The fact that I didn't know what SPD and KPML-r were means nothing. I know the difference between socialism and communism...and I disagree with both of them.
Frankly, I don't see what your point is here, ShadowTemplar, besides some lame attempt at a personal attack.
The fact that I didn't know what SPD and KPML-r were means nothing. I know the difference between socialism and communism...and I disagree with both of them.
Frankly, I don't see what your point is here, ShadowTemplar, besides some lame attempt at a personal attack.
My point here is that you are in no position to criticise Keynesian economic theory, socialism, social democracy, or welfare systems, since you manifestly know next to nothing about any of them and readily conflate them with communism. That you fail to recognise the name of the second-largest party (actually the largest and the one heading the executive before the recent elections) of your home country's third-most important ally for the past 60 years is also telling...
The current American regime thrives on gullibility and willful ignorance. The regime relies on people to take no independent interest whatsoever in history, foreign affairs, (geo)politics, science, and culture, leaving them completely unable to critically analyse the 'news and views' that are being spoon-fed from TV screens and pulpits. That's not democracy. That's theocracy.
All I said was that I disagree with Communism, which is inherently atheistic (it was, after all, a religious discussion). To infer from that one statement that I am criticizing 'Keynesian economic theory, socialism, social democracy, or welfare systems' makes absolutely no sense. So go ahead, prattle on with your patheticly arrogant & nonsensical artuments - I'm beginning to enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself.
No, this is not a religious discussion - it's a discussion on homosexuality. Discussing religion and homosexuality is fine enough - going from homosexuality to communism trough religion isn't. My two cents:p.
All I said was that I disagree with Communism, which is inherently atheistic
Indeed, my point was that it was inherently religious...
All I said was that I disagree with Communism, [...] To infer from that one statement that I am criticizing 'Keynesian economic theory, socialism, social democracy, or welfare systems' makes absolutely no sense.
I quote:
I know the difference between socialism and communism...and I disagree with both of them.
That's the second time in what? a week? that I've caught you in an outright lie.
That's the real wonderful thing about written debates. Catching lies and backpedaling is soo much easier - and you can refute point by point the propaganda that talking heads spew in a way simply not possible in oral debates.
Well... to be honest I don't see any connection between socialism or communism to homosexuality... :p
Not to mention StaffSaberist's tech problems and homosexuality;).
But StaffSaberist's tech problems and communism? Oh dear... :scared:
What do my ex-tech problems have to do with communism? I'm not a commie just because I blew my computer into the skies. :) Oh, BTW, I'm up and sprinting again. :D
Simple and quick:
Gays deserve equal treatment. Except for those really ugly fat chicks.
Also, I beleive christianity is an out-dated paganistic religion. Don't argue with me, it's true.
Also, I beleive christianity is an out-dated paganistic religion. Don't argue with me, it's true.
That's not the subject of this thread. Please don't open up that con of worms in here.
*Adds DF to list of people Staffy tries to avoid*
I dislike conflict of that sort...
Don't argue with me...
Telling someone not to argue with you is also defeating the whole purpose of having this particular forum in the first place. :dozey:
Every one of the debates that happen here could be seriously shortened if we could all invoke the "Don't argue with me!" command. It sure would make things a lot easier...
Yeah, homosexuality is wrong. Don't argue with me.
http://lucasforums.com/images/smilies/dozey.gif)
j/k...
Hello.
I'm new here, but I've been reading through this thread a bit. (Actually I've been signed up for months, but I forgot that I signed up, heh).
I must say that I really enjoy threads like this, because it shows that we people CAN talk about a controversial issue without biting each other's heads off.
Here's my own two cents on the whole topic. I honestly don't care what anyone does. Hey, it's their life. They have the right to live out their life in any way they chose.
Of course, the Bible states clearly what God thinks of homosexuality, but I also know that God gave mankind the freedom of choice.
So, anyone can choose whatever lifestyle they want to live.
But, I think that people should get their priorities straight when they get after people for being "intolerant bigots". People should not treat gay people badly just because they are gay, true. But, there are many forms of bigotry.
Should someone treat someone badly because they believe in God? No. Should someone treat someone badly because of their skin color, or because they have an accent? No.
People can be "intolerant bigots" of just about anything.
But... I am probably starting to wander off the topic a bit. Pardon me, I just had to chime in with my two cents.
Also I'm not feeling well today, so I hope this post came out okay.
I feel once more compelled to put forward the (seemingly rare and unusual) argument that since marriage in general is an outmoded concept, and that two people should not be entitled to any special status nor financial support from the state in return for merely co-habiting, same-sex marriages - and their more bourgeois cousins, civil partnerships - should indeed be outlawed.
Along with vanilla marriage.
And marriage 'twixt man and sports bag.
Marriage is pointless. It provides no benefit to society. In this era of quickie divorce it imparts no extra stability to a relationship. If two people decide to live together, fine... But ritual consecrations of this ilk are completely futile and neanderthal.
