DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on February 15, 2016, 04:27:05 PM
-
http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=495
(http://tailsteak.com/000495/marriage1.jpg)
(http://tailsteak.com/000495/marriage2.jpg)
(http://tailsteak.com/000495/marriage3.jpg)
Well, it isn't indisputable , but it isn't easy to pick apart.
-
Marriage used to be a religious thing. Before priests decided they could make a living off of it, people paired off without any religion involved, as animals do.
If people want a religious ceremony, they are welcome to have one, and the government recognizes this. But there is no reason it needs to be religious. So people can have a civil ceremony, and the government recognizes that as well.
If you want a sacred ceremony, you can have one. You can declare anything you wish to be sacred.
Marriage is not only a religious thing, it can be simply an official declaration of two people living together and owning things jointly.
It can be whatever the people want it to be.
Since tax laws and property laws deal with people owning things jointly, and since a huge number of people do not believe in invisible deities, the government has an obligation to provide a non-religious alternative.
Religious people still have their ceremonies recognized and have no right to demand that those that are not religious be married in churches, mosques, synagogues or whatever.
-
Can Marriage mean that I own a pet and play tennis?
-
If that is what you want it to mean. it won't bother me a bit.
-
In that case Marriage means nothing at all.
Thanks so much to activists who spread the meaning too thin.
-
Since tax laws and property laws deal with people owning things jointly, and since a huge number of people do not believe in invisible deities, the government has an obligation to provide a non-religious alternative.
And THAT can be referred to as a civil union...or a domestic partnership...or a narriage. No need to hijack a word that has had a clear and concise definition for eons, and try to redefine it to meet current politically correct parameters
-
There is a purpose that "Civil Union" does not serve, social approval is strong for Marriage, civil union seems like a second class.
One of the things that the gay rights movement would like very much to have is respect, and they think that this will crowbar them into respectability.
-
And that is indeed the effort here. It's never been about granting equal representation, in the eyes tax laws and health care related matters, since that can all be addressed with Civil Unions. This whole push is to co-opt the word marriage, which everyone accepts as legitimate, and apply it on a subset of those who want to try and lay claim to their choices as being wholly respectable. The effort is pretty transparent, despite the smoke screen of how the Government needs to deal with matters of joint taxation, property, and healthcare issues
-
It is not a matter of "crowbar them into respectability". It is simply a desire to have EQUALITY.
Calling it "civil union" is like separate but (nudge nudge) "equal".
This has been decided by the courts. No silly cartoon is going to change that.
-
Equality in the eyes of the law can be attained thru civil unions....IF....that's what this was all about. Instead, its about trying to apply a term that is associated with respectability, to an act, which half the nation believes to be sinful. And I'm not talking about polls accepting gays into the mainstream. We're talking about an act, that to staunch Christians (and apparently staunch Muslims as well) consider NOT respectable. Which is why this whole issue isn't about attaining equality, since that is already accomplished thru civil unions, its about browbeating over half the nation to accept an act, which most consider right up there with adultery, as perfectly ok & "natural". Sure it is.....just as natural as adultery is. Both are consentual
-
If words matter, then equality must consist of using the identical words to describe all marriages.
If by some very unlikely quirk, present gay marriages were officially relabeled civil unions, there would be a bazillion lawsuits and taxpayers would get hit with the expense in every state and territory. If they allowed present gay marriages to be still called marriages, then that would be unequal treatment before the law and that would involve great and unnecessary legal expense.
Marriage in the US is of two types: civil and religious. We have been calling them by the same name forever, and with no serious repercussions.
I cannot imagine why anyone gives a damn whether Adam and Steve are married, civilly unified, religiously unified or just living in sin. The only difference is a piece of paper no one except perhaps loan officers or police investigators have a right to see..
I am thinking that the next time you have one of your chats with God or Jesus, you discuss the unease you have with seeing gay couples talk about their "marriages". It seems like a better alternative that discussing it with Adam or Steve, since one of them might just punch you in the nose., and Jesus did not punch people. Of course, God might be tempted to make you the next Job,and let Satan diddle you.
Just wait and buy a new dictionary in which you will find the word redefined, and stop bitching. On a scale of one to ten in importance, this one rates a 0..
-
If words matter, then equality must consist of using the identical words to describe all marriages.
No, it doesn't. A marriage is that of a union between a man and a woman....period. That's literally its definition. If you want LEGAL equality, that doesn't require an identical word, simply a word or phrase that can be applied in the eyes of the Government. Civil Unions provide exactly what so many supporters of gay marriage claim that they want....equality in the eyes of the Government. The only thing it doesn't provide is a term that generations have come to define as sacred.
and THAT's what they want.....to co-opt that term/word, to then stamp their actions as completely acceptable and normal. The equality tact is largely bunk
-
Marriage is ....sacred?
Where on Earth do you get that?
-
When it's the union of a man and women with a lifetime pledge to be there for each other. That's about as sacred as it gets
-
You are strange.
What does "sacred" mean to you?
-
It means what it means to anyone else with a minimum of a 3rd grade education....as in revered, as in the ultimate of dedication.
-
Marriage used to be a religious thing. Before priests decided they could make a living off of it, people paired off without any religion involved, as animals do.
When and where was this?
This must be so pre- history , that it may be pre- social.
Marriage is ....sacred?
Where on Earth do you get that?
