just out of curiosity, how would you feel if someone told you what your religion could and couldn't recognize?

 

I'd feel like my constitutional rights were violated. Fortunately, that doesn't happen and nobody wishes for that to happen. For instance, the Catholic church is free to not recognize my marriage since it wasn't performed by them.

just out of curiosity, how would you feel if someone told you what your religion could and couldn't recognize?

 

Has absolutely zero to do with what a religion recognizes. If the government lets Bob and Larry get married, churchgoers can say "Whatever, doesn't count in Jesus' eyes!" all they want.

just out of curiosity, how would you feel if someone told you what your religion could and couldn't recognize?

Be clear there though...if someone's religion wants to refuse to recognize interracial marriage, no one is telling them they can't be bigots.

 

The state stepping in and reminding everyone that interracial marriages count less would seem to me to be a different matter.

Just out of curiousity, how would you feel if your marriage was described as a "Civil Union" and you couldn't call it a marriage because churches objected to the union and wanted to make sure you were made to know it?

I'd be irritated and would not support that religion. But if I got all of the same rights, other then that, I couldn't complain to the government. I think of the government being separate from church. And I'd point out that If I were that religion, I'd protest those in high places within the religion to tell them that they are full of it.

 

Again, I fully believe there are 2 arguments. One is equality from a government perspective. The other is what specific religions see fit.

Be clear there though...if someone's religion wants to refuse to recognize interracial marriage, no one is telling them they can't be bigots.

 

The state stepping in and reminding everyone that interracial marriages count less would seem to me to be a different matter.

 

+1

 

 

I think of this clip whenever I see this thread.

question. the word "marriage" doesn't have an inherently religious meaning does it? it just means two individual entities being conjoined.

 

so... when are the religious loonies gonna get over the fact that they don't OWN that word? Churches can recognize, or not, any marriage they want - but the government should allow ANY kind of marriage, and that couple - regardless of sex - should receive the benefits it comes with. Right?

 

But oh they just have to keep b****ing about semantics.

WTF man? What do you mean by typical southerner? You're stereotyping.

 

Typical southerners are conservative. I've experienced this first hand. No stereotyping. But, we're not ALL like that.

But oh they just have to keep b****ing about semantics.

Isn't that what YOU are doing? Marriage, civil union, civil union, marriage...

Isn't that what YOU are doing? Marriage, civil union, civil union, marriage...

I've posted a couple of links showing that, shockingly, "separate but equal" isn't actually equal.

 

Creating an entirely separate category that's supposed to have all the same rights (but doesn't in practice) is a nonsensical policy for a secular government.

 

edit: your pic makes no sense. Rahm did not ban or threaten to ban Chick-fil-a.

Edited July 30, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

Isn't that what YOU are doing? Marriage, civil union, civil union, marriage...

um... as we've established in this very thread... those with civil unions aren't granted the same rights by the GOVERNMENT as those with a marriage. lol that's more than semantics buddy.

Typical southerners are conservative. I've experienced this first hand. No stereotyping. But, we're not ALL like that.

i said that because I was getting flamed for making the same comment about southerners.

question. the word "marriage" doesn't have an inherently religious meaning does it? it just means two individual entities being conjoined.

 

so... when are the religious loonies gonna get over the fact that they don't OWN that word? Churches can recognize, or not, any marriage they want - but the government should allow ANY kind of marriage, and that couple - regardless of sex - should receive the benefits it comes with. Right?

 

But oh they just have to keep b****ing about semantics.

 

Marriage between people was a religious institution long before the gov't decided to grant benefits to married people. That's the crux of the religious argument. You can't force people to adhere to something (definition of marriage) that conflicts with their religious belief. But from an equality standpoint, the gov't shouldn't be denying people equal rights under the law.

 

I'd still like to know where that leads us though - what about marrying family members or having multiple wives. At some point marriage has no independent meaning separate from religion, so you should be able to marry whomever you wish and how many you wish with the same equal benefits.

Caring about words is a losing battle.

 

The best way to attack it, is just to use the word in a way people dont like.

 

I always refer to my gay friends as married.

