The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

It's my understanding that you have to marry twice here in the states as well. I haven't really checked. I mean, unless the priest/pastor/minister/reverend/elder/deacon/rabbi/what-have-you is registered as someone who can legally marry people

[Col.Foley]

Well now that I am thinking about it this is the way it should be. Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage should be...well...seperate. Not that I advocate the Government give preferential treatement for one church or another, that they should stay out of, but if someone wants their marriage to be recognized by Government, then go ahead...as long as you don't have to have a Government recognized marriage.

[Gatefan1976]

Now this, this is the reason a lot of people are fearful. Attitudes like this. I never, ever, thought of gays as being less then human, that is not why I voted for Prop 8. I think the only reason why I voted for Prop 8, in some part, was to maintain the status quo at the end of the day. I am, after all, a Conservative. I don't like huge sweeping changes especially when we have not considered all the consequences.

Maintaining the status quo would be somewhat at odds with libertarianism here dude.

And the Christian argument, for the most part, is not one of 'gays are sub human so lets not marry them' Its an argument of definition. To many Christians gays getting married does not match the definition of the word. You might as well be calling a dog a cat.

This is the most confounding thing. you are hung up on something so banal as a DEFINITION?? Do you dislike the phrase "Fully Sick" as meaning "really good" as well?

I disagree at least in some small part.

Fine

Sure, I do accept that as being a general precept. The 7th law of Noah allows for the Children of Noah to set up 'courts of law among your lands'...or something to that effect.

I, and billions of others really don't give a stuff what Noah has to say on the issue. You cannot claim to be "non religious" and quote scripture dude, it has as much chance of "flying" as a cow!!!

But however God's law, of which many people believe includes a prescription for not allowing gay marriage, is to be considered, especially when it comes to having a marriage in a church who holds that position.

It is to be considered insofar as churches have the right on what unions to bless, besides that, in means jack diddly squat. We are talking Mans Law, not some kind of religious law.

Yeah Libertarianism has a rule, 'first do no harm'.

And denying people legal rights falls under this rule??

Yep, all should be equal under the law.

Yes

But marriage is a church institution not a Government one, my stance on Marriage in general is to protect the churches from oppression, not the Government.

Bullcrap, it's neither, it's a societal thing. Legally binding contracts in regards to "marriage" predate any modern form of church. You want to protect the church from backlash, fine, give the people who the church has oppressed a reason not to treat them as they treated them.

And yes, I would like that freedom, that sounds really awesome in fact. And the essence of what I am talking about marriage is a private affair between private individiduals, whatever else the Government has no place in it...we can quibble at the end of the day whether 'churches' have any place in it, that is not really a fundamental principle, as long as the Government gets out, I will be happy.

You won't get the government out of it dude, they are ultimately responsible for the law we live by, NOT the church or any other "moral group". All they can do is influence the law.

I am actually unsure what me being gay would have to do with the part you just quoted.

Investigate those thousand odd laws, I think you will find it.

No, but if you get one don't expect me to foot the bill

Sorry, I live in a county with functional healthcare laws, it would be covered

And that is what makes Liberatarianism awesome.

But you are not libertarian on this issue, you say the government should stay out, that's libertarian, you think the church should have a say, that's NOT libertarian of you.

[Gatefan1976]

It's my understanding that you have to marry twice here in the states as well. I haven't really checked. I mean, unless the priest/pastor/minister/reverend/elder/deacon/rabbi/what-have-you is registered as someone who can legally marry people

Someone with legal standing needs to "sight" and forward the documentation to the relevant governmental dept. Most priests who do marriages have this *legal* certification. In my case, my celebrant did this for us, in my brothers, he was married in the registrar's office, so that was done on the spot.

[Col.Foley]

Maintaining the status quo would be somewhat at odds with libertarianism here dude.


This is the most confounding thing. you are hung up on something so banal as a DEFINITION?? Do you dislike the phrase "Fully Sick" as meaning "really good" as well?


Fine


I, and billions of others really don't give a stuff what Noah has to say on the issue. You cannot claim to be "non religious" and quote scripture dude, it has as much chance of "flying" as a cow!!!

It is to be considered insofar as churches have the right on what unions to bless, besides that, in means jack diddly squat. We are talking Mans Law, not some kind of religious law.

And denying people legal rights falls under this rule??


Yes


Bullcrap, it's neither, it's a societal thing. Legally binding contracts in regards to "marriage" predate any modern form of church. You want to protect the church from backlash, fine, give the people who the church has oppressed a reason not to treat them as they treated them.

You won't get the government out of it dude, they are ultimately responsible for the law we live by, NOT the church or any other "moral group". All they can do is influence the law.


Investigate those thousand odd laws, I think you will find it.


Sorry, I live in a county with functional healthcare laws, it would be covered


But you are not libertarian on this issue, you say the government should stay out, that's libertarian, you think the church should have a say, that's NOT libertarian of you.

Oh don't I know it.

No I am not hung up on a definition, because my definition I do not think should be the law of the land, my definition is my own. Christian groups who have a problem with gay marriage, are though.

But I am not religious...I am not a Jew, Christian, or Muslim. I do believe in certain moral precepts from the Bible, and from a religious perspective God basically said, hey gentiles! Make your own laws!

Ah I see what you mean, and in that respect you are probably right. But let us make the law in this case as small as we can. Let the government say, 'we recognize all marriages within the United States, but we are not going to have a hand in those marriages' Basically if you can find someone who will marry you, we will recognize it, otherwise, we have no say.

O.O

Oi ve.

Yes the Church should have a say in their own internal affairs, that is Libertarian.

[SoulReaver]

Soul, you are preaching to the choir here bud. I have argued that the chances of such a thing happening are slim to nil, but this outcome is what "they" are getting told will happen and when people you trust, not just with your life, but with your faith and your afterlife are telling you this, people listen.

hey I know m8 - perhaps I should've clarified, I wasn't really answering to you, nor to Foley (since I wasn't sure that's what he meant). more of an out-loud statement

there again if the chances of this happening are just "slim" their concern would still be justified. but I'd argue that the chances are exactly nil because it would involve removing the state/religion separation part from the Constitution, something which neither progressives nor conservatives will ever accept (though not for the same reasons)

[Gatefan1976]

Oh don't I know it.

No I am not hung up on a definition, because my definition I do not think should be the law of the land, my definition is my own. Christian groups who have a problem with gay marriage, are though.

But I am not religious...I am not a Jew, Christian, or Muslim. I do believe in certain moral precepts from the Bible, and from a religious perspective God basically said, hey gentiles! Make your own laws!

Ah I see what you mean, and in that respect you are probably right. But let us make the law in this case as small as we can. Let the government say, 'we recognize all marriages within the United States, but we are not going to have a hand in those marriages' Basically if you can find someone who will marry you, we will recognize it, otherwise, we have no say.

O.O

Oi ve.

Yes the Church should have a say in their own internal affairs, that is Libertarian.

You can learn, fantastic

Yes, it must be because we live under the rule of man, argue whatever you want, you will be wrong here.

So let them make their laws and abide by them

The law needs to define the rights and responsibilities of marriage from a legal standpoint if nothing else. Set the rules then stand back, sure.

Yes, when your partner cannot determine what is done with your body, your estate, and respect your wishes, I think you will find something

????

Indeed, but not in the laws all have to live by weather they believe in the teachings or doctrines of any one church.

[Col.Foley]

You can learn, fantastic

Yes, it must be because we live under the rule of man, argue whatever you want, you will be wrong here.

So let them make their laws and abide by them

The law needs to define the rights and responsibilities of marriage from a legal standpoint if nothing else. Set the rules then stand back, sure.

Yes, when your partner cannot determine what is done with your body, your estate, and respect your wishes, I think you will find something

????

Indeed, but not in the laws all have to live by weather they believe in the teachings or doctrines of any one church.

Sarcasm really? I get enough of that stuff from PH and Jel.

No, I actually agree with that.

Yeah I can see that because...wellsomething you say...

Ah that little touchy issue, I get it now. And yes that is its own grenade.

Yep.

[Gatefan1976]

Sarcasm really? I get enough of that stuff from PH and Jel.

No, I actually agree with that.

