weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 30, 2015 16:00:59 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 30, 2015 16:29:17 GMT -5
It was the company that committed the crimes, not Rick Scott. Of course, if we were talking about religious beliefs; it would be Rick Scott, not the company.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Jun 30, 2015 17:05:17 GMT -5
But just because you believe in God doesn't mean you think same sex marriage should be illegal... And that is just crazy Weltz... our Cantor is entering a same sex marriage. Actually I wish they would drop the term "same sex" marriage. No one calls it "different sex" marriage
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,609
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 30, 2015 17:15:51 GMT -5
But just because you believe in God doesn't mean you think same sex marriage should be illegal... And that is just crazy Weltz... our Cantor is entering a same sex marriage. Actually I wish they would drop the term "same sex" marriage. No one calls it "different sex" marriage Give it a few months, the newness will die down, and it will just be 'marriage'.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,609
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 30, 2015 17:44:53 GMT -5
But just because you believe in God doesn't mean you think same sex marriage should be illegal... And that is just crazy Weltz... our Cantor is entering a same sex marriage. Actually I wish they would drop the term "same sex" marriage. No one calls it "different sex" marriage Out of curiosity, is your cantor's marriage ceremony taking place within your synagogue or church?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 15:07:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 18:03:43 GMT -5
I looked at your list of religion bashing films parts one and two. Some are movies, others are documentaries. One was directed by Mel Gibson who produced Passion of the Christ. I am not too sure what to make of your list when The Wizard of Oz is considered religion bashing. The documentary, Jonestown: The Life and Death of the Peoples Temple, is religion bashing? If a film was ever needed to be made about religion and leadership gone wrong, it would be about Jonestown. that last film, in particular, attempted to draw a distinction between cult and religion. i would think that would be a SERVICE to religion. Well... in fairness... there's only ONE legitimate difference between a "cult" and a "religion"... and that's the number of adherents.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Jun 30, 2015 18:10:32 GMT -5
our Cantor is entering a same sex marriage. Actually I wish they would drop the term "same sex" marriage. No one calls it "different sex" marriage Out of curiosity, is your cantor's marriage ceremony taking place within your synagogue or church? Our Rabbi is marrying them but they haven't decided if the chupah will be inside our building or at the beach. Both women love the beach. I think they'll adopt within a year
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,609
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 30, 2015 18:17:45 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, is your cantor's marriage ceremony taking place within your synagogue or church? Our Rabbi is marrying them but they haven't decided if the chupah will be inside our building or at the beach. Both women love the beach. I think they'll adopt within a year Good for the couple and good for the rabbi. WHVH is everywhere. Even at the beach.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 15:07:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 18:24:59 GMT -5
Lol! Whoever wrote that list can't possibly be taken seriously. Not with gems like this.
"Synopsis: Bad Dreams tells the story of Cynthia, a young woman who’s spent most of her life sleeping in a comma." How do they know she wasn't sleeping in an exclamation mark or a semicolon? Well... if it's a big enough comma... and you lay it on it's side... it kind of does look like a bed with a pillow on it... ,
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 15:07:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 18:33:01 GMT -5
Mixed marriages-not pretty. Technically speaking... aren't marriages between a man and a woman "mixed"?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 15:07:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 18:44:34 GMT -5
But if a same sex couple want a religious ceremony and a Christian minister or Jewish rabbi agrees to and performs it in their sanctuary, should the same sex couple be allowed to call their union marriage? After all, it was performed by minister or Rabbi. To me that is where the folks who are not okay with same sex marriage but okay with calling a same sex couple's union a civil union get into problem with semantics. If a marriage can only be called a marriage if it is a religious ceremony, and some Christian churches and synagogues perform religious same sex unions, then the same sex couple's union should be designated a marriage as defined by those who wish to separate marriage from civil unions. Or does it simply come down to what some people simply want: no marriages at all for same sex couples-just for straight couples. Period. It's actually financially stupid for people to marry. Regardless of sex/gender. Well... unless one of them dies or needs medical care that could be expensive... but the blood relatives would rule against their wishes...
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jun 30, 2015 18:46:14 GMT -5
What do you mean "mixed marriages"?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 30, 2015 18:54:35 GMT -5
Cats and dogs. Wrong on so many levels.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 30, 2015 18:56:42 GMT -5
It's actually financially stupid for people to marry. Regardless of sex/gender. Well... unless one of them dies or needs medical care that could be expensive... but the blood relatives would rule against their wishes... Nuts. You just tell people you're married. I only got married because DH wanted it so much and I also wanted to not have bio brat override my medical decisions. Not one person has asked me for my marriage license and I still haven't gotten around to changing my name. I could have said we were married for the last five years instead of being honest.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 30, 2015 18:57:28 GMT -5
If you need medical care, you either get it through your work or you get Obamacare.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 30, 2015 19:02:15 GMT -5
Oh, for Pete's sake, mixed marriages. Look where I posted it. I'm talking about cats and dogs marrying not people. Good grief.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 15:07:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 19:28:19 GMT -5
But just because you believe in God doesn't mean you think same sex marriage should be illegal... And that is just crazy Weltz... our Cantor is entering a same sex marriage. Actually I wish they would drop the term "same sex" marriage. No one calls it "different sex" marriage That's because once you get married... it's all the "same" sex...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 15:07:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 19:31:05 GMT -5
If you need medical care, you either get it through your work or you get Obamacare. Well... you got that half right. If you need medical care, Obamacare is probably not going to help you. (but that's probably an argument for a different thread)
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jun 30, 2015 22:00:32 GMT -5
"That's because once you get married... it's all the "same" sex..." Or there isn't any! A friend of mine has this saying : I dated a hooker and I married a nun! Cracks me up every time.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2015 0:46:35 GMT -5
I do agree that marriages should be civil unions. If you want a religious ceremony as well, fine. I got married civilly. I still want a religious ceremony. But that's me. But if a same sex couple want a religious ceremony and a Christian minister or Jewish rabbi agrees to and performs it in their sanctuary, should the same sex couple be allowed to call their union marriage? After all, it was performed by minister or Rabbi. To me that is where the folks who are not okay with same sex marriage but okay with calling a same sex couple's union a civil union get into problem with semantics. If a marriage can only be called a marriage if it is a religious ceremony, and some Christian churches and synagogues perform religious same sex unions, then the same sex couple's union should be designated a marriage as defined by those who wish to separate marriage from civil unions. Or does it simply come down to what some people simply want: no marriages at all for same sex couples-just for straight couples. Period.
The state of Washington enacted same-sex marriage through a ballot referendum in 2012. I voted for it. My position, however, is actually more nuanced than a straight support of the idea. Rightly or wrongly, I have always considered the term "marriage" as being religious in nature. My preference would be that we have civil unions for the legal aspects of marriage, for both same- and opposite-sex couples. If someone wants a religious ceremony too? Fine. The only thing that is really important is that both types of couples have the exact same rights and privileges as a result of the legal commitment.
The problem, I think, is that we are too far down the road of "marriage" being used as a legal and tax term, not to mention that it has enormous symbolism. The time and cost required to back us out would be prohibitive, and I do not think many people would insist on the distinction between the terms. So I reluctantly support the use of the term marriage as the only way to ensure equal treatment for all.
We COULD still differentiate between "marriage" and "Holy Matrimony" but how many people are going to use four extra syllables every time?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,609
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 1, 2015 6:19:15 GMT -5
But if a same sex couple want a religious ceremony and a Christian minister or Jewish rabbi agrees to and performs it in their sanctuary, should the same sex couple be allowed to call their union marriage? After all, it was performed by minister or Rabbi. To me that is where the folks who are not okay with same sex marriage but okay with calling a same sex couple's union a civil union get into problem with semantics. If a marriage can only be called a marriage if it is a religious ceremony, and some Christian churches and synagogues perform religious same sex unions, then the same sex couple's union should be designated a marriage as defined by those who wish to separate marriage from civil unions. Or does it simply come down to what some people simply want: no marriages at all for same sex couples-just for straight couples. Period.
