[quote="jimkatai";p="687279"]Deacon, what part of a person choosing a different type of lifestyle is a public matter?[/quote]
A different lifestyle? What are you talking about? We're not talking about different lifestyles. We're talking about altering the legal definition of marriage, which is a legal thing.
2008 US presidential elections: Who will run?
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
Yes, but all the reasons against doing it are all personal, rather than anything seriously, legitimately political or legal. Your reasons against changing the law are to intrude in people's lives.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
-
NorthernComfort
- Redshirt
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
- Real Name: Alex
- Gender: Male
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
Why is it a legal thing for what is, at it's root, a religious thing?A different lifestyle? What are you talking about? We're not talking about different lifestyles. We're talking about altering the legal definition of marriage, which is a legal thing.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson
-
Sophira
- Jezzy's Belle
- Posts: 4858
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:20 pm
- Real Name: get outta my grits
- Gender: Female
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
NorthernComfort, roots notwithstanding, it is currently a legal issue. If it were not, what would become of spousal rights? How would you prove to insurance companies who was your spouse? Would those companies then be legally able to discriminate against covering spouses married by means company leaders don't approve of?
Where a concept came from is a moot point. It doesn't change the current system.
Where a concept came from is a moot point. It doesn't change the current system.
<Arc_Orion> And I give rides to dudes!
<kaiju01> Yeah, I'm kind of a dick.
<Hirschof>Long from now, when the Earth is charred and barren, the only things left on the surface will be cockroaches and the continuous bickering between Fuggle and Deacon.
<Deacon> I'm not, however, played by a homosexual child star.
<kaiju01> Yeah, I'm kind of a dick.
<Hirschof>Long from now, when the Earth is charred and barren, the only things left on the surface will be cockroaches and the continuous bickering between Fuggle and Deacon.
<Deacon> I'm not, however, played by a homosexual child star.
-
adciv
- Redshirt
- Posts: 11723
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:20 am
- Real Name: Lord Al-Briaca
- Location: Middle of Nowhere, MD
[quote="NorthernComfort";p="687286"]
DING! This is the reason why I believe government should not be allowed to define or use the term mariage. I believe it to be an inherintly religious institution. As such, there should be no limit on the number, makeup, or genders of people who wish to be maried to each other.
Of course, I also take this to be the elimination of using mariage in taxes as well and it is related, to me at least.
Why is it a legal thing for what is, at it's root, a religious thing?[/quote]A different lifestyle? What are you talking about? We're not talking about different lifestyles. We're talking about altering the legal definition of marriage, which is a legal thing.
DING! This is the reason why I believe government should not be allowed to define or use the term mariage. I believe it to be an inherintly religious institution. As such, there should be no limit on the number, makeup, or genders of people who wish to be maried to each other.
Of course, I also take this to be the elimination of using mariage in taxes as well and it is related, to me at least.
Repensum Est Canicula
The most dangerous words from an Engineer: "I have an idea."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
The most dangerous words from an Engineer: "I have an idea."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
Or you could argue the actual point instead of trying to upsell one man's book from the late 50's, who's last relevant foray into politics was a failed presidential bid in 1964. And you still haven't shortened that URL or turned it into a link.
The bottom line is that marriage is currently defined as a legal union between a man and a woman. If you want to change that defintion, that's fine, but you can't also say that "the government should stay out of marriage," too. You want to have your cake and eat it, too, something to which you have not responded, which makes me think you don't really have an adequate response.
Either We The People change the definition to suit your own personal ideas on the subject, or we don't. Either way, we're involving the government in the topic of marriage. And if we vote to completely and totally remove government from the marriage business, where marriage disappears as a legal concept in the US, then by active omission we are involving ourselves in it and radically changing...everything.
The problem is that because you haven't actually thought any of this through, you're throwing out there silly and often contradictory statements because you haven't reconciled reality and sense with the pretzel logic that's been constantly thrown at us from the left for years...
Marriage is a social institution that differs slightly in flavor and impact from culture to culture throughout history. I don't know of any human culture that does not have the concept of marriage. Throughout history it has been given varying levels of legal and religious status and importance, depending on the group of people and time period in history that we're talking about. But marriage is first and foremost an ingrained social institution. The legal and religious involvement depends on the government and the church (or lack thereof) to which the couple happens to belong. Plenty of atheists get married every day. Regardless, it is not something from which we can fully and totally extract the legal system, nor should we, IMHO.
The bottom line is that marriage is currently defined as a legal union between a man and a woman. If you want to change that defintion, that's fine, but you can't also say that "the government should stay out of marriage," too. You want to have your cake and eat it, too, something to which you have not responded, which makes me think you don't really have an adequate response.
Either We The People change the definition to suit your own personal ideas on the subject, or we don't. Either way, we're involving the government in the topic of marriage. And if we vote to completely and totally remove government from the marriage business, where marriage disappears as a legal concept in the US, then by active omission we are involving ourselves in it and radically changing...everything.
The problem is that because you haven't actually thought any of this through, you're throwing out there silly and often contradictory statements because you haven't reconciled reality and sense with the pretzel logic that's been constantly thrown at us from the left for years...
Marriage is a social institution that differs slightly in flavor and impact from culture to culture throughout history. I don't know of any human culture that does not have the concept of marriage. Throughout history it has been given varying levels of legal and religious status and importance, depending on the group of people and time period in history that we're talking about. But marriage is first and foremost an ingrained social institution. The legal and religious involvement depends on the government and the church (or lack thereof) to which the couple happens to belong. Plenty of atheists get married every day. Regardless, it is not something from which we can fully and totally extract the legal system, nor should we, IMHO.