Yeah I can see that because...wellsomething you say...

Ah that little touchy issue, I get it now. And yes that is its own grenade.

Yep.

It's needed to wake you up sometimes, like this stupid structure you still like to use.

With what?

It's a grenade if you are foolish enough to let it become one, rather than, oh I dunno, DEAL with it instead.

But you value their choice above yours.

[Col.Foley]

It's needed to wake you up sometimes, like this stupid structure you still like to use.

You know I think you are right here actually I just am too lazy and forgetful to do anything.

It's a grenade if you are foolish enough to let it become one, rather than, oh I dunno, DEAL with it instead.

True, I agree.

But you value their choice above yours.

Huh? Uh no I do not...

[Falcon Horus]

Civil unions, as we gather at the cityhall and the mayor says a couple of words and then marries the couple. Papers are signed, documents exchanged, kisses too, pictures taken... and off we go, either to the next stop which would be either the religious venue of choice or more likely the venue where the party is ready to start.

Few couples still make it to their religious venue of choice these days... at least in Belgium that is.

[dipsofjazz]

This is a very sensitive issue and I just wanted to add my thoughts.

I believe the marriage issue stems from the legal definition of both marriage and as you have so rightly pointed out Foley the involvement of 'the church'. I am from the UK and not only are my gay friends discriminated against by this definition, but all my non-christian or atheist friends are too. In the UK a marriage is only recognized by law if the ceremony takes place in a 'place of worship' or a building with the appropriate license, e.g. hotel, registry office etc. UK law seems only to recognise Christian 'churches' as places of worship, where marriage is concerned (I assume this stems from the legal definition of 'worship' and the 'marriage contract' in UK law, although I cannot be certain.) Therefore, according to UK law, Mosques, Synagogues etc apparently are not places of worship and therefore unable to hold a marriage ceremony that will be recognised by law.

You are talking about the law in England and Wales. In Scotland we have always had our own law system.

Here there is no discrimination between places of worship...

The Religious Marriage Ceremony

Religious marriage ceremonies vary greatly, depending on the religion involved. They include marriages by celebrants of many Christian denominations, and celebrants from other religions such as Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. They also include celebrants from other belief systems, notably Humanists.

The detail of the ceremony is decided by the celebrant. But the form of ceremony must include, and must be in no way inconsistent with,

a declaration by the parties, in the presence of each other, the celebrant and two witnesses, that they accept each other as husband and wife; and
a declaration by the celebrant, after the foregoing declaration, that the parties are then husband and wife.

[Womble]

This is the most confounding thing. you are hung up on something so banal as a DEFINITION?? Do you dislike the phrase "Fully Sick" as meaning "really good" as well?

Definitions are what these things are about.

The big question getting lost in all the crap surrounding this discussion is- what is marriage? What does it mean and what purpose does it serve?

If marriage is just a formality, a declaration and a signature with no deeper meaning behind it, then go ahead and marry anyone to anyone.

If marriage is an individual thing that has no meaning except to the two individuals getting married, then go ahead and leave it to the individuals to decide who to marry and how many of them.

If marriage serves an important social function, then any change of its definition should ensure that it continues to serve that function - unless the purpose of redefinition is destroying marriage as a social institution, that is.

[Gatefan1976]

Definitions are what these things are about.

The big question getting lost in all the crap surrounding this discussion is- what is marriage? What does it mean and what purpose does it serve?

If marriage is just a formality, a declaration and a signature with no deeper meaning behind it, then go ahead and marry anyone to anyone.

If marriage is an individual thing that has no meaning except to the two individuals getting married, then go ahead and leave it to the individuals to decide who to marry and how many of them.

Are we actually agreeing to an extent??!!??

If marriage serves an important social function, then any change of its definition should ensure that it continues to serve that function - unless the purpose of redefinition is destroying marriage as a social institution, that is.

I guess that is the real question here DOES it serve an important social function anymore?

[Womble]

Are we actually agreeing to an extent??!!??

Depends on your answer to those questions.

I guess that is the real question here DOES it serve an important social function anymore?

From where I stand, it does. Or at least it should. It's a social device to ensure that the society endures over time through producing the next generation.