The state of Washington enacted same-sex marriage through a ballot referendum in 2012. I voted for it. My position, however, is actually more nuanced than a straight support of the idea. Rightly or wrongly, I have always considered the term "marriage" as being religious in nature. My preference would be that we have civil unions for the legal aspects of marriage, for both same- and opposite-sex couples. If someone wants a religious ceremony too? Fine. The only thing that is really important is that both types of couples have the exact same rights and privileges as a result of the legal commitment.
The problem, I think, is that we are too far down the road of "marriage" being used as a legal and tax term, not to mention that it has enormous symbolism. The time and cost required to back us out would be prohibitive, and I do not think many people would insist on the distinction between the terms. So I reluctantly support the use of the term marriage as the only way to ensure equal treatment for all.
We COULD still differentiate between "marriage" and "Holy Matrimony" but how many people are going to use four extra syllables every time?
I can hear it now just like I could hear it using the words 'married' and 'civil unions' to differentiate between the two words; "We are holy matrimonied. You? Why you're only married. How more special we are than you."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 15:07:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 6:33:33 GMT -5
lol.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 1, 2015 7:17:53 GMT -5
I had a civil union and I'm still married. It's bad, I know, but when I went to file the papers with the clerk, I asked her if I wasn't legally married until I filed the papers. Had she told me I wasnt, I'd have hid them and not filed them. But I was, filing them or not made no difference, so I filed them.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
Member is Online
|
Post by swamp on Jul 1, 2015 8:12:09 GMT -5
The state of Washington enacted same-sex marriage through a ballot referendum in 2012. I voted for it. My position, however, is actually more nuanced than a straight support of the idea. Rightly or wrongly, I have always considered the term "marriage" as being religious in nature. My preference would be that we have civil unions for the legal aspects of marriage, for both same- and opposite-sex couples. If someone wants a religious ceremony too? Fine. The only thing that is really important is that both types of couples have the exact same rights and privileges as a result of the legal commitment.
The problem, I think, is that we are too far down the road of "marriage" being used as a legal and tax term, not to mention that it has enormous symbolism. The time and cost required to back us out would be prohibitive, and I do not think many people would insist on the distinction between the terms. So I reluctantly support the use of the term marriage as the only way to ensure equal treatment for all.
We COULD still differentiate between "marriage" and "Holy Matrimony" but how many people are going to use four extra syllables every time?
I can hear it now just like I could hear it using the words 'married' and 'civil unions' to differentiate between the two words; "We are holy matrimonied. You? Why you're only married. How more special we are than you." Sylvester McMonkey McBean would make a fortune..........
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jul 1, 2015 8:29:08 GMT -5
So, I've been seeing some people IRL argue that 1) the state shouldnt be able to change the definition of marriage 2) marriage is religious institution not government 3) their should be civil unions and for government and then marriage... But ultimately, if they were separate, gay people would have been getting married a long time ago...if marriage is separate from government all you have to do is convince someone with the capacity to marry that you should be able to marry. It has only been by dint of the state that the religious have been able to deny gay people the right thus far... Oh god not this again. This "argument" makes me want to pull my hair out. Here's the thing, if you believe that only your god can define what a marriage is, why do you care what the state calls it? The Christian baker contends he doesn't support gay marriage, so he can't participate by making them a cake. If you don't support what the state calls marriage, don't participate. Get married in your church, by your pastor, in the sight of your god, and call it good. Historically, the state has nothing to do with marriage (since out look back period on what constitutes marriage is apparently thousands of years). Why do the devout feel the need to involve the state at all? Oh right, cuz you want all the "perks" that go along with it. If the deeply devout really wanted to remove the state from THEIR marriage, they could. All they would have to do is get joined in their church, and then, if they wanted the additional layers of protection then can set up a complex legal framework that "mimics" what the state calls marriage. Even if the state DID define it as a "civil union" rather than a "marriage" I do hope they realize that people are just going to say they are getting married. So this doesn't really solve the problem. I would also be VERY surprised if all the people objecting to "gay marriage" would really be all on board if we just changed what we called it. Color me skeptical, but I suspect that line in the sand would shift once again, and we will be right back to zero.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,609
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 1, 2015 8:32:50 GMT -5
I can hear it now just like I could hear it using the words 'married' and 'civil unions' to differentiate between the two words; "We are holy matrimonied. You? Why you're only married. How more special we are than you." Sylvester McMonkey McBean would make a fortune..........
