[blutrane]

supersloth, on 04 November 2010 - 11:17 AM, said:

certificate of marriage

from the state. which is all that is necessary (signatures, witnesses, location, etc) for a legal union of two people. different from the sacrament.

[supersloth]

well considering no one is talking about the sacrament except for you, and all anyone wants is for marriages, as given out by the government, for everyone, that's fine. i don't give a fuck how bigoted your magical story books wanna be.

edit: but also, they should have to give up their tax exempt status. if you wanna discriminate, you gotta pay your fucking bills.

[baavgai]

Clearly, if your religion feels that same sex marriage is not acceptable, then you can't have a same sex marriage under the auspices of that religion. You'll need to find a more accepting Religion.

When I say "marriage" I'm talking about the status that is recognized by the State. The government technically doesn't care if you're married in a cathedral, in a dungeon, or by Elvis, as long as the paperwork is in order.

Given that, it's confusing why they're much bothered by who, or even what, you marry. As long as you're not greedy and only pick one.

[blutrane]

you don't have to choose to join an organization that you think discriminates.
and you're missing my point with the sacrament thing. There is a difference

I offered my solution: eliminate the bennies/pennies, grant civil union status hell call it marriage. I made the distinction because the legal document does NOT make the union a religious thing. I ain't stopping anyone from loving whomever or whatever. I certainly don't keep tabs on my neighbors to make sure their following 'my' rules, cuz its none of my business and quite frankly i don't give a shit.

pay your bills? you want your tax dollars going to relief efforts (making an assumption that you do support a non-profit of some sort) taxed twice?

Quote

When I say "marriage" I'm talking about the status that is recognized by the State. The government technically doesn't care if you're married in a cathedral, in a dungeon, or by Elvis, as long as the paperwork is in order.

Given that, it's confusing why they're much bothered by who, or even what, you marry. As long as you're not greedy and only pick one.

pretty much my point baavgai. so much more eloquent then I

This post has been edited by blutrane: 04 November 2010 - 11:44 AM

[Lemur]

Realistically all we're doing is playing chicken with the line that separates the Church and the State.

The Church should NEVER be allowed to intervene with the State unless the Churches will happens to be in line with the majority at that time (assuming a democratic system.) Law should never be based solely on religious principles, though admittedly they can be used as guidelines to inspire laws. Law is left to the majority of the people and the representatives they elect at any given time. Whether or not these people are religious by any means depends on the voters.

At the same time, however, the State should not interfere with the matters of the church. If any denomination or sect chooses to believe gay marriage is wrong, by all means let them refuse to acknowledge it. If the State forces preachers or other religious figures to marry people based on their laws, even if it contradicts their religious rights, then that is utterly unacceptable.

We must remember no matter who is in power and what they do, this one simple fact: America is a Democracy and is not a Theocracy by any means.

To clear something up I am Christian and I am generally against Gay Marriage but that's my opinion that I'm entitled to. I believe everyone has their freedom to do as they please with whomever they please as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

As far as the entire hate monger bit and how religion is completely based on hate, that concept comes from people who honestly have no concept of what its purpose is. Any fool can stand up with a sword claiming holy sanction to their tasks, does that mean that they are right and justified?

[lordofduct]

blutrane, we get you're saying two things:

either ok let them get legal marriage, but not sacrament marriage OR remove marriage from gov't all together.


That's exactly homosexuals WANT (the prior).

Marriage isn't going to be removed from law, all the heterosexuals will NOT allow that.

And the homosexuals don't give a shit about your 'sacrament' marriage. That's not what they want. It's not even the WORD that they want. They want the same exact rights defined in the same exact law, that happens to be called 'marriage' by the government.

No where in this movement do they say they want the right to be wed in YOUR church. A church reserves the right to deny ANYONE they please from being married there. Shit many churches already don't allow me to be married there because I'm not of their denomination. Furthermore these same rights are awarded to others, like Orthodox Jews who have synagogues that won't wed you unless you are Jewish!

That right would remain!

So all of you bringing up this state forcing your priests to wed homosexuals. No where has any gay rights movement purported that idea. That's NOT what they want. Remember, marriages don't only take place in churches. Shit I've been to 40 weddings, ONE of them was at a church. The rest were on beaches, in bars, at hotels, in the woods, on cruise ships, even one on canoes in a damn creek. These are the kinds of weddings the gays are going to probably have, shit some of the weddings went to were gay weddings (ceremonially because my state doesn't recognize their union).

Oh yeah, did you get that one? Though we keep the legal precident of gay marriage illegal. They still have the right to walk all over the ceremony. Because know where does it say homosexuals can't celebrate in a party in the fashion of a wedding, and then go on with their lives in the ritual of marriage. And if that's what you're trying to protect, then everyone fighting the gay community is fighting the wrong thing!





And we're all not just talking to you (blutrane). Ok, awesome you agree with us (and this entire post of mine here isn't just talking to you, sorry if it's making you out like the whipping boy here). This goes to others as well, some of whom don't want even the legal proposition handed to them.

Some say just give them 'civil union' which in some states is a separate law... all because they don't want them having the WORD marriage.




Here's my answer. The government documents it as Civil Union in ALL cases (both marriage and civil unions). Just go through and redact the word 'marriage' and replace with 'civil union', then grant the rights to homosexuals, and DONE. Now everyone, straight or gay, have civil unions with the state... and those who are religious have marriages at their church.

Those who want to protect the word have it protected, those who want a religious marriage can go to a church and have it, and those who just want the union can have that. AND ALL OF IT FALLS UNDER THE SAME LAW.

That last capitalized bit is the important part. They need to be the same exact laws... not worded the same, the same exact laws. So that any time a change is made in the future, it's updated for all. We don't need to legislate in two different laws every time a change is made.