Secondly I feel compelled to note once again the fact that while homosexuality is not morally reprehensible, (provided both parties are consenting and neither one of those parties is ME,) it is important to remember that it is merely a form of sexual fetishism, no more "natural" than wanting to hump a sports bag, and no less "natural" than say... an unusual predeliction for oral sex.
When one recognises this, one starts to wonder why many homosexual activists feel the need to publicise their sexual preference in the mass media. Should anyone care? Should we be watching more important things? Is one's sexual preference something to bandy about? "Gay Pride" rallies. What's all that about? Is it something to be "proud" of? Let's examine the reverse. Should I be "proud" that I spend most of my time lusting after females? I mean, I understand the backlash against oppression and all that, but it's been some time since homosexuality was illegal. Time to give it a rest.
And also it's distressing that so many homosexuals define themselves by their sexual preference. We as human beings should not be defined by what arouses us sexually, we have so much more to offer the world. And so many more important things to occupy our time.
But it is in the nature of ignorant humanity to form a club or a clique, and to derive short-sighted psychological strength from a uniform, a badge... or a huge Freddy Mercury moustache and biker-hat. It's all the same drab, depressing elitism. Without something to fight for or against, I doubt the activists would be able to maintain their ever-present sence of righteous indignation... and superiority.
Marriage is pointless. It provides no benefit to society. In this era of quickie divorce it imparts no extra stability to a relationship. If two people decide to live together, fine... But ritual consecrations of this ilk are completely futile and neanderthal.While it's not exactly beneficial to society, here in the U.S we can get a tax break when we get married. That's the only practical reason I can think of though...
Holy ****, Spider's back! :)
Marriage is pointless. It provides no benefit to society. In this era of quickie divorce it imparts no extra stability to a relationship. If two people decide to live together, fine... But ritual consecrations of this ilk are completely futile and neanderthal.
This seems to have no impact on the subject. It seems you're arguing that formal marriage (recognized by the state) should be done away with... that would mean that straight marriages would be done away with as well. Otherwise it's hypocritical to allow the majority of people to marry and not a minority, just because of how you feel about marriage.
it is important to remember that it is merely a form of sexual fetishism, no more "natural" than wanting to hump a sports bag, and no less "natural" than say... an unusual predeliction for oral sex.
Okay then... well I merely have a form of sexual fetishism for the female gender. As do you I assume.
When one recognises this, one starts to wonder why many homosexual activists feel the need to publicise their sexual preference in the mass media. Should anyone care? Should we be watching more important things? Is one's sexual preference something to bandy about? "Gay Pride" rallies. What's all that about? Is it something to be "proud" of? Let's examine the reverse. Should I be "proud" that I spend most of my time lusting after females? I mean, I understand the backlash against oppression and all that, but it's been some time since homosexuality was illegal. Time to give it a rest.
Well it's hard to fight for your civil rights when you're in the closet.
And also it's distressing that so many homosexuals define themselves by their sexual preference. We as human beings should not be defined by what arouses us sexually, we have so much more to offer the world. And so many more important things to occupy our time.
This is something I will agree with you on...
Originally Posted by TK-8252:
Holy ****, Spider's back!
WHERE? :eyeraise:
Originally Posted by TK-8252:
that would mean that straight marriages would be done away with as well.
I said precisely that, in my original post. You missed it, apparently. "along with vanilla marriage" was the term, I believe.
Originally Posted by TK-8252:
Okay then... well I merely have a form of sexual fetishism for the female gender. As do you I assume.
Not quite. Sexual fetishism implies a fixation on (sexualisation of) a non-genital (non sexual) portion of the anatomy, or an object. i.e: the feet, or a plush toy. Something, in other words, outside the general accepted norm. Once again, nothing WRONG in this, but nothing particularly worthy of praise or interest, either.
Originally Posted by TK-8252:
Well it's hard to fight for your civil rights when you're in the closet.
In my country at least, homosexual people have all the rights they need. All the rights I enjoy, they enjoy. And some extra ones. Now it's time for them to stop blithering on about what they enjoy in the sack, no? :)
I said precisely that, in my original post. You missed it, apparently. "along with vanilla marriage" was the term, I believe.
I wasn't quite sure what you meant with "vanilla" marriage... heh.
In my country at least, homosexual people have all the rights they need. All the rights I enjoy, they enjoy. And some extra ones. Now it's time for them to stop blithering on about what they enjoy in the sack, no? :)
Not sure what country you're in, because gays don't have any "extra" rights in the U.S. that's for sure. They can't even adopt kids in many states. How the hell does that make any friggin' sense...
Not sure what country you're in, because gays don't have any "extra" rights in the U.S. that's for sure.
Look at the way I spell. Can you be in any doubt as to the nation of my origin?
Colour. Scones. Cup o' tea. FOOTBALL!!!11 (Soccer.)
Can't comment on the US. But in the UK, there have been recent rumblings regarding the preferential treatment given to sexual minorities by our law enforcement system. The concept of the "hate crime" is of dubious worth, and when employed by the judiciary it can give rise to injustice.
There have been several instances of reverse discrimination/political correctness in my own nation that have really hit the boundary of good taste. I can recall with some accuracy a recent case where an elderly couple in Lancashire were interrogated in their own home by the police for over an hour, after they complained to their local government about homosexual literature being placed in their local civic centres. Apparently the local council had reported a possible "hate crime" to the police, and the police went round to their house to strong-arm them for a while.
If activists had a right to post flyers and leaflets promoting their particular brand of fetishism, It was, in my opinion, the elderly couple's sovereign right to publically respond, expressing their disapproval.
In my nation, people who in the old days might have been considered "normal" now have fewer rights to free expression than those who might have been considered "abnormal". One cannot offend minorities now, no matter how they may offend one.
Inequality is what I disagree with, in the strongest terms. "Positive" discrimination is just that, discrimination. It was never positive, it never will be.
In the UK i think they have pretty much done away with any tax breaks or other advantages you get for being married.
However I don't think homosexuals were ever camourng to get married because of tax breaks.. it was probably more about love... and the rights over dependents/next of kin that can be very important when someone is close to death.
I don't think that marriage is outmoded... and i'm very liberal... i think that stable relationships can be very beneficial to society and to children. Thats probably why they have been pushed so hard by religious leaders for so long.
The only thing that is outmoded is the narrow definition of marriage... and as far as i know gay marriages are now legal in the UK.. at least to some extent.
Lots of people claim that this somehow undermines marriage... but i don't get that at all... surely it adds MORE stable relationships which helps have a more stable society and if anything it makes marriage seem more desirable to everyone.
The main flaw with most agruments about marriage is that people erroneously link marriage with religion. Marriage is a civil status, not a religious one. It existed before judaism absorbed it into religion and it just confuses matters to think of it in religious terms.
Many people who marry never go near a church, aren't religious, are of differing religions, only go to church just for marriage etc... In that situation its daft that one religious institution should have any say over the rules that govern a practice that is far wider than itself.
Originally Posted by toms:
In the UK i think they have pretty much done away with any tax breaks or other advantages you get for being married.That is not quite correct. While many tax breaks have been scrapped since 2000, there are still financial advantages to be gained from marrying, as evinced by the following three informational pages and news reports:
http://money.scotsman.com/scotsman/articles/articledisplay.jsp?article_id=2071256§ion=Home&prependForce=SM_) - Paragraph 11 onwards.
http://www.pinkproducts.co.uk/civilpartnershipsadvice.htm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4491620.stm)
This, in my view, is not good. Co-habiting with someone should be a choice you make based solely on your relationship with them. Any financial perks will merely encourage marriages of convenience. On the flipside of that coin, I don't think people deserve any financial assistance for choosing to co-habit. I mean... why? Why should Mr & Mrs Joe Schmo down the street receive any monetary perks that I don't receive as a single person? Or that unmarried couples don't receive? The answer is: They shouldn't. There's no moral reason why they should.
Originally Posted by toms:
I don't think that marriage is outmoded... and i'm very liberal... i think that stable relationships can be very beneficial to society and to children.A registrar, a priest, a rabbi or a sea-captain waving their hands over you as you snog your partner isn't going to make your relationship any more stable than it was before. Ceremony is merely that, brief ceremony, and the relationship will succeed or fail based not on the outmoded concept of "married vs. unmarried", but on whether the partners want to be with each other over an extended period of time.
Marriage is totally outdated, a ritual, a state-sanctioned ritual mind you, that encourages people to swear undying loyalty... while the same state makes it fairly simple to divorce. What does this promote, other than the regular breaking of vows? Oaths used to be important. Now they're cheapened every day of the week. Rather scrap the whole idea of marriage and stop people making fools of themselves.
Those who love each other will remain together regardless of the approval of the state or their church. Marriage is irrelevant to them. ;)
Originally Posted by toms:
The main flaw with most agruments about marriage is that people erroneously link marriage with religion. Marriage is a civil status, not a religious one. It existed before judaism absorbed it into religion and it just confuses matters to think of it in religious terms.Marriage may be recognised by the state, but the ceremony of the thing, the rings, the socially accepted standard of one partner changing their surname... it's all derivative of religion in general, and superstitious ritual in general. Regardless of the sanction of the state, this sort of thing should not be encouraged. It's a throwback.
As regards homosexual marriage specifically, Peter Tatchell, the well-known homosexual activist, made an interesting point about gays lobbying for better treatment in the military some years ago. He said that despite a general desire for equality with straight people, perhaps homosexuals shouldn't be lobbying to join the army, since the army is an amoral, violent and outdated institution that commits war crimes with startling regularity. By campaigning for the right to join the armed forces, perhaps homosexuals were not being as forward-thinking, enlightened or LIBERAL, as they should be, considering their background.