Last edited by Deacon on Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:31 am, edited 3 times in total.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
-
jimkatai
- Redshirt
- Posts: 1982
- Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 5:37 am
- Real Name: Yahweh
- Gender: Male
- Location: Olympia, WA
So, since it says it in the law already, it is obviously in the domain of public interest? But if we changed the law, would it then be out of the domain of public interest. It seems to me that you are simply saying that since we have laws concerning it, we should have laws concerning it. I make a law that says that people can not marry a person who is a citizen of another country. This is now in the domain of public interest so the law stands... because I made a law about it. Seems like circular logic if I have ever seen it.
EDIT: Sorry, you posted again before I got this out. I see what you are saying now, but now, you seem to be copping out. It says it's illegal so it's illegal? We can grasp that. Does that not give us a right to debate about it? Are you basically just telling us to go vote? You are saying that we the people will determine what the law is. We are the people, and we are determining what the law is. If we change the law then marriage, on the basis of who is marrying, is not in legal range? Aren't we talking about changing the law because of this reason?
EDIT: Sorry, you posted again before I got this out. I see what you are saying now, but now, you seem to be copping out. It says it's illegal so it's illegal? We can grasp that. Does that not give us a right to debate about it? Are you basically just telling us to go vote? You are saying that we the people will determine what the law is. We are the people, and we are determining what the law is. If we change the law then marriage, on the basis of who is marrying, is not in legal range? Aren't we talking about changing the law because of this reason?
Last edited by jimkatai on Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stand in awe of my creativity
-
naval_aviator_2040
- Redshirt
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: NY Capital region
- Contact:
[quote="Deacon";p="687267"]
[/quote]
The Church of England was formed when King Henry VIII Couldn't get the Catholic Pope to Grant an annulment for his wedding so he broke away from the catholic church, created a new protestant church with himself at its head. Since inheritance of the Anglican "Papacy" was hereditary, whoever was king was also in charge of the Church of England. As for the specific claim of the pilgrims. I believe it was more the fact that the throne was dictating church policies and was forcing the church away from what the Puritans felt was righteous that precipitated their departure.
Really? You're sure about that? That doesn't sound familiar.Back in England the pilgrims left because the Church of England was dictating politics.
[/quote]
The Church of England was formed when King Henry VIII Couldn't get the Catholic Pope to Grant an annulment for his wedding so he broke away from the catholic church, created a new protestant church with himself at its head. Since inheritance of the Anglican "Papacy" was hereditary, whoever was king was also in charge of the Church of England. As for the specific claim of the pilgrims. I believe it was more the fact that the throne was dictating church policies and was forcing the church away from what the Puritans felt was righteous that precipitated their departure.
i don't hate everyone equally, there are levels. but none of them are the traditionally thought of standards for predjudice. its not based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation its based on how much the person annoys me personally. i count you as a friend since you annoy me very little. brittney spears is an enemy because even though i don't know her/care about her at all she still finds a way to annoy me every time i turn on the tv
[quote="naval_aviator_2040";p="687384"][quote="Deacon";p="687267"]
[/quote]
As for the specific claim of the pilgrims. I believe it was more the fact that the throne was dictating church policies and was forcing the church away from what the Puritans felt was righteous that precipitated their departure.[/quote]
Basic gradeschool history there.. THe pilgrims left because the church of england was dictating politics, because the king was the creator of the church of england. He was the highest figure in the church at the time..
So, we come to this country.. and by the time the 21st century rolls around we all decide. ya know what, we want the church to control politics again.. SPLENDID!
But deacon.. its not splendid.. This is exactly the same thing that my ancestors came over on the mayflower to avoid.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 08:27 am:
[quote="Deacon";p="687334"]Or you could argue the actual point instead of trying to upsell one man's book from the late 50's, who's last relevant foray into politics was a failed presidential bid in 1964. And you still haven't shortened that URL or turned it into a link[/quote]
SInce you like wiki.. he was involved in politics long after his presidential bid in 1964: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
As far as the URL, it works perfectly fine in my browser.. no sidescrolling or anything like that.. But, for those of you with pos browsters, its edited..
Really? You're sure about that? That doesn't sound familiar.Back in England the pilgrims left because the Church of England was dictating politics.
[/quote]
As for the specific claim of the pilgrims. I believe it was more the fact that the throne was dictating church policies and was forcing the church away from what the Puritans felt was righteous that precipitated their departure.[/quote]
Basic gradeschool history there.. THe pilgrims left because the church of england was dictating politics, because the king was the creator of the church of england. He was the highest figure in the church at the time..
So, we come to this country.. and by the time the 21st century rolls around we all decide. ya know what, we want the church to control politics again.. SPLENDID!
But deacon.. its not splendid.. This is exactly the same thing that my ancestors came over on the mayflower to avoid.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 08:27 am:
[quote="Deacon";p="687334"]Or you could argue the actual point instead of trying to upsell one man's book from the late 50's, who's last relevant foray into politics was a failed presidential bid in 1964. And you still haven't shortened that URL or turned it into a link[/quote]
SInce you like wiki.. he was involved in politics long after his presidential bid in 1964: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
As far as the URL, it works perfectly fine in my browser.. no sidescrolling or anything like that.. But, for those of you with pos browsters, its edited..
Last edited by mikehendo on Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
mikehendo, not only did it not happen like you said it did (in fact, it was the exact opposite: it was the king controlling religion and restricting the free exercise thereof), it's not happening now. "The Church" (used in quotes with very heavy disgust) is not controlling politics. And even if we suspend our disbelief for a moment and say that It were controlling politics, that would be the fault of those who stay home instead of voting!
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest