Did you bother to read what I written since the beginning of this op ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
|
Did you bother to read what I written since the beginning of this op ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I've been reading all along, but it started when I was four and now I'm an old person. Guess I will go back to the beginning and read the whole thread, if you won't remind me.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, tom:
You want church wedding to be marriage, but let's call what the gays get something else... And, if we don't agree to change the name, we don't compromise...
How's this for compromise? NOBODY gets to call what they have marriage. Let's call it sarsaparilla.
excon
That would make it a beverage.
Compromise, remember?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I can't call something it isn't.
Hello again, Steve:
Exactly!Quote:
I can't call something it isn't.
Excon
So when gays can procreate naturally let's talk.
What if Government Recognized Only Civil Unions and Left Marriage to Religion? | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.comQuote:
Could a governmental retreat from "marriage" finally heal the deep schism that has divided and immobilized this country by an intractable values volley over gay relationships?
As many of you have read, since running for Congress I have emphasized that I want to move away from the great social-sexual battles that this country has engaged in over the past forty- odd years, which in my opinion has served to distract us from the real values challenges that confront us. The greatest threat to the future of the American family is not gay marriage but rather divorce. However, because we obsess over gay marriage, we rarely ever hear the word 'divorce' being uttered by political leaders. Now, with President Obama coming out to support gay marriage and Mitt Romney continuing to assert his opposition to gay marriage by continuing to define marriage as a union that can only take place between one man and one woman, I propose a truce.
What if government withdrew from the marriage business altogether, and provided only civil unions to two consenting adults wishing to unify their lives, leaving the spirituality of the union to other entities to recognize, name, sanctify and define? These civil unions would equally assure that all couples receive the legal entitlements that have previously been enjoyed by those who have been "married," such as hospital visitation rights, end-of life decisions, insurance benefits and tax benefits. After all, what business does the government have entering a church, synagogue or mosque to legitimize or define the spiritual nature of a person's marriage? We are supposed to have separation of church and state in America.
If the couple wishes to have their marriage consecrated to a more spiritual purpose, (e.g. "'til death do us part," "for all eternity," "in the name of Jesus Christ," "according to the laws of Moses and Israel," "in sickness and in health," fidelity, loyalty, etc.) they will choose to have a religious ceremony in addition to the civil ceremony. This additional ceremony would extend beyond just having legal rights conferred by civil unions, and would reflect the couple's individual spiritual or religious convictions. They would go before a rabbi, a priest, a minister or any other spiritual leader of their choice for a religious ceremony. The ceremony, and in fact the semantic definition of their union, would be defined by, and would be consistent with, that religious groups' values.
This proposal might just allow nearly everyone to win, a "one size fits all" solution to the gay marriage narrative that has hijacked the political landscape, created ever deepening divides in the nation, and has served to be only destructive and distracting from far greater social values issues facing this country. The benefits to this proposal are, first and foremost, that no one would receive either preferential treatment or any discrimination when it comes to the government's recognition of the legal rights of the union of any couple. Furthermore, there would be no need to redefine marriage, as each group would have the authority to define or expand the meaning of their union according to their particular religious tradition. This solution would reduce the role of government, which should not be involved in religious choices. People who want to have a spiritual component to their civil union can have whatever ceremony they desire within whatever religious context they choose, and name the union in spiritual terminology that best speaks to their religious convictions.
Far from harming religion, I believe that this change would even promote non-involved, non-religious people to entertain the concept of how religion can enhance and enrich one's life, and be an invitation to engage in further religious learning, traditions, communities and beliefs. I think that when people are forced to confront the choice of wanting merely a government-recognized civil union before a justice of the peace, which addresses only legal status issues, or the opportunity to imbue their union with a deeper, more eternal spiritual dimension, they would see the benefit of having something with greater holiness impact their union. And they would be forced to confront the difference between a mere legal synthesis versus a spiritual orchestration of two haves into one whole. In other words, once they are forced to start thinking about their "vows," they might just drift further into faith and religion.
The bottom line with this proposal is that we would remove the offense of those who can marry and those who cannot, the government would retreat further from our lives and one of the great battles that have raged in America could be put behind us so that we can focus, finally, on curbing divorce, keeping husbands and wives together, and keeping kids out of custody battles rather than just always fighting about gay marriage.
I recognize that for those who oppose gay civil unions this would still not be a solution. However, I vehemently disagree with their opposition. Who does it bother to have gay couples granted the decency to visit each other in hospital during serious illness, make end-of-life decisions and receive tax benefits as a couple? Is it not worthwhile for us to put behind the questions of dual insurance coverage in order to have this terribly divisive issue finally settled? By putting the gay marriage debate behind us we can finally focus on the real problem: straight people do not seem to either want to marry, and once they get married they find it difficult to remain married.
American marriage statistics tell a sad and increasingly grim story of the health of the marital institution that is at the heart of any healthy society and the national dialogue is currently unable to address the real roots of the unraveling of these unions because of the obsession of whether gay marriages are legal or legitimate. USA Today recently reported that forty percent of all American women have never been married. Something in the region of seventy percent of African-American births, 53 percent of Latino births and thirty percent of white births, are out of wedlock. And as is well known, about one out of two marriages end in divorce.
As we ruminate in this detail, we lose the bigger picture that we need to focus on healing these unions, prevent families from breaking apart, and address the impotence of romantic love in our time.
Hello again, Steve:
The right wing mantra - freedom for me, but not for thee..Quote:
So when gays can procreate naturally let's talk.
Excon
Some married couples cannot procreate naturally so lets talk now.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I do not even understand why the issue of Gay marriages is even an issue. Marriage is not covered in the Constitution. Marriage Laws are state controlled. The Marriage Contract from a legal standpoint(civil) is harder to break than a business contract. That is why divorce costs so much money. No one should tell anyone who they can or can't marry. When the government does it, it is a step over the expected "Separation of Church and State that is implied in the First Amendment. There is only one area of the Bible that talks about homosexuality. ONE. Should that be the basis for all marriage laws? Absolutely not just as the Bible should not be the only guide to one's spirituality. The Government needs to stay out of marriage. It is not a tangible commodity for the Government to tax, sell or control. It is a spiritual union of two human beings no matter what their preferences are. IF you prohibit marriage between two men or two women because it is believed that the idea of marriage is to have children then wouldn't it be illegal if a man and a woman wanted to marry but had no intention of having children? That happens a lot. I want the Government to stay out of my life, My pocketbook, my telephone, my computer, my healthcare, my children's education and most of all, my connection with my closest partner.
They don't like the word "marriage" used. They claim it is a God-given uniting of two people of the opposite sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
And even that one is up for grabs, has been mistranslated and is misinterpreted.Quote:
There is only one area of the Bible that talks about homosexuality. ONE.
And as for "multiplying" in marriage, what if two senior citizens want to marry or a man wants to marry a woman who has had a hysterectomy because of cancer or he has had a vasectomy or or or...
Brilliant comeback. NO same sex couples can, they don't have the necessary equipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, Steve:
Wow.. That's an excellent reason to deny them civil rights. I never thought of that.Quote:
NO same sex couples can, they don't have the necessary equipment.
Excon
The point was about compromise. Obviously you aren't willing.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I wish a gay person would weigh in on this to be honest.
Tom, before we go on any further lets straighten this point out.
Some people don't want to get married by way of religious ceremony. A man and a women who want to marry might regard religion as against their beliefs. Can be the case with atheists.
Under your formula they must settle for a civil contract, even though they might actually want to me married.
Is this correct from your point of view?
Tut
Yes ;EVERYONE would have a civil contract .Marriage would be between the couple and their church.
Hello again, tom:
You wingers live in a fantasy world.. Yesterday, Paul Ryan on FOX News Sunday, presented a budget with Obamacare REPEALED... Wallace, (here on earth) told him that that will NEVER happen. He looked at Chris Wallace and said it SHOULD happen and THAT'S what the House of Representatives Budget is based on - something that will NEVER happen.
Now you want everybody who didn't get married in a church NEVER to say they're married... I suppose that would be EVERYBODY in the world, too
Earth to the right wing... Earth to the right wing...
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So It boils down to the church having the final say on what constitutes a marriage. "Marriage would be between couples and their church"
You complain when the state gets to define what constitutes a religious belief when it comes to health care. Yet, under your formula you advocating that the church can exclusively define marriage.
So atheists miss out. Alternatively if they really wanted a marriage and not a civil contract they could get married in a church and look like hypocrites. But this would be the price ones needs to pay.
This is like the price one needs to pay when one has their religious beliefs defined by the Healthcare Act.
Tut
yