| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Martin Kess" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2006 03:36:07 AM |
| Object: |
Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
There's a lot of debate on the gay marriage issue. No matter what,
you're always going to have the fundies who hate everyone, but talking
to people, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of opposition
is not to the legal benefits, but rather to the word marriage. A lot of
you know this - there's been some debate about whether or not it would
be okay to call a heterosexual marriage a 'marriage' and a homosexual
one something else (South Park suggests 'Butt Buddies') with the same
legal benefits, which a number of people who are in opposition to
marriage agree with. Opponants to this say that it is in itself
discrimination, which I would be inclined to agree with.
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition,
and make it a purely religious one? Instead, people who wish to get
married would have to go through the legal process of filing for a
government recognized civil union (which could even be a contract of
sorts), and then they could go to the institution of their choice for
the ceremony and the religious side of it (or not, if they choose). Put
a grandfather clause on old marriages, and it seems like it's a simple
solution to something that really shouldn't be a problem to begin with.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
13 Jun 2006 10:23:13 AM |
|
|
"Martin Kess" <MartinKess@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150187767.139099.118600
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition,
and make it a purely religious one?
Because there are millions of people in the USA alone that have no use for
religion, that's why.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
The laws that require me to NOT kill people I don't like REALLY bug
me, or there would be many less of YOUR kind.
-John Weatherly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "King Nintendoid" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
13 Jun 2006 05:15:21 AM |
|
|
Martin Kess wrote:
There's a lot of debate on the gay marriage issue. No matter what,
you're always going to have the fundies who hate everyone, but talking
to people, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of opposition
is not to the legal benefits, but rather to the word marriage. A lot of
you know this - there's been some debate about whether or not it would
be okay to call a heterosexual marriage a 'marriage' and a homosexual
one something else (South Park suggests 'Butt Buddies') with the same
legal benefits, which a number of people who are in opposition to
marriage agree with. Opponants to this say that it is in itself
discrimination, which I would be inclined to agree with.
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition,
and make it a purely religious one? Instead, people who wish to get
married would have to go through the legal process of filing for a
government recognized civil union (which could even be a contract of
sorts), and then they could go to the institution of their choice for
the ceremony and the religious side of it (or not, if they choose). Put
a grandfather clause on old marriages, and it seems like it's a simple
solution to something that really shouldn't be a problem to begin with.
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage. If
you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you have a
civil marriage. Those who push to ban gay marriage seem to forget this.
Sure, moronic churches can refuse to marry gay people, but I still do
not see how a civil thing such as marriage can be regulated with a
religious intent. Marriage is a legal thing, not a religious thing.
Hence, this means the fundies have to shut up.
Though bringing up banning marriage altogether usually silences people
who nag about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
13 Jun 2006 11:35:18 AM |
|
|
"King Nintendoid" <kingnintendoid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150193721.226165.218170@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Kess wrote:
There's a lot of debate on the gay marriage issue. No matter what,
you're always going to have the fundies who hate everyone, but talking
to people, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of opposition
is not to the legal benefits, but rather to the word marriage. A lot of
you know this - there's been some debate about whether or not it would
be okay to call a heterosexual marriage a 'marriage' and a homosexual
one something else (South Park suggests 'Butt Buddies') with the same
legal benefits, which a number of people who are in opposition to
marriage agree with. Opponants to this say that it is in itself
discrimination, which I would be inclined to agree with.
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition,
and make it a purely religious one? Instead, people who wish to get
married would have to go through the legal process of filing for a
government recognized civil union (which could even be a contract of
sorts), and then they could go to the institution of their choice for
the ceremony and the religious side of it (or not, if they choose). Put
a grandfather clause on old marriages, and it seems like it's a simple
solution to something that really shouldn't be a problem to begin with.
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage. If
you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you have a
civil marriage.
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but that's not the
case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church ten years ago and I can
assure you that I'm legally married.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
13 Jun 2006 06:23:20 PM |
|
|
In article <4f87kjF1hkqegU1@individual.net> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"King Nintendoid" <kingnintendoid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150193721.226165.218170@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Kess wrote:
There's a lot of debate on the gay marriage issue. No matter what,
you're always going to have the fundies who hate everyone, but talking
to people, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of opposition
is not to the legal benefits, but rather to the word marriage. A lot of
you know this - there's been some debate about whether or not it would
be okay to call a heterosexual marriage a 'marriage' and a homosexual
one something else (South Park suggests 'Butt Buddies') with the same
legal benefits, which a number of people who are in opposition to
marriage agree with. Opponants to this say that it is in itself
discrimination, which I would be inclined to agree with.
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition,
and make it a purely religious one? Instead, people who wish to get
married would have to go through the legal process of filing for a
government recognized civil union (which could even be a contract of
sorts), and then they could go to the institution of their choice for
the ceremony and the religious side of it (or not, if they choose). Put
a grandfather clause on old marriages, and it seems like it's a simple
solution to something that really shouldn't be a problem to begin with.
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage. If
you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you have a
civil marriage.
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but that's not the
case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church ten years ago and I can
assure you that I'm legally married.
You were?
Keeping peace in the family, I presume?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
14 Jun 2006 08:58:43 AM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:e6nhd8$9r5$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <4f87kjF1hkqegU1@individual.net> "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com>
snip
]>>
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but that's not
the
case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church ten years ago and I
can
assure you that I'm legally married.
You were?
Yep
Keeping peace in the family, I presume?
You presume correct :P
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
13 Jun 2006 06:15:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:35:18 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> in news message
<4f87kjF1hkqegU1@individual.net> wrote:
"King Nintendoid" <kingnintendoid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150193721.226165.218170@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Kess wrote:
There's a lot of debate on the gay marriage issue. No matter what,
you're always going to have the fundies who hate everyone, but talking
to people, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of opposition
is not to the legal benefits, but rather to the word marriage. A lot of
you know this - there's been some debate about whether or not it would
be okay to call a heterosexual marriage a 'marriage' and a homosexual
one something else (South Park suggests 'Butt Buddies') with the same
legal benefits, which a number of people who are in opposition to
marriage agree with. Opponants to this say that it is in itself
discrimination, which I would be inclined to agree with.
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition,
and make it a purely religious one? Instead, people who wish to get
married would have to go through the legal process of filing for a
government recognized civil union (which could even be a contract of
sorts), and then they could go to the institution of their choice for
the ceremony and the religious side of it (or not, if they choose). Put
a grandfather clause on old marriages, and it seems like it's a simple
solution to something that really shouldn't be a problem to begin with.
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage. If
you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you have a
civil marriage.
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but that's not the
case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church ten years ago and I can
assure you that I'm legally married.
You had to have had a marriage license from the state. Otherwise, it
isn't legal.
If you were married in a strictly religious ceremony with no license,
you aren't really married no matter what words the priest incants over
you.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
14 Jun 2006 08:58:00 AM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:afhu82lstb3sdukkb9u1p763akdddurqpn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:35:18 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> in news message
<4f87kjF1hkqegU1@individual.net> wrote:
"King Nintendoid" <kingnintendoid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150193721.226165.218170@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Kess wrote:
There's a lot of debate on the gay marriage issue. No matter what,
you're always going to have the fundies who hate everyone, but talking
to people, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of opposition
is not to the legal benefits, but rather to the word marriage. A lot of
you know this - there's been some debate about whether or not it would
be okay to call a heterosexual marriage a 'marriage' and a homosexual
one something else (South Park suggests 'Butt Buddies') with the same
legal benefits, which a number of people who are in opposition to
marriage agree with. Opponants to this say that it is in itself
discrimination, which I would be inclined to agree with.
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition,
and make it a purely religious one? Instead, people who wish to get
married would have to go through the legal process of filing for a
government recognized civil union (which could even be a contract of
sorts), and then they could go to the institution of their choice for
the ceremony and the religious side of it (or not, if they choose). Put
a grandfather clause on old marriages, and it seems like it's a simple
solution to something that really shouldn't be a problem to begin with.
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage. If
you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you have a
civil marriage.
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but that's not
the
case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church ten years ago and I
can
assure you that I'm legally married.
You had to have had a marriage license from the state. Otherwise, it
isn't legal.
Well, true, I did have to get that. Just didn't have to have a civil
ceremony as well.
If you were married in a strictly religious ceremony with no license,
you aren't really married no matter what words the priest incants over
you.
Agreed. I just didn't have a "civil marriage" - Just a license.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
13 Jun 2006 06:37:33 PM |
|
|
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in
news:afhu82lstb3sdukkb9u1p763akdddurqpn@4ax.com:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:35:18 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> in news message
<4f87kjF1hkqegU1@individual.net> wrote:
"King Nintendoid" <kingnintendoid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150193721.226165.218170@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Kess wrote:
There's a lot of debate on the gay marriage issue. No matter what,
you're always going to have the fundies who hate everyone, but
talking to people, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of
opposition is not to the legal benefits, but rather to the word
marriage. A lot of you know this - there's been some debate about
whether or not it would be okay to call a heterosexual marriage a
'marriage' and a homosexual one something else (South Park suggests
'Butt Buddies') with the same legal benefits, which a number of
people who are in opposition to marriage agree with. Opponants to
this say that it is in itself discrimination, which I would be
inclined to agree with.
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal
definition, and make it a purely religious one? Instead, people who
wish to get married would have to go through the legal process of
filing for a government recognized civil union (which could even be
a contract of sorts), and then they could go to the institution of
their choice for the ceremony and the religious side of it (or not,
if they choose). Put a grandfather clause on old marriages, and it
seems like it's a simple solution to something that really
shouldn't be a problem to begin with.
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage. If
you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you have a
civil marriage.
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but that's
not the case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church ten years
ago and I can assure you that I'm legally married.
You had to have had a marriage license from the state. Otherwise, it
isn't legal.
If you were married in a strictly religious ceremony with no license,
you aren't really married no matter what words the priest incants over
you.
Or if the priest forgot to sign the license, or forgot to file it properly
(and there's generally a time limit). (This came up recently in the news.)
The religious ceremony is laregly meaningless, legally.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
13 Jun 2006 06:44:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:37:33 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in news message
<Xns97E1A91BF6E94taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in
news:afhu82lstb3sdukkb9u1p763akdddurqpn@4ax.com:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:35:18 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> in news message
<4f87kjF1hkqegU1@individual.net> wrote:
"King Nintendoid" <kingnintendoid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150193721.226165.218170@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[----]
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage. If
you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you have a
civil marriage.
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but that's
not the case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church ten years
ago and I can assure you that I'm legally married.
You had to have had a marriage license from the state. Otherwise, it
isn't legal.
If you were married in a strictly religious ceremony with no license,
you aren't really married no matter what words the priest incants over
you.
Or if the priest forgot to sign the license, or forgot to file it properly
(and there's generally a time limit). (This came up recently in the news.)
Oopsie! Was it for just one couple, or did the officiant "forget" for
everyone he supposedly married?
The religious ceremony is laregly meaningless, legally.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
14 Jun 2006 09:00:15 AM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:14ju825g5uu96u1fm06giulrvikro215ho@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:37:33 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in news message
<Xns97E1A91BF6E94taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in
news:afhu82lstb3sdukkb9u1p763akdddurqpn@4ax.com:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:35:18 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> in news message
<4f87kjF1hkqegU1@individual.net> wrote:
"King Nintendoid" <kingnintendoid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150193721.226165.218170@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[----]
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage. If
you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you have a
civil marriage.
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but that's
not the case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church ten years
ago and I can assure you that I'm legally married.
You had to have had a marriage license from the state. Otherwise, it
isn't legal.
If you were married in a strictly religious ceremony with no license,
you aren't really married no matter what words the priest incants over
you.
Or if the priest forgot to sign the license, or forgot to file it properly
(and there's generally a time limit). (This came up recently in the news.)
Oopsie! Was it for just one couple, or did the officiant "forget" for
everyone he supposedly married?
Interesting - I have a copy of my marriage license and the priest didn't
have to sign it. Just my husband, myself and my maid-of-honor as our
witness. The church had to have a copy of it, but that's all.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
17 Jun 2006 01:06:37 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in
news:4faitrF1hkc42U1@individual.net:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:14ju825g5uu96u1fm06giulrvikro215ho@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:37:33 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in news message
<Xns97E1A91BF6E94taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in
news:afhu82lstb3sdukkb9u1p763akdddurqpn@4ax.com:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:35:18 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> in news message
<4f87kjF1hkqegU1@individual.net> wrote:
"King Nintendoid" <kingnintendoid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150193721.226165.218170@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[----]
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage.
If you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you
have a civil marriage.
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but
that's not the case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church
ten years ago and I can assure you that I'm legally married.
You had to have had a marriage license from the state. Otherwise,
it isn't legal.
If you were married in a strictly religious ceremony with no
license, you aren't really married no matter what words the priest
incants over you.
Or if the priest forgot to sign the license, or forgot to file it
properly (and there's generally a time limit). (This came up recently
in the news.)
Oopsie! Was it for just one couple, or did the officiant "forget"
for everyone he supposedly married?
Interesting - I have a copy of my marriage license and the priest
didn't have to sign it. Just my husband, myself and my maid-of-honor
as our witness. The church had to have a copy of it, but that's all.
Varies *a lot* by state.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
14 Jun 2006 12:08:42 AM |
|
|
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in
news:14ju825g5uu96u1fm06giulrvikro215ho@4ax.com:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:37:33 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> in news message
<Xns97E1A91BF6E94taustingmail@216.168.3.64> wrote:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in
news:afhu82lstb3sdukkb9u1p763akdddurqpn@4ax.com:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:35:18 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> in news message
<4f87kjF1hkqegU1@individual.net> wrote:
"King Nintendoid" <kingnintendoid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150193721.226165.218170@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[----]
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage.
If you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you
have a civil marriage.
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but that's
not the case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church ten
years ago and I can assure you that I'm legally married.
You had to have had a marriage license from the state. Otherwise,
it isn't legal.
If you were married in a strictly religious ceremony with no
license, you aren't really married no matter what words the priest
incants over you.
Or if the priest forgot to sign the license, or forgot to file it
properly (and there's generally a time limit). (This came up recently
in the news.)
Oopsie! Was it for just one couple, or did the officiant "forget" for
everyone he supposedly married?
It was a bunch. IIRC, the particular issue was an unusually short time
limit on filing the license with the state.
--
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
14 Jun 2006 03:15:52 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:15:43 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> typed
furiously:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:35:18 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> in news message
<4f87kjF1hkqegU1@individual.net> wrote:
"King Nintendoid" <kingnintendoid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150193721.226165.218170@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Kess wrote:
There's a lot of debate on the gay marriage issue. No matter what,
you're always going to have the fundies who hate everyone, but talking
to people, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of opposition
is not to the legal benefits, but rather to the word marriage. A lot of
you know this - there's been some debate about whether or not it would
be okay to call a heterosexual marriage a 'marriage' and a homosexual
one something else (South Park suggests 'Butt Buddies') with the same
legal benefits, which a number of people who are in opposition to
marriage agree with. Opponants to this say that it is in itself
discrimination, which I would be inclined to agree with.
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition,
and make it a purely religious one? Instead, people who wish to get
married would have to go through the legal process of filing for a
government recognized civil union (which could even be a contract of
sorts), and then they could go to the institution of their choice for
the ceremony and the religious side of it (or not, if they choose). Put
a grandfather clause on old marriages, and it seems like it's a simple
solution to something that really shouldn't be a problem to begin with.
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage. If
you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you have a
civil marriage.
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but that's not the
case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church ten years ago and I can
assure you that I'm legally married.
You had to have had a marriage license from the state. Otherwise, it
isn't legal.
The marriage celebrant also has to be licensed to perform marriages I
believe.
--
David
At the bottom of the application where it says
"sign here". I put "Sagittarius"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
14 Jun 2006 09:07:06 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:35:18 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
There is a problem with this: religious marriage is not marriage. If
you marry in a church, you are not legally married untill you have a
civil marriage.
I know that's the case in some countries (i.e., Germany), but that's not the
case in the US. I was married in a Catholic church ten years ago and I can
assure you that I'm legally married.
That is because there is no separation between state and church in the
colonies. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
13 Jun 2006 11:33:18 AM |
|
|
Martin Kess:
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition,
and make it a purely religious one?
Aaaw, come on, you know that the fundie anencephalos crowd would then claim
that _not_ calling a heterosexual couple "married" after the appropriate
ceremony is an insult to the heavenly sadist blah yadda. ;)
I'm sure you already know that, so I repeat this just for the fencesitters,
some of them might have just recently joined the melee:
Fundies aren't content before _any and all opposition_ is extinguished. Only
then can they hope to live in their mad fantasy world without annoying
attacks of reason and logic.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
18 Jun 2006 04:02:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:33:18 +0200, "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"
<MAILTOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in alt.atheism
Martin Kess:
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition,
and make it a purely religious one?
Aaaw, come on, you know that the fundie anencephalos crowd would then claim
that _not_ calling a heterosexual couple "married" after the appropriate
ceremony is an insult to the heavenly sadist blah yadda. ;)
I'm sure you already know that, so I repeat this just for the fencesitters,
some of them might have just recently joined the melee:
Fundies aren't content before _any and all opposition_ is extinguished. Only
then can they hope to live in their mad fantasy world without annoying
attacks of reason and logic.
Then they'll focus on slaughtering all other sects and brands.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Ban (gay and otherwise) marriage |
13 Jun 2006 06:01:54 AM |
|
|
On 13 Jun 2006 01:36:07 -0700, "Martin Kess" <MartinKess@gmail.com> in
news message <1150187767.139099.118600@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
There's a lot of debate on the gay marriage issue. No matter what,
you're always going to have the fundies who hate everyone, but talking
to people, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of opposition
is not to the legal benefits, but rather to the word marriage. A lot of
you know this - there's been some debate about whether or not it would
be okay to call a heterosexual marriage a 'marriage' and a homosexual
one something else (South Park suggests 'Butt Buddies') with the same
legal benefits, which a number of people who are in opposition to
marriage agree with. Opponants to this say that it is in itself
discrimination, which I would be inclined to agree with.
So why not just get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition,
and make it a purely religious one? Instead, people who wish to get
married would have to go through the legal process of filing for a
government recognized civil union (which could even be a contract of
sorts), and then they could go to the institution of their choice for
the ceremony and the religious side of it (or not, if they choose).
That's what marriage is now, a civil union recognized by the state.
The marriage ceremony need not be at all religious and can be
performed by a judge, or a mayor, or other civil official. If you are
simply "married" by a religious ceremony, it doesn't count as far as
the government is concerned. You need a license and proper
registration for a marriage to be legal.
The name doesn't need to be changed because nothing will be changed
under your scenario. The religious people can change the name of
their ceremony to a Matrimonial Blessing or Sexual Covenant or
anything else they wish as it won't, and it doesn't now, make any
difference to the government whether the marriage was conducted by a
priest, a minister, or a non-religious person.
Religions think they "own" marriage, but actually the state
governments (US) "bless" all unions.
Put
a grandfather clause on old marriages, and it seems like it's a simple
solution to something that really shouldn't be a problem to begin with.
You don't need to grandfather older marriages. They have been
licensed by the state for some time now.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