Perhaps that argument also applies to marriage.
I don't believe that... I think most people view marriage as a serious commitment... I'm certainly viewing it like that.. I don't believe in the idea of divorce, and I don't think my wife will either. We're stuck together for life, basically.
but the ceremony of the thing, the rings, the socially accepted standard of one partner changing their surname... it's all derivative of religion in general, and superstitious ritual in general. Regardless of the sanction of the state, this sort of thing should not be encouraged. It's a throwback.
The rings date back to the Greeks, who found a thin "nerve" leading from the ring finger on the left hand to the heart. The ring is a symbol of this connection. Pretty sure it has nothing to do with religion..
Ah, this appears to be incorrect. According to these sources, the Egyptians made the first wedding bands:
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-History-of-Engagement-Rings-and-Wedding-Bands&id=24579)
http://www.atlantisring.com/History_of_Wedding_Rings.htm)
http://www.weddinggazette.com/content/004566.shtml)
(The above source corroberates your reasoning behind it, but it's actually the Egyptians, not the Greeks)
I agree that the wedding rings/bands have no bearing on religion; there's no problem in my book with atheists marrying.
Before medical science discovered how the circulatory system functioned, people believed that a vein of blood ran directly from the fourth finger on the left hand to the heart. (This belief allegedly dates to the 3rd century BC in Greece.) Because of the hand-heart connection, people named the putative vein descriptively vena amori, Latin for 'the vein of love'.~wiki
Both of our sources are rather dubious.. at any rate they agree that ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians believed in wedding bands used as a connection of the love vein.
Egyptians may have made the first wedding bands; that's not what I meant in my post (however ambiguous it was, I apologize), I was linking the Greek ideas behind the rings.
Regardless of your "corrections" and my rebuttals about rings, the fact remains that it is not based in religion.
We might have to continue this in private after I get my Latin book from school tomorrow. :p
Originally Posted by Mike Windu:
I don't believe that... I think most people view marriage as a serious commitment... I'm certainly viewing it like that.. I don't believe in the idea of divorce, and I don't think my wife will either. We're stuck together for life, basically.No offence, Mike... But many people who get married believe the same thing. Only a certain number of those people stay married.
Unfortunately, love, belief in the strength of the relationship, these things do not a lasting relationship make, necessarily.
Originally Posted by Mike Windu:
The rings date back to the Greeks, who found a thin "nerve" leading from the ring finger on the left hand to the heart. The ring is a symbol of this connection. Pretty sure it has nothing to do with religion..There are many guesses about the origin of the wedding/engagement ring custom, but none are relevant to my argument.
There's nothing in your two posts that contradicts my earlier statement: "Marriage may be recognised by the state, but the ceremony of the thing, the rings, the socially accepted standard of one partner changing their surname... it's all derivative of religion in general, and superstitious ritual in general."
The important point is in bold, there. And not even you can deny the cultural impact of christianity and judaism on wedding customs in both the US and the UK. ;)
I completely agree that religion has had a huge influence on marriage. I also agree that marriage is no more valid than co-habiting or any other form of long term relationship.
However I do think that secure long term relationships are a good thing for society in general.
Those in secure long term relationships are more likely to be stable, to be employed, to pay taxes, to settle down and own homes... and its pretty conclusive that its better for kids to have more than one guardian to tend to their welfare.
I couldn't care less whether those people in long term relationships are gat or straight, married or cohabiting.. or anything ese they want to try... but i do think that there are a number of benefits for everyone if people are in such relationships. However I definately don't think that people should be forced to stay together if they don't want.. or that single mothers are the root of all eveil or anything like that.
I guess that is why states have often encoraged marriage.. throguh things like tax breaks etc.. I don't really agree with that.. but i understand why they would do it.
While it is arguable that people would (or should) get married merely because of tax breaks, i have heard it argued recently that married couples can actually end up paying more. No idea if that is true. Its certainly true that after the government introduced no-faulth "quickie" divorces the divorce rate shot up... so there were obviously a lot of people staying together just because they couldn't face the hassle of getting divorced.
I saw an interesting interview with a guy who spends his time working with troubled inner city london kids a while back that actually challenged afew of my liberal views on the subject. Because when they asked him what the one thing the government could do to cut antisocial behaviour/youth crime was he answered "bring back tax breaks for married couples". He fel that the main strain on a lot of inner city couples was financial.. and that the disapearence of stable relationships was a major factor in the instability of "kids today" ( ;) ).
No offence, Mike... But many people who get married believe the same thing. Only a certain number of those people stay married.
So we remove the institution of marriage on the grounds of some idiots who can't keep their act together? :p
In this stance of marriage I fully agree with the Roman Catholic church in that divorce is not an option. At least for myself and my future family.