If it is not , then the gay rights movement have invested a lot into it for no apparent reason. I think they are hoping some of the sacredness will become the respect they feel they are due, and end the opprobrium that they have been receiving since time immemorial.
This has been decided by the courts. No silly cartoon is going to change that.
I don't think you understood that cartoon , I do not agree with it , I think it makes an interesting point that I disagree with in a particular way.
But you are right , this is a decision of the courts , not the society, not the people.
When the people have been consulted , most of them have not changed their minds .
The courts have put the cart ahead of the horse.It is not a matter of "crowbar them into respectability". It is simply a desire to have EQUALITY.
Non married people are unequal to married ones in what way?
People are different in many ways that the law recognizes, if a person makes a choice that ruins his finances, the law will definitely treat him differently than someone who has plenty of cash, shoot ... even of a person is broke by no fault of his own the law is different for him than for someone with plenty.
Finances are just one example , people who have certain education and licenses get the commensurate privileges and responsibilities different than those without the degrees and certifications. Age is recognized by the law, sex is recognized by the law , and the state of matrimony is recognized by the law as different from a state of singleness.
Equality before the law is a good ideal , but the law is quite well able to differentiate for several reasons people who are in fact not really equal. When it is needed to recognize a difference legally we usually find a way. The inequality is tolerated when the people accept that the reason for it is compelling and reasonable to justify the inequality.
So what is the states interest in recognizing and regulating marriage? Why is the state excused in regarding single persons as unequal to married ones?
-
The equality I am referring to is the desire for gay married people to be regarded by the government as entirely equal to heterosexual married people.
Giving married people of whatever sex a tax break over single people is a different issue, and not the one I was referring to.
-
Civil Unions do precisely that....in the eyes of Government
-
The equality I am referring to is the desire for gay married people to be regarded by the government as entirely equal to heterosexual married people.
Giving married people of whatever sex a tax break over single people is a different issue, and not the one I was referring to.
I don't see it as a different issue, the reason to give tax preference to people who are married is a proxy to giving preference to people who are making choices good for the state and society.
Pairing off in long term relationships is good for breeding couples.
-
Marriage does not guarantee that the couple will stay together.
I have heard many times of people who lived together for a year or more and got along just fine. But then they got married and or the other of them felt trapped, perhaps because they shared finances and they split up.
It is perhaps sacred to some people, but certainly not to all.
I can put up with singles having to pay more taxes, even though it is not fair to them.
When people over 50 get married and don't have much chance of having children, they still get the married deduction.
-
Marriage does not guarantee that the couple will stay together.
No one claimed it did. It's simply a sacred pledge, between a man & woman, in front of some form of ordained clergy. That's all that marriage is. How people act during a marriage, has nothing to do with what the definition of marriage is ::)
-
It's simply a sacred pledge, between a man & woman, in front of some form of ordained clergy. That's all that marriage is. How people act during a marriage, has nothing to do with what the definition of marriage is
For SOME people, certainly not everyone. Millions of people are married by Justices of the Peace, ship captains and a lot of other people who have no religious title.
You are wasting your time trying to get gay and lesbian marriages redefined as civil unions. You rightwingers had a chance to do this about twenty years ago, and most of you were still in favor or charging gay people with sodomy.
The bus left the station long ago, and you cannot run fast enough to catch it.
-
There is no such thing as a lesbian marriage. That's your problem
-
There are thousands of Lesbians that will disagree with you and have marriage licenses to prove it.
Live with it. You will change nothing.
-
They're not disagreeing with me, they'd be disagreeing with the English language, and the definition of marriage
-
They have a MARRIAGE LICENSE, just like you. And they donlt have to show it to you, just as you do not have to show yours to them.
The language has changed.
At some point in every reptile's life, some discover they are dinosaurs and will be extinct.
You seem to have reached that point in your life.
-
The language has changed.
And thank you for making my point....that this is all about co-opting a word that meant one thing, for eons, and attempt redefine as another, based on nothing more than political correctness, and the effort to proclaim acts/choices that a majority of the population sees as immoral, along the same lines as Adultery, as being perfectly ok, and to be legally accepted as perfectly ok.
-
The bus left the station long ago, and you cannot run fast enough to catch it.
That depends entirely on how well that bus runs.
If it breaks down in the ditch , leaving it behind will not be challenging.
-
So now sirs tells us that there should be laws against adultery.
It is the obligation of the government to enforce a ban on cheating on one's spouse.
Adultery should be punishable by jail time as a felony. Perhaps flirting could be a misdemeanor.
sirs seems to be embracing the establishment in the USA of a Ministry for the Encouragement of Virtue and the Elimination of Vice, just as our close allies, the Saudis have done. sirs decries Muslim Sharia because he favors Christian Sharia Law.
-
So now sirs tells us that there should be laws against adultery.
And there's xo again, trying to argue a point no one is making. So, of course, you're going to provide my quote where I claimed there should be a law against homosexuality, right? Good luck with that
I indicated, very clearly I might add to, for the defective deflectives in our saloon, that Homosexuality and Adultery are of the same sin meter. They are both immoral choices one can make, but neither have I ever claimed a law was required against either. That'd be the folks we're fighting against, as in RADICAL ISLAMIST'S, who routinely throw gay people off the top of buildings, and stone women caught in an adulterous affair
-
What? No pithy comeback? Hand caught in the cookie jar again?