world weary to go through the cake and the speech and the ado can just sign it with no fuss and no social expectations. Ridiculous. Corporations don't need to jump through so many clownish hoops to get founded.

    Again, republicans dropped the ball. what bigger encroachment of government on social freedoms is there than encouraging us to love a certain way and have a family a certain way? Pull them out. This, here, is where big government is making its most egregious encroachments, even to the financial ruin of many of its citizens, and yet the precise opposite position is taken. My teeth are gnashing.

    That's a separate fight for a separate time. If you think fundies got upset over Gay Marriage just wait until we try to de-couple marriage from religion. Remember, what sets the fundies off is anything that signals to them their culture is losing its status as dominant. Marriage is still probably the only event where you can be guaranteed to get a chance to get someone into a church in their lives so I doubt they'd want to ever give that up without a fight.

    Umm, marriage kind of is religion-based. Why would you think you get to de-couple it from religion? You always have the option to not be married in a church, or to simply have a JP do the deed, but you're basically so rabid against religion that you think you can take marriage from religion?

    So did people get married before Christianity or not?

    Do people in areas of the world where Christianity is irrelevant get married or not?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    Also, what if the gay couple is religious?

    Why can't they get a religious wedding?

This discussion has been closed.