My apologies for not noticing "superstitious ritual in general". Doh. >_<
I completely agree that religion has had a huge influence on religion.
...???
I also agree that marriage is no more valid than co-habiting or any other form of long term relationship.
Marraige is a ceremony of commitment to your bride/groom. Its meaning varies from person to person. For many people, it means a lot - it's a big step. OTOH, it means little to immigrants who wish to marry, become a citizen and divorce.
Now, the question becomes, why is it wrong for gays to marry, if that's all it is? And guess what? Putting personal opinion aside, I really don't give a **** anymore if they do. I'm not going to get involved in a debate over faiths as such debates are impossible. However, I will say this: It's not the marriage I'm opposed to. Run with that as you will.
However I do think that secure long term relationships are a good thing for society in general.
As any sane person would think. I smile on this point; a shame it's painfully obvious. I don't see how anyone could be opposed to forming long-term relationships, business or personal.
However I definately don't think that people should be forced to stay together if they don't want.. or that single mothers are the root of all eveil or anything like that.
Good God, no. If straight couples can divorce, so can gays. As for the "single mothers" bit, I have no issues with them, any more than single fathers, or anything like that. As for the quality of their parenting, I would judge them based on quality of parenting, not marital status, just like I wouldn't judge based on black or white skin tone. If they're a lousy parent, I'd recommend someone else. I could care less about married, single or divorced (though my opinion of a single mother would drop if I found out she took advantage of some guy then sued him about it or whatever. But that's a given).
I guess that is why states have often encoraged marriage.. throguh things like tax breaks etc.. I don't really agree with that.. but i understand why they would do it.
Yeah, like polygamy being easier to track. (Fox reported today about a guy with nearly triple-digit wives. If I find the story on the web I'll let you know) toms, if you don't mind me asking... what issues do you have with states encouraging marriage? It seems a win-win situation to me, but I'm always interested in other opinions. I promise I won't debate you on it. :)
While it is arguable that people would (or should) get married merely because of tax breaks, i have heard it argued recently that married couples can actually end up paying more. No idea if that is true. Its certainly true that after the government introduced no-faulth "quickie" divorces the divorce rate shot up... so there were obviously a lot of people staying together just because they couldn't face the hassle of getting divorced.
Maybe, or maybe just a larger load for one person - the breadwinner. OK, I don't know 100% either, but it makes sense that you'd need food to support two, maybe two cars, etc.. But, the whole "one mortgage/rent in total" and the fact that couples usually have a car already from their single days, etc. may outweigh it or lessen the costs. It's really up for grabs.
I saw an interesting interview with a guy who spends his time working with troubled inner city london kids a while back that actually challenged afew of my liberal views on the subject. Because when they asked him what the one thing the government could do to cut antisocial behaviour/youth crime was he answered "bring back tax breaks for married couples". He fel that the main strain on a lot of inner city couples was financial.. and that the disapearence of stable relationships was a major factor in the instability of "kids today"
IIRC, there were studies that showed evidence to back this up, that couples (or single fathers, surprisingly) were less likely to produce delinquents. Again, I don't have this now, but a few hit-and-misses with Google should reveal it in time. :) Interesting stuff; amazing how life works.
So we remove the institution of marriage on the grounds of some idiots who can't keep their act together?
I would agree that those who wish to abolish marriage would have a tough time explaining that to the Supreme Court.
In this stance of marriage I fully agree with the Roman Catholic church in that divorce is not an option. At least for myself and my future family.
Depends on the circumstances. I agree that divorce on a whim is quite idiotic; however, I don't think even the Roman Catholics would not make an exception for times when it's needed.
Personally, I believe that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. The way I see it, the (governmentally endorsed) institution of marriage is too entangled in religion for the issue of gay marriage to be settled equitably. If some judge rules that gay marriage should be legal under the equal protection clause, the next thing you know, law suits will be filed against churches that refuse to marry homosexuals...and, under the equal protection clause, those churches will be forced to administer those marriages, which will in turn violate the free exercise clause.
Over time, my opinion has changed a bit on this subject. At first I was against gay marriage and civil unions. But, while homosexuality remains something that I disagree with, it's not going away any time soon, and there are too many legal issues surrounding the marriage/civil union debate to just write it off. Here is the conclusion I have come to after much deliberation:
I think the government should be hands-off when it comes to marriage. We should just go to a system of civil unions for everyone. That way, religious people can get a civil union under the law, and then be married in the church, while churches are not pressured by the government into performing marriages that violate their theological doctrines...and the governmental benefits that currently are bestowed on married couples can in turn go to any couple with a civil union.