I had to look up the reference as I had no clue nor children.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 1, 2015 9:27:53 GMT -5
But if a same sex couple want a religious ceremony and a Christian minister or Jewish rabbi agrees to and performs it in their sanctuary, should the same sex couple be allowed to call their union marriage? After all, it was performed by minister or Rabbi. To me that is where the folks who are not okay with same sex marriage but okay with calling a same sex couple's union a civil union get into problem with semantics. If a marriage can only be called a marriage if it is a religious ceremony, and some Christian churches and synagogues perform religious same sex unions, then the same sex couple's union should be designated a marriage as defined by those who wish to separate marriage from civil unions. Or does it simply come down to what some people simply want: no marriages at all for same sex couples-just for straight couples. Period.
The state of Washington enacted same-sex marriage through a ballot referendum in 2012. I voted for it. My position, however, is actually more nuanced than a straight support of the idea. Rightly or wrongly, I have always considered the term "marriage" as being religious in nature. My preference would be that we have civil unions for the legal aspects of marriage, for both same- and opposite-sex couples. If someone wants a religious ceremony too? Fine. The only thing that is really important is that both types of couples have the exact same rights and privileges as a result of the legal commitment.
The problem, I think, is that we are too far down the road of "marriage" being used as a legal and tax term, not to mention that it has enormous symbolism. The time and cost required to back us out would be prohibitive, and I do not think many people would insist on the distinction between the terms. So I reluctantly support the use of the term marriage as the only way to ensure equal treatment for all.
We COULD still differentiate between "marriage" and "Holy Matrimony" but how many people are going to use four extra syllables every time?
This is my view exactly, and I agree that it would be difficult to transition with the term "marriage" so deeply embedded into so many aspects of the law.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 15:07:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 9:29:47 GMT -5
And if they did separate them , it's not like the fact would keep gay people from marrying anyway.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jul 1, 2015 9:32:43 GMT -5
And if they did separate them , it's not like the fact would keep gay people from marrying anyway. Exactly. All it would allow for is churches to continue to deny people getting married in their church....which is what we have now.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jul 1, 2015 10:08:12 GMT -5
The state of Washington enacted same-sex marriage through a ballot referendum in 2012. I voted for it. My position, however, is actually more nuanced than a straight support of the idea. Rightly or wrongly, I have always considered the term "marriage" as being religious in nature. My preference would be that we have civil unions for the legal aspects of marriage, for both same- and opposite-sex couples. If someone wants a religious ceremony too? Fine. The only thing that is really important is that both types of couples have the exact same rights and privileges as a result of the legal commitment.
The problem, I think, is that we are too far down the road of "marriage" being used as a legal and tax term, not to mention that it has enormous symbolism. The time and cost required to back us out would be prohibitive, and I do not think many people would insist on the distinction between the terms. So I reluctantly support the use of the term marriage as the only way to ensure equal treatment for all.
We COULD still differentiate between "marriage" and "Holy Matrimony" but how many people are going to use four extra syllables every time?
I can hear it now just like I could hear it using the words 'married' and 'civil unions' to differentiate between the two words; "We are holy matrimonied. You? Why you're only married. How more special we are than you." Hey - why wait? You can do that now. As in "I have a Covenant Marriage." [and what hangs in the air is nah-nah-nah-you-don't ]
|
|