SCOTUS not enough- prop 8 jerks trying to find another way

[Tennesseer]

iIt has to do with correctness, and with what is scripturally defensible. Blindly treating it as bigotry is a cop-out.

So says your sect.  Are all the other Christians religions wrong?

[swamp]

Jul 15, 2013 13:35:43 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

iIt has to do with correctness, and with what is scripturally defensible. Blindly treating it as bigotry is a cop-out.

So says your sect.  Are all the other Christians religions wrong?

Yes.  God said so. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 13:31:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:19:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it has nothing to do with what i think.  it is a legal fact.

The courts of men decide what is "legal fact" on a whim, hence I won't dispute you.

I concern myself with what is right.

did it occur to you that i am arguing from a "right" position, as well?

What is right does not change, and is not subject to the approval (or lack thereof) of the US Supreme Court.

i happen to agree with you.  it was never right for married women to be deprived of rights and property, but it happened.  and it was sanctified by the church for a thousand years or more.  and i am just as confident that the deprival of estate rights for committed spouses is a wrong that will be rectified in every state in the union, given time.

I posted in this thread to provide the original three posters with my perspective on why the "prop 8 jerks" are persisting in spite of the SCOTUS ruling. You and several others obviously don't care. Some seem to think it's a joke.

you seem to think i don't understand it.  i do.  they want to preserve tradition.  i get it.  my dad is one of "them".  understanding and agreeing are two different things.  we are under no obligation to go along with them simply because they believe something.  if we were, and applied this in a more general way, we would be in a whole world of hurt at every institutional level.

Regardless, I rest my case.

whatever you wish, Virgil.  it is a free country.  but for the record, i was not insulting you or anyone else, here.  i was merely stating facts.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 13:08:23 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:00:00 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Gays have a lower rate because in a lot of states, it's still illegal and also there are still less of them than non-gays.

But if all of the states start letting gays marry all of our kids are going to learn that gay marriage is great and all of our kids are going to turn gay and get gay married and then be unhappy and get gay divorced sending the divorce rate of gay couples skyrocketting.

You forgot to add that no children would be born in the U.S. when everyone is gay.  

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 13:31:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:19:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that also happens in the US. i think the most interesting one is "common law marriages".

Also addressed in an earlier post.

really?  where?  i looked for the word "common" in all posts before i made this one, and i could not find it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 13:35:43 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

iIt has to do with correctness, and with what is scripturally defensible. Blindly treating it as bigotry is a cop-out.

So says your sect.  Are all the other Christians religions wrong?

That would depend on how closely their beliefs comport with scripture. On the topic of homosexuality, my link to Prof. Gagnon's article in Reply #39 constitutes a thorough, valid thematic study. If his (my) views are wrong, which they may be, they can be challenged on a scriptural basis. Insofar as I know, Prof. Gagnon has nothing to do with my church. Yet I agree with him.

really? where? i looked for the word "common" in all posts before i made this one, and i could not find it.

Reply #9. It's subsumed by '"married" in the civil sense'.

[Deleted]

But the government is supposed to represent ALL of the people, not just Christians. They need to reference more than one book when making decisions that affect the entire nation. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 13:45:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:35:43 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

So says your sect.  Are all the other Christians religions wrong?

That would depend on how closely their beliefs comport with scripture. On the topic of homosexuality, my link to Prof. Gagnon's article in Reply #39 constitutes a thorough, valid thematic study. If his (my) views are wrong, which they may be, they can be challenged on a scriptural basis. Insofar as I know, Prof. Gagnon has nothing to do with my church. Yet I agree with him.

really? where? i looked for the word "common" in all posts before i made this one, and i could not find it.

Reply #9. It's subsumed by '"married" in the civil sense'.

but a common law marriage is not a "civil union".  it is a marriage.

there is an unmistakable moral overtone to the way licenses are parsed out.  if that were NOT the case, then the state would be far MORE involved in the particulars of a union.

for example, it is perfectly OK for a 65 year old woman to marry an 18 year old boy for no reason other than his looks.  but it is not ok at all for two thirty year old men who have been in a relationship for 10+ years, are in love, and want to remain together until death to do so.

i really don't understand what business- what STAKE the state has in it.  mind you- i understand PERFECTLY what stake the church has in it, but that is another matter entirely.  what SKIN does the government bring to the game of marriage, Virgil?

