Originally Posted by long island leprechaunOriginally Posted by 32green
Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-27-2013 at 05:20 PM.
Good. I believe that was everyone's point.My marriage as a personal relationship is not affected or reduced, let's get that straight.
I don't know what this means. That society somehow respects your marriage less? Leaving aside the question of why outsiders' views of your commitment to your wife is relevant to you, I will suggest that you are conflating two separate "marriage"s. First, you have your "marriage" as defined by your faith - as a covenant between a man and a woman, performed as a sacrament (if I understand the term correctly). Second, you have your federal- and state-recognized union, also called a "marriage", which brings with it certain legal benefits and obligations. Due to the fact that the state grants its status of "married" to people who get "married" according to the tenets of their faith (and file the necessary paperwork), and that they both use the same word to describe their unions, people tend to think that "civil marriage" and "religious marriage" are the same thing.Within the public institution of marriage, labelled as such, by having gays forcibly crowbar their way in to get the societal approval they crave, it certainly is diminished.
They are not.
As a matter of Jewish law, homosexuals cannot marry. New York's legalization of gay marriage cannot and does not change that. Nor does any Supreme Court decision or even Constitutional amendment. All legislatures, courts, and referenda can do is describe who is entitled to the bundle of rights and obligations that accompany civil marriage.
Thus, my homosexual friends who got married in Massachusetts a few years back are absolutely, 100% married. And at the same time, absolutely, 100% not married. All depending on whether I am talking about their status under civil law or under Jewish law.
That's not in any way anomolous or contradictory. By the same token, it's entirely possible to be 100% married as a matter of Jewish law and still single as a matter of civil law - either because you don't bother filing the paperwork upon getting married (in which case American law treats you as cohabiting singles) or because you don't get a religious divorce but get a civil divorce (in which case you remain married religiously but not civilly).
All of which is to say, there really are two unions being referenced in the word "marriage" - one religious, one civil. (For some, it's only one or the other; for you, as with me, it's obviously both).
Understanding that, how has the institution been affected? As a religious institution - and the social standing conferred on people who enter into it, by people who care about the religious institution - it hasn't changed at all.
Except "marriage" has nothing to do with "Natural Law" since it is a decidedly unnatural state; animals do not marry. It is unequivocally positive law - whether God-given or man-made.What are you talking, get a divorce because I cant tolerate...herf derf. That's a little dramatic even for you. I strenuously object to the term "marriage" being extended to gay civil unions, and the kicker is despite your anti-religious over-concern, it has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Try, Natural Law of a biological basis.
Not surprising, when you consider that for Americans, freedom is a critical value.In a crap economy with millions out of work the top priorities are somehow, Gay Marriage and Illegal Aliens.
Yes, they absolutely will. What won't be denied is their ability to rent non-religious institutions (like wedding halls) to host their events.If a wise path to satisfy all concerned is for states to call all marriages Civil Unions and have Church marriages be called Marriage you can bet, that Churches that do not do so currently will be forced to wed gays.
The Ken who wants to marry another Ken but have Barbie's dream wedding reception after Church will not be denied...
But the reality is that under the STATE, it's none of those things. It's a civil contract with a pre-set list of benefits and responsabillities, nothing more, nothing less.
The only solution under our our system is either no civil marriage at all or equal access to all under the law.
Agreed completely. But the reality is that gay couples are having and raising children too, regardless of the approval or lack thereof of others. Once again, we cannot provide state-based fiscal benefits to some, but not others, in this way.Yes I do believe the duties of good parenting are deserving of a lower tax rate, my expenses are greater, certainly the future is dependent on our issue growed up and payin the tab that all of societys burgeoning population of leeches (subtracting of course in utero murders) that accrue today.
Some could. Most can't. And they have the Law and the future of society on thier side, part of why this fight is so tacticly unsound to fight on to the end over politically.Can't people be happy with a certificate of companionship?
"equality under the law" is a two-sided sword some days, as it bars exactly the kind of selective judgement by the State that might occasionally be preferred by the majority of people.
Appreciated, but I am confident that there will ecentually be discovered a genetic trait that causes or at least facilitates gayness. And even if not, even if it's a choice, I see it as a form of mental dysfunction personally, albeit a rather mild and not-worth-treating one in an intelligent specieis such as ours.I dont really like your blind/disabled analogy to SSM and gayness though.