As far as getting rid of marriage because of divorce, that has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard (and this isn't the only place I've heard it, or I wouldn't even address it). I can't personally think of any church that endorses divorce, and every devout Christian person I've ever talked to who was divorced (usually before they became a devout Christian) regretted getting a divorce because of the damage it did to their family, particularly to their children. I've thought long and hard about this topic, as I'm getting married next month, and I strongly believe that there should be only two permissible reasons for divorce: adultery (see Matthew 19:3-9 (
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3-9;&version=31;)) and physical abuse (not backed Biblically that I can find, but it would probably be better if a man who abused his wife never re-married anyway).
I think the government should be hands-off when it comes to marriage. We should just go to a system of civil unions for everyone. That way, religious people can get a civil union under the law, and then be married in the church, while churches are not pressured by the government into performing marriages that violate their theological doctrines...and the governmental benefits that currently are bestowed on married couples can in turn go to any couple with a civil union.
That is exactly my opinion.. its just that the word "marriage" has come to be religiousized (if that is a word) when it initially WAS just a civil union.
IMHO there should be no legal status for religious "marriages". All marriages should be civil, legal deals... and as such should be open to all citizens equally.
"religious unions" should simply be an additional matter of personal faith.. and then it would be entirely up to each faith and person to decide whatever terms they wanted on those "religious unions".
toms, if you don't mind me asking... what issues do you have with states encouraging marriage? It seems a win-win situation to me, but I'm always interested in other opinions. I promise I won't debate you on it.
Not at all.
I think a lot of my "issues" come from growing up in margret thatcher's conservative (read: republican) Britain where basically all the ills of society were blamed on single mothers and any partnership that didn't match the ideal christian view of "1 husband, 1 wife, 2.4 kids".
It was seen as a great way to get some coverage fromt he right wing press or cheers at the national conference to stand up and bash single mothers.. to cut their benefits and basically "fine" them for not being happily married! and we won't even mention gay partnerships...
-
The problem with the state encouraging one form of action is that from the other side it looks like punishing any other form of action.
Give tax breaks or extra benefits to married couples and you are basically, in comparison, penalising single mothers, cohabiting couples, gay couples (if they can't marry) etc..
If you are a single mother, for example, you are probably already at a major disadvantage... so seeing the married couple next door get benefits that you are in greater need of can hardly be a nice experience. It basically says to her "this is your fault"... when of course in many cases it isn't at all.
(same way as if you gave extra benefits to single mothers because they are in greater need then you would have married couples and marriage advocates saying "why are they being rewarded for NOT getting married and why are we being penalised for getting married???)
Anyway, thats where i'm coming from... product of my environment and all that.. ;)
Originally Posted by Mike Windu:
So we remove the institution of marriage on the grounds of some idiots who can't keep their act together?Not quite, my argument is closer to the argument for legalization of recreational drugs.
People who want to take drugs will, people who don't want to take drugs won't. Likewise people who are destined to stay together will, and people who aren't suited to be together, won't stay together. Since marriage is no longer a binding factor, since it no longer provides any guarantee of stability, it is an irrelevance.
And like the criminal industry surrounding the narcotics trade, there is also an entire industry surrounding divorce. A negative industry, one might say. In the process of abolishing marriage, one could determine once and for all that each individual owns only his or her own property, which would make taxation fairer, and would reduce litigation following separation. Both good things, in my view.
But divorce isn't the only reason for abolishing marriage, as I stated above. The fact that the state recognises marriage is a social injustice, due to financial advantages for married couples.
Marriage is also an outmoded, outdated, superstitious and quasi-religious ritual. It wastes time, money and effort, encourages false hopes and unrealistic expectations and is a social throwback that does nothing to move human society forward. It should be discarded just as top hats, coat tails and starched collars were discarded, just as organized religion should be discarded.
Not that I think it WILL be, but it should be. ;)
Originally Posted by rccar328:
As far as getting rid of marriage because of divorce, that has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard (and this isn't the only place I've heard it, or I wouldn't even address it). I can't personally think of any church that endorses divorce, and every devout Christian person I've ever talked to ...No offence, friend... but the fact that your religion doesn't always endorse divorce is not relevant to my argument. Religion is such a subjective and superstitious fancy, that when applied to a logical debate it becomes quite an obtuse and distracting influence. Divorce is a fact of life and many marriages end in divorce. Divorce is one reason, but not the only reason, that marriage has become an irrelevance in modern society. Religious views on the subject don't enter into my reasoning process.
Over time, my opinion has changed a bit on this subject. At first I was against gay marriage and civil unions. But, while homosexuality remains something that I disagree with, it's not going away any time soon, and there are too many legal issues surrounding the marriage/civil union debate to just write it off. Here is the conclusion I have come to after much deliberation:
I think the government should be hands-off when it comes to marriage. We should just go to a system of civil unions for everyone. That way, religious people can get a civil union under the law, and then be married in the church, while churches are not pressured by the government into performing marriages that violate their theological doctrines...and the governmental benefits that currently are bestowed on married couples can in turn go to any couple with a civil union.