[Tennesseer]

Virgil-I am not going to worry about it.  It's the law in your country and will soon be in the States.  

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 13:48:33 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

But the government is supposed to represent ALL of the people, not just Christians. They need to reference more than one book when making decisions that affect the entire nation. 

i would like to recommend the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, myself. 

[swamp]

And if the purpose of marriage is childbearing, we wouldn't allow old people to marry.   Sorry granny, your eggs are all dried up.  You'll just have to live in sin.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 13:54:14 GMT -5 swamp said:

And if the purpose of marriage is childbearing, we wouldn't allow old people to marry.   Sorry granny, your eggs are all dried up.  You'll just have to live in sin.

Many widowed women do.  They don't want to lose their deceased husband's SS benefits.  Hussies all.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 13:48:33 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

But the government is supposed to represent ALL of the people, not just Christians. They need to reference more than one book when making decisions that affect the entire nation. 

All I've suggested is that the US government make a distinction between marriage and civil unions, administrating only the civil aspects, leaving churches and other religious institutions to conduct marriages as they see fit, with the provision that religious groups retain their right to refuse homosexual "marriages" on a doctrinal basis.

We do not have this freedom in Canada. The government makes no distinction; it calls any and every kind of union "marriage", and mandates that religious organizations not discriminate.

Given my present audience, I figured this was the greatest compromise we might reach consensus on.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 14:01:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:48:33 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

But the government is supposed to represent ALL of the people, not just Christians. They need to reference more than one book when making decisions that affect the entire nation. 

All I've suggested is that the US government make a distinction between marriage and civil unions, administrating only the civil aspects, leaving churches and other religious institutions to conduct marriages as they see fit, with the provision that religious groups retain their right to refuse homosexual "marriages" on a doctrinal basis.

We do not have this freedom in Canada. The government makes no distinction; it calls any and every kind of union "marriage", and mandates that religious organizations not discriminate.

Given my present audience, I figured this was the greatest compromise we might reach consensus on.

Then you must accept the fact Christian churches are performing same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and it is called marriage.  

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 13:54:14 GMT -5 swamp said:

And if the purpose of marriage is childbearing, we wouldn't allow old people to marry.   Sorry granny, your eggs are all dried up.  You'll just have to live in sin.

or couples with fertility issues.  this is precisely why i asked what stake the state has in it.  if the business of marriage is to create a healthy environment for childbearing, then shouldn't the state concern itself with the fertility of the participants?  and if it is NOT, then why can't gay people marry?

the more i think about it, the harder it is for me to figure out why the state is even involved.  this should be a religious matter (or an agnostic, or atheistic one, as the case may be).  the state should stay out of it entirely.  licenses should be indiscriminately granted to all committed couples.  HOW people choose to get married is their concern, only.  how the church chooses to marry them is their concern, only.  the venn overlap between the two is large, but not complete.  nor should it be, from a "state perspective".  the government is of ALL people, not just Christians.  what it sanctifies as marriage should be ALL people, as well.

[Deleted]

The government makes no distinction; it calls any and every kind of union "marriage", and mandates that religious organizations not discriminate.

I don't consider it "broke", so no need to fix it. 

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2013 14:04:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:01:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

All I've suggested is that the US government make a distinction between marriage and civil unions, administrating only the civil aspects, leaving churches and other religious institutions to conduct marriages as they see fit, with the provision that religious groups retain their right to refuse homosexual "marriages" on a doctrinal basis.

We do not have this freedom in Canada. The government makes no distinction; it calls any and every kind of union "marriage", and mandates that religious organizations not discriminate.

Given my present audience, I figured this was the greatest compromise we might reach consensus on.

Then you must accept the fact Christian churches are performing same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and it is called marriage.  

God must be pissed.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 13:52:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:45:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

That would depend on how closely their beliefs comport with scripture. On the topic of homosexuality, my link to Prof. Gagnon's article in Reply #39 constitutes a thorough, valid thematic study. If his (my) views are wrong, which they may be, they can be challenged on a scriptural basis. Insofar as I know, Prof. Gagnon has nothing to do with my church. Yet I agree with him.

Reply #9. It's subsumed by '"married" in the civil sense'.

but a common law marriage is not a "civil union".  it is a marriage.

there is an unmistakable moral overtone to the way licenses are parsed out.  if that were NOT the case, then the state would be far MORE involved in the particulars of a union.

for example, it is perfectly OK for a 65 year old woman to marry an 18 year old boy for no reason other than his looks.  but it is not ok at all for two thirty year old men who have been in a relationship for 10+ years, are in love, and want to remain together until death to do so.

i really don't understand what business- what STAKE the state has in it.  mind you- i understand PERFECTLY what stake the church has in it, but that is another matter entirely.  what SKIN does the government bring to the game of marriage, Virgil?

If a common-law marriage was simply reclassified as a "civil union" by the state, with all the rights and privileges left unchanged, perhaps affected couples would accept that as a compromise to end the DOMA standoff in the US.

As for the government's "stake": I can't be clearer than I was in Reply #9. If that doesn't convince you of the government's centrality to the issue, I've got nothing to add.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 14:05:04 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

The government makes no distinction; it calls any and every kind of union "marriage", and mandates that religious organizations not discriminate.

I don't consider it "broke", so no need to fix it. 

what is interesting is that there is no language in many states about the gender of the participants.  in order to MAKE it an issue, it had to be legislated.  i find that fact interesting.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 14:04:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:01:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

All I've suggested is that the US government make a distinction between marriage and civil unions, administrating only the civil aspects, leaving churches and other religious institutions to conduct marriages as they see fit, with the provision that religious groups retain their right to refuse homosexual "marriages" on a doctrinal basis.

We do not have this freedom in Canada. The government makes no distinction; it calls any and every kind of union "marriage", and mandates that religious organizations not discriminate.

Given my present audience, I figured this was the greatest compromise we might reach consensus on.

Then you must accept the fact Christian churches are performing same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and it is called marriage.  

I do accept that. It's a point of fact. I've acknowledged it.

It doesn't change my suggestions or arguments.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 14:09:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:52:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

but a common law marriage is not a "civil union".  it is a marriage.

there is an unmistakable moral overtone to the way licenses are parsed out.  if that were NOT the case, then the state would be far MORE involved in the particulars of a union.

for example, it is perfectly OK for a 65 year old woman to marry an 18 year old boy for no reason other than his looks.  but it is not ok at all for two thirty year old men who have been in a relationship for 10+ years, are in love, and want to remain together until death to do so.

i really don't understand what business- what STAKE the state has in it.  mind you- i understand PERFECTLY what stake the church has in it, but that is another matter entirely.  what SKIN does the government bring to the game of marriage, Virgil?

If a common-law marriage was simply reclassified as a "civil union" by the state, with all the rights and privileges left unchanged, perhaps affected couples would accept that as a compromise to end the DOMA standoff in the US.

As for the government's "stake": I can't be clearer than I was in Reply #9. If that doesn't convince you of the government's centrality to the issue, I've got nothing to add.

you are right, i was not clear there.  what i meant is: what stake does the state have in defining marriage as a heterosexual, religious institution?  to deprive people of estate tax rights and other legal and tax benefits?

[steff]

Jul 15, 2013 13:54:14 GMT -5 swamp said:

And if the purpose of marriage is childbearing, we wouldn't allow old people to marry.   Sorry granny, your eggs are all dried up.  You'll just have to live in sin.

I guess I need to tell my brother & sis in law they can't be married.  They decided they don't want to have any kids & have both taken steps to make sure it never happens. 

[steff]

Do we really need to keep reminding folks that just because their religious beliefs say something doesn't mean it is law?  Your religious beliefs are yours, not mine & not necessarily everyone's.  And your religious beliefs don't get to decide what is legally right or wrong for others. 


Why is this so incredibly difficult for folks to grasp? 

[mmhmm]

I concern myself with what is right. What is right does not change, and is not subject to the approval (or lack thereof) of the US Supreme Court.

I concern myself with what is right, as well, Virgil.  What is right is not subject to your approval, either.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 14:11:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:04:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Then you must accept the fact Christian churches are performing same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and it is called marriage.  

I do accept that. It's a point of fact. I've acknowledged it.

It doesn't change my suggestions or arguments.

If christian churches are freely performing (and blessing) legal same-sex marriages, why should there be any need to have civil unions versus marriage?    If the idea is to withhold the privilege of same-sex couples from saying they are married, it's not working nor will it work in the future.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 14:16:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:09:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If a common-law marriage was simply reclassified as a "civil union" by the state, with all the rights and privileges left unchanged, perhaps affected couples would accept that as a compromise to end the DOMA standoff in the US.

As for the government's "stake": I can't be clearer than I was in Reply #9. If that doesn't convince you of the government's centrality to the issue, I've got nothing to add.

you are right, i was not clear there.  what i meant is: what stake does the state have in defining marriage as a heterosexual, religious institution?  to deprive people of estate tax rights and other legal and tax benefits?

Constitutionally I see none.

And if the government wants to marry any two people, or Mr. Lagerfeld and his cat, or whoever, under the term "civil unions", and grant them manifold rights and privileges, be that their right to do so.

[steff]

So now I'm all mixed up.

When I got "married" I didn't do it in a church & there were no religious words spoken.  So now does that mean I was actually "civil unioned"? 

But I had a kid, so the "family" part I did, so now I'm back to "married"?

But now my kid is an adult & I have no plans for anymore, so I'm back to "civil unioned"?

[kittensaver]

Jul 15, 2013 14:16:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:09:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If a common-law marriage was simply reclassified as a "civil union" by the state, with all the rights and privileges left unchanged, perhaps affected couples would accept that as a compromise to end the DOMA standoff in the US.

As for the government's "stake": I can't be clearer than I was in Reply #9. If that doesn't convince you of the government's centrality to the issue, I've got nothing to add.

you are right, i was not clear there.  what i meant is: what stake does the state have in defining marriage as a heterosexual, religious institution?  to deprive people of estate tax rights and other legal and tax benefits?

I agree with dj. The states DO have a compelling right to be involved in the institution of marriage. Legal relationships (properly executed licenses) define property rights, inheritances, legal protections for minors, taxation, etc. What the states should NOT do is define marriage as a "heterosexual, religious institution." That is up to religions to do, if that's how they want to define their rituals and sacraments for their followers and believers. By the same token, religions should not be defining marriage "their" way and imposing it on a secular, pluralistic and multi-cultural society, many of whom have been deeply hurt and discriminated against by religious institutions (and many others who frankly don't give a flying leap what organized religions think). Neither should be allowed to impose their definition on the other. Religions should be allowed to limit their rituals (what they define as "marriage") to their believers, and the states should have the freedom to issue legally binding licenses to two consenting adults who are committed to involving themselves in the privileges and limits of the institution. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 14:20:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I concern myself with what is right. What is right does not change, and is not subject to the approval (or lack thereof) of the US Supreme Court.

I concern myself with what is right, as well, Virgil.  What is right is not subject to your approval, either.

We've had this debate before.

In this case: are "gay marriages" 'good'? has only two possible answers: yes, and no. Either you're right or I am. We cannot both be right. We cannot both be partly right.

I'm pointing out that the rulings of the SCOTUS do not change the nature of right and wrong. You should not reasonably expect a Prop 8 supporter to stop supporting what they believe to be right because a panel of 9 judges makes a particular ruling. In the OP, evt1 seems almost shocked by Americans' audacity for persisting in spite of the SCOTUS ruling.

[Tennesseer]

You know Virgil, you pretty much said on another thread Americans are racial busybodies.  I am going to post the following quote you made on the Trayvon Martin thread here.  Hopefully another poster won't jump in and call me "extra low-class" for posting it.

Be ashamed of the things that make America lousy, and let that shame lead to reform in your attitude. Love your neighbour unconditionally. Forgive and forget racial slights. Accept apologies. Show no preference to race. Be patient with other cultures. Give your fellow man the benefit of the doubt. Rebuke others sparingly, privately (if at all possible), and never in anger. Turn off the TV.

And this:

When it comes to race relations, Americans are the loudest, most obnoxious, most unforgiving, most petty, most insufferable people on planet Earth, and I would have to say that it's the one and only thing I truly hate about you.

Maybe all those words should apply to sexual orientation busybodies, especially to some of our Canadian neighbors too.