You know, kind of like programming. the motto of not programming the same thing twice because that means you have to maintain twice!



Though you know what, in the end. IT'S JUST A WORD! It'd be easier if people would just get over the damn word and stop muddying up the fact that just because gays want to be able to marry, doesn't mean they want to do it at YOUR church and make you watch.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 04 November 2010 - 12:04 PM

[blutrane]

No I posted knowing I would draw flak. I think the connotation that my posts bring bury the points I make. Excellent summation of my crazy posts

Also, pretty sure I posted the church's teaching on homosexuality some place

I don't feel like reposting it if I don't have to

This post has been edited by blutrane: 04 November 2010 - 12:20 PM

[dorknexus]

Quote

Then that is discrimination against all men and women regardless of sexual orientation, but discrimination to all is hardly discrimination now is it? By definition it is not.

Sometimes you say the dumbest shit. This logic is so flawed I'm not even sure if you're just fucking with us at this point. The sad thing is, I think you're dead serious.

What we have is a group of people who are segregated from the legal institution of marriage because of their sexual preference.

Let's apply your logic to another topic and see how it holds up:

Black men and women can marry each other. White men and women can marry each other. But, black men and/or women cannot marry white men and/or women. But, because they all have the right to marry someone, it's not discrimination.

is equivalent too:

Straight men can marry straight women. Straight women can marry straight men. But men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. But, because they all have the right to marry someone, it's not discrimination.

If you truly believe that then you're either dumb or nuts.
You choose.

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 04 November 2010 - 12:29 PM

[lordofduct]

I don't see the relevance of the churches position on homosexuality. That does not matter, it is inconsequential to the rights of homosexuals. The only purpose bringing up the bible in the discussion is re-establishes bigotry. Because even though some people don't use the Bible as an anti-gay crutch... there are those who do. And seeing as it serves no other purpose in the discussion except to crutch up those who want to excuse their own personal bigotry (note I'm not saying it's the Bible being the source of bigotry), there's no reason to even quote it.

Dark_Nexus, on 04 November 2010 - 11:22 AM, said:

Quote

Then that is discrimination against all men and women regardless of sexual orientation, but discrimination to all is hardly discrimination now is it? By definition it is not.

Sometimes you say the dumbest shit. This logic is so flawed I'm not even sure if you're just fucking with us at this point. The sad thing is, I think you're dead serious.

I so know what you mean. It's not like he's even debating for the sake of debating as this barely follows logic.


Question to KYA... if any genocidal megalomaniac murdered everyone instead of just minority groups, is it no longer murder/genocide? So then it's subsequently fair?

No... oh I see, it's the fact that the definition of discriminate implies favoritism of one group.

Good to know, I'm going to start sexually harassing everyone at my work, and when they tell me I'm sexually harassing everyone I'm going to say:

"But wait, I'm sexually harassing EVERYONE. So it's no longer sexual harassment."


sexual harassment is considered discrimination. So for this to work, you
re having a semantics battle. Thing is in LAW semantics comes down to what the LAW defines the word, not what YOU define the word. And the LAW is a little less specific in the 'favoritism' part of it.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 04 November 2010 - 12:38 PM

[blutrane]

It was meant as a response to sloth implying that I'm a bigot, which is usually where the religious discussion goes. I also quoted scripture a few pages ago to establish where I was coming from with the definition of a sacramental marriage, but no one read it as I expected. not sure why I feel compelled to make these long winded posts.

still murder just not genocide.

gen·o·cide
   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

This post has been edited by blutrane: 04 November 2010 - 12:35 PM

[dorknexus]

Bigot:

"The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion."

I think there is a difference between being passionate and having hostility arise from passion so I would not classify you as a bigot.

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 04 November 2010 - 12:33 PM

[KYA]

lordofduct, on 04 November 2010 - 12:30 PM, said:

Question to KYA... if any genocidal megalomaniac murdered everyone instead of just minority groups, is it no longer murder/genocide? So then it's subsequently fair?

If he was not targeting a specific group of people, then by definition, it is not genocide. Still murder though.


--
It would be nice if you guys would stop projecting. I'm merely calling the situation as it is. These "rules" we currently have, apply across the board to everyone. It only becomes discrimination in your mind when you intentionally seek it out.


If gay marriage ever passes, you do realize non gay men could marry for the benefits right? There's no burden of proof to show gayness to apply for the paperwork/certificate/whatever. Same deal with current straight marriage. Everyone has the exact same set of constraints, right, wrong, or indifferent. To say it's not, is just a strong attempt to subvert any opposition to your position by the means of presumption, period.

Then, if that doesn't work, it's on to name calling. Rude. I afforded you the respect to hear your side and no one reciprocates. Throw out the word racist and/or bigot and it's an immediate get out of jail free/"I win!" card in our current culture.


In conclusion, whatevs.

[supersloth]

blutrane, on 04 November 2010 - 11:31 AM, said:

It was meant as a response to sloth implying that I'm a bigot, which is usually where the religious discussion goes.

i said your fictional story book was bigoted (totally stand by that). i know plenty of people who are religious who don't hold the beliefs that others should be denied their rights based on some made up bullshit. if you believe that they should be separated, then you hold a prejudiced belief. if you don't, then you don't hold a prejudiced belief. your choice i guess.

[supersloth]

KYA, on 04 November 2010 - 12:03 PM, said:

Throw out the you can't call me a racist and/or bigot for my racist and/or bigoted beliefs and it's an immediate get out of jail free/"I win!" card in our current culture.


In conclusion, whatevs.

FTFY

[KYA]

Point out where in this thread I said gay people shouldn't get married because of the Bible. All I commented on in this thread is how, in actuality, there is currently no discrimination based on current laws.