It victimizes gayness, something that pingpongs in the philosophy du jour between a choice and a hardwired state (cant be called a disease anymore but the physiognomical cause also can't be ever be analyzed, because then gayness could be corrected or eradicated, in that case it wont be a "choice" of something that is "good" as or "equal" to hetero-ness)
We disagree on gayness being a valid reason to restict rights, be it marriage or having kids. Unliek blindness and cars, there is (IMO) no valid cause to deny a person a civil contract or the right to have children simply for being gay.Where in contrast the truly disabled would probably never choose to be disabled, unless they disabled themselves purposely, and that was by a state of mental impairment/passion. (Cue your choice of fictional work of art here) Society sometimes logically understands the limits of disability, blind people don't get drivers licenses (yet) yet have jobs, can be married, have families, have access to the outside world, and yes even be gay.
Understandable position. They would argue "seperate but equal" is never equal, and that even the term must be equal to meet our Constituional mandates.Please, I'm not one of these all or nothing RR people who want to ban everything SSM related. Of course sodomy between consenting adults is legal. Not advocating benefits be taken from or not granted to same sex partners. Just dont like the label. See above. Youd think from the keening rhetoric that inheritance patnership rights and healthcare proxy could never be assigned without SSM-not so!
I agree completely, but it is certaily not limited to gays. I have hetero coworkers are are no less stridently up front about their sexuality. These are why we have workplace laws/rules about sexual harassment.You have to understand also, sometimes the scorched earth take no prisoners gay militancy is a bit much to take. I had a butch female co-worker who had no problems blabbing to everyone she met about how she was "married" to another lady (went up to MA to do so) and when giving presentations to customers (she was an expert in a certain IT/accounting related field) loved to prop up projectors with her dog-eared copy of "The Rubyfruit Jungle" with the title on the spine prominently displayed (yuck) Yep, you're gay, everyone in creation knows, we get it, now GTFO!
With that said, being proud and liking who you are is never really that wrong, is it?
I see your point of course, but the flaw in healthcare is not it's apparant abuse of faith (which is questionable to start) but the very basis of it at all, that the State should be forcing private individuals to buy something they demand we buy int he form they demand we buy it in. It fails my own test before it ever gets to churches.Gubmint power, you have "faith" in its limits, but B. Hussein and (D) could care what non-Muslim religious institutions yield to it. Clearly seen by the Catholic hospital contraception power play. My take, the Catholics should just bail out of the SP business even if that means a 20% minimum reduction in services and let the anti-Catholics / irreligious try an' fill the void. They don't need the $ or the persecution. But they have some genuine altruism so they won't.
I maintain that if (R) abandons opposition to gay rights, abortion (except late term/viable babies) and similar social issues, they would gain far more in voters aquired, than lose due to possible loss of social-based voters.Again, the last election should have been about the economy as #1 priority. IMO, Romney was scrupulously avoiding all social issues and limited conversation about them.
Yet, he was attacked on all fronts, social, economic, overtly, covertly, rightfully so in some instances, and outrageously falsely in others. (D) & the lib cheerleaders puzzled endlessly whether we could really have a Mormon in the WH (but we had (D) Senate majority leader Mormon Reid, no problem), war against women, oh dont forget Illegals, neer mind theyre unskilled, depress wages...
I could always be wrong, but I think more folks would vote "free market and freedom" over "socialism and wealth redistribution" if large and powerful single-issue blocks like abortion and gay rights were off the table as an issue.
Always a possabillity.Took the high road like a big dope and now the country has to plod along, in general, at 0-1% growth for another 3+ years. Oh well. At least we can look forward to B. Hussein's eldest daughter in Maxim or some such afore we know it. Maybe even out and about as a GLBT American.
Clearly it works.Oh yes. The question about social issues. (D) playbook: Divide, conquer. Discard the stepping stones to power when no longer needed (e.g. Blue Dog (D) dupes for 0-care; (D) White Ethnics)) Split (R) along racial/ethnic/gender/sexuality/religious/age fault lines, lying at all times (The "benefits" of illegals becoming insta-citizens and the imaginary back taxes owed windfall)
We on the right are divided, aren't we?
I was thinking also about the greatest warrior of all -- Achilles -- who had his male lover Patrochlus, as well as his concubines. Those Greeks. Romans had their share too. Spartans? Even the women were men .
Agreed.I maintain that if (R) abandons opposition to gay rights, abortion (except late term/viable babies) and similar social issues, they would gain far more in voters aquired, than lose due to possible loss of social-based voters.
And agreed. Vehemently.I could always be wrong, but I think more folks would vote "free market and freedom" over "socialism and wealth redistribution" if large and powerful single-issue blocks like abortion and gay rights were off the table as an issue.
It is truly sad to see what was a great country slide head first into the gutter.
You either have to go with the bible or not.
Organized religion blows, just like anything humans are involved in. Skip the middle man.
Its mindless entertainment to escape the real world for a bit and shut down the brain....is watching football any different?
We watched the Brady Bunch, The Love Boat and Fantasy Island...not exactly Mensa material.
We tend to lump kids into what we see on TV or the web. They are better than that.