 

I'd still like to know where that leads us though - what about marrying family members or having multiple wives. At some point marriage has no independent meaning separate from religion, so you should be able to marry whomever you wish and how many you wish with the same equal benefits.

 

You make a strong case for the legalization of incest and polygamy.

 

I dont really care, but I can easily support polygamy, incest is slightly more difficult due to potential health ramifications of the child, but if the 2 adults were willing to agree not to have a child, Id give them a license too.

 

Who cares what consulting adults do if it doesnt hurt anyone else?

 

I sure as hell dont.

 

 

Marriage means whatever we say it means independent from religion.

 

But there's a problem with that "can of worms" argument: it ignores the equal-rights argument in favor of gay marriage. Currently, in states without SSM, the rules on whom can marry Bob are determined by their gender; Ann can do so because she is a woman, but Bill cannot because he is a man. That's plainly gender-based discrimination. These other possibilities, marrying your close family or having multiple wives, are not the same sort of equal-rights issues. I can't marry my sister because she's my sister regardless of what my gender is; there's no protected-class discrimination in play. The same is true of multiple-partner marriages: the structure of civil marriage limits it to a two-party contract. There is a discrimination based on numbers, not on class or characteristic.

 

Now there could be a separate discussion on whether those types of relationships should be legally permitted, but they are not relevant to the SSM debate.

You make a strong case for the legalization of incest and polygamy.

 

I dont really care, but I can easily support polygamy, incest is slightly more difficult due to potential health ramifications of the child, but if the 2 adults were willing to agree not to have a child, Id give them a license too.

 

Who cares what consulting adults do if it doesnt hurt anyone else?

 

I sure as hell dont.

 

I don't have a problem with people who want to live in a multiple-partner relationship, but I imagine it would be quite messy legally to recognize these marriages. For example, it'd really screw up social security survivor's benefits.

i said that because I was getting flamed for making the same comment about southerners.

 

You were right.

I don't have a problem with people who want to live in a multiple-partner relationship, but I imagine it would be quite messy legally to recognize these marriages. For example, it'd really screw up social security survivor's benefits.

 

No it wouldnt.

 

You get 1 survivor benefit, if you are married to multiple spouses, it goes to your first spouse.

 

If you dont like that, get divorced.

That's one particular example, but it would still require a re-write of SS law. Stopping gay marriage discrimination would not.

It would require writing a new section, but that really doesnt seem like a good reason for not doing something.

 

It would require writing a new section or modifying an old section for an awful lot of programs/laws/regulations/benefits/etc. My point is that it would be very complicated legislatively, unlike legalizing SSM.

How is it very complicated legislation?

 

You can just change the definition.

 

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0216.htm

 

You add a line in wife section about multiple husbands/wifes.

 

It would be very complicated legislatively to amend hundreds of laws that would be impacted, not one specific example I plucked. The individual modifications may or may not be complicated, but having to first identify the areas of concern and then pass hundreds of bills modifying things to accommodate polygamy would be complex in a practice as well as being a non-starter politically.

 

No such changes have to be made for SSM.

It would be very complicated legislatively to amend hundreds of laws that would be impacted, not one specific example I plucked. The individual modifications may or may not be complicated, but having to first identify the areas of concern and then pass hundreds of bills modifying things to accommodate polygamy would be complex in a practice as well as being a non-starter politically.

 

No such changes have to be made for SSM.

 

Which is why government should tread lightly when legislating behavior.

It would be very complicated legislatively to amend hundreds of laws that would be impacted, not one specific example I plucked. The individual modifications may or may not be complicated, but having to first identify the areas of concern and then pass hundreds of bills modifying things to accommodate polygamy would be complex in a practice as well as being a non-starter politically.

 

No such changes have to be made for SSM.

 

Im not sure where you are going with this. Who cares about how many changes will be done, isnt the argument about fairness and equality? Are you seriously implying that we shouldnt treat a certain group fairly if "it is very complicated".

 

?

 

Also as ive said, its not very complicated. There is a definition section, you merely have to change 1 section. This isnt rocket science.