Moving to the left eh rccar? :p
I've thought long and hard about this topic, as I'm getting married next month
Hey, congrats. :)
Moving to the left eh rccar? :p
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? :lol:
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that the government should be less involved in the personal lives of citizens, perticularly in areas where the government goes outside of its Constitutional restraints, whether that has to do with restructuring the tax system, abolishing welfare, drastically restructuring and/or abolishing the public school system, etc. And that opinion also extends to marriage.
As I said above, marriage is, in large part, a religious institution. And the government cannot extend the 'right to marry' to homosexuals without violating another area of the Constitution - the Free Exercise clause. For me, it's not about gay rights, it's about bringing the government back within its Constitutional bounds.
Hey, congrats. :)
Thanks.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that the government should be less involved in the personal lives of citizens, perticularly in areas where the government goes outside of its Constitutional restraints, whether that has to do with restructuring the tax system, abolishing welfare, drastically restructuring and/or abolishing the public school system, etc. And that opinion also extends to marriage.
Going liberterian then? ;)
The dichotomy i've never understood about political parties has always been that the left wing/liberal parties are all about freedoms for people and bigger government interference.. but rightwing parties are all about less government and less regulation of companies... but always try and tell you what to do in your personal life. Weird.
I still think marriage should be made an entirely GOVERNMENTAL institution... take the religion out of marriage and you have no problems anymore.
I still think marriage should be made an entirely GOVERNMENTAL institution... take the religion out of marriage and you have no problems anymore.Eh. Since the government has a vested interest in marriage as toms said, it can support civil contracts (like marriage). Those contracts can be given to anyone. If a church wants to endorse said contract that's their prerogative. It isn't a 'either religion based marriage or nothing' kind of thing.
It seems to me that the reason homosexuals would want to be 'married' is to have the benefits of marriage: ability to control the estate of their partners if they have an accident, etc. Tax breaks should be given on the number of children supported, not on the basis of just being married. It seems pretty obvious that they could avoid a lot of argument if they just said they wanted a 'civil contract' that would give them these benefits, instead of the religiously-charged word 'marriage'. If they want that contract recognized by a church, however, they're on their own - the government cannot interfere.
Going liberterian then? ;)
Not quite. I know that's what it sounds like, but it's not libertarian, it's Constitutional. The US Constitution just doesn't give the government the right to be meddling to the extent that it does. And you're right about Republicans and other right-wingers claiming to be conservatives and then wanting to legislate morals on other people...this is a byproduct of the preeminence of liberal thought since after the Gread Depression. Too many people take it for granted today that the government should have control over peoples' lives, so when they think people should behave a certain way...have the government make them do it!
That's not the way things should work...but I'm deviating from the topic. For a little more on my perspective, check out this post (
http://robertsblog328.blogspot.com/2006/04/my-struggle_17.html) on my blog.
I still think marriage should be made an entirely GOVERNMENTAL institution... take the religion out of marriage and you have no problems anymore.
They don't have to be religious in nature. Sure, they're held in a church, but you can have the traditional vows or have them modified to suit your tastes. At least, that's the way it is in this chunk of the US.
My cousin was married to her husband in a courthouse by a justice of the peace, if that helps.
My cousin was married to her husband in a courthouse by a justice of the peace, if that helps.
If someone is being married in a courthouse, by a judge, then what place do any christian (or other religion) traditions/values have? I would argue none. In which case why couldn't your cousin marry her wife in a courthouse with a JotP?
Country clubs can set rules about the conduct of their members, and who can become members.. but they can't set rules for people outside the club. Religion should be the same.
People don't just get married in Christian churches (or synagogues, temples, mosques, etc) you know. People have been getting married by judges for years. It's called a civil ceremony. And it technically doesn't have to be in a courthouse, my other cousin got married by a judge at a banquet hall, again a civil ceremony (and these are both straight couples).
A marriage is recognized by the state, whether done in an ecclesiastical setting or a civil setting. Some states also have "common law marriages" that is, if you've been living with your partner a certain number of years (as if you were married in all but name) you are automatically considered legal husband and wife (and have to do the paperwork based on it, etc).
I think there might also be some kind of "common law divorce" in similar states (not sure if that's the right word) like if the couple have been seperated a certain amount of time, they are considered divorced, in law.
Regardless of how you are married in the United States, marriage is a power that is vested from the state level to the marrying authority, be it a judge, clergy, justice of the peace, etc.
Marriage is a civil and state function that is used by religion. Religion should have no say whatsoever in a state function as it is not religion's business. Religion -that silly superstition of supernatural agency that is unique to humanity - has nothing to do with the secular powers of government. One of these secular powers is the authority to bind a civil contract called marriage.
Aren't the concepts of "government" or "law" also uniquely human concepts? And 'marriage' (which is a legal definition) too for that matter?
Anyway, ecclessiastical (and here I refer to any religion, not just a Christian denomination) marriages are a reality that the state recognizes as equal to marriages peformed by its own legal representatives (not all religious marriages are recognized of course, some churches have "blessed same sex unions" when in fact they are not legally recognized, just as some Mormon groups have blessed polygamous unions which are similarly illegal). The power is vested in certain recognized officials that include clergypeople of various religious groups. Sure you can say, if it's not illegal for two people to randomly have sex if they're both over a certain age and haven't entered into a legally binding contract with one another (entitling one of them to sue the other for divorce for "breach of contract"), why bother with marriage at all? Marriage is one of those things that people place value on (not all people, but a great number of people). "Opponets" of marriage always point out how half of marriages fail, and the so-called "marriage penalty" in taxation, but still, a lot of people place value on it. So homosexuals wishing to be married are asking for that kind of value to be available to them, and whatever legal "benefits" of that recognition also to be available. Opponents of same-sex unions/marriages/whatevers are saying that marriage should be defined so as not to allow homosexual unions legally (just as whatever other marriages we don't legally recognize such as polygamus, close cousins, or whatever other restrictions anyone places on it). As I see it, 'marriage' is a legal thing, whether it is done by a representative of the state, or a legally recognized function of a religious authority. Since you can be married in a church and divorced in a civil court (at least I think that's correct).
Anyway, blah blah blah, etc.
Skin, would you say that only secular marriages should be recognized by the state and all others deemed illegal (ex: state decides that gay marriage is fine, "religions" decide it is not, thus gay couples get married outside "religions" they get all legal benefits, I guess no celebrating their anniversaries or renewing their vows in churches, etc. though I doubt that would be the case anyway because at least a few churches have outspokenly supported "gay marriage" even though such marriages are often not legally recognized by the state)?
Or are you just saying that religion should play no part in the decision making process, regardless of popular support, and religious leaders should be forced to "recognize" (whatever that would entail) legally sanctioned homosexual marriages? Should governments exert pressure on religious bodies to enforce their consent? (that is, take away tax exempt status of churches that teach homosexuals should not/can not be married/refuse to perform gay weddings, etc.)
Maybe it is being "skirted around" by calling it "civil unions" rather than "marriage for homosexual couples" because it is felt that marriage is somehow a religious issue only. However in my example, both my cousins who were married in each their own seperate civil ceremonies (note: I'm not saying my cousins married EACH OTHER, nor that they are gay... both are negative, don't get the wrong idea) are considered "married" not "civilly unionized" or whatever, though there was no ecclesial authority involved in either case. I don't know if either will consider to have their marriages blessed by a clergyperson later, but that's not necessary anyway, they are considered "married" by law.
Since religion isn't going to go away anytime soon, I wondered if you would clarify that point, without starting the whole argument over again, of course (since I'm just jumping in here late in the game, and really didn't have plans to take it on, it's that darn subscription thing, always bringing me back to threads when I forget to unsubscribe!). ;)
Skin, would you say that only secular marriages should be recognized by the state and all others deemed illegal [...] Or are you just saying that religion should play no part in the decision making process, regardless of popular support, and religious leaders should be forced to "recognize" (whatever that would entail) legally sanctioned homosexual marriages? Should governments exert pressure on religious bodies to enforce their consent? (that is, take away tax exempt status of churches that teach homosexuals should not/can not be married/refuse to perform gay weddings, etc.)
I'm saying only that religion should have no input in the civil institution of marriage. If the religious prefer that their marriages be conducted by their religious leaders, thats their choice as long as the religious leaders are educated in the laws and policies of the state. Indeed, if people prefer to be married by the General Manager of McDonald's via the Drive-Thru, this should be acceptable as well as long as the GM is trained in the same laws and policies.
If the religious leaders don't want to marry couples that don't subscribe to their specific superstitions (i.e. the pastor of the local place of worship for his Noodly Appendage refuses to marry a couple that dislikes spaghetti; or the GM doesn't want to marry a couple that are vegan) that should be fine. The couples can go other places. But superstitions should not dictate the state's qualifications for the secular institution of marriage.
So then... following this line of reasoning too far... if marriage is a civil/governmental institution, and the US constitution bans religion from interfering with government...
..does that meant that hetero-only marriages are unconstitutional? ;)
This thread was split & merged with The Separation of Church and State (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=159603), which was an existing thread, due to so many off-topic posts.
Bigotry on the ballot fails to get even 50 votes (
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3911088). But the Presidential pandering will probably go on. I'm sure other "wedge issues" will be brought up in attempt to distract the American public from real issues. Right wing politicians will undoubtedly use gay-marriage as a means to appeal to their religious base and have no real interest in the issue, as demonstrated by the Senate vote. Even Bush used the code words "activist judges" to alert the religious nutters that he's speaking to them in his speech over the weekend.
Bigotry on the ballot fails to get even 50 votes
Yay! Great news of the day!
Marriage was created by the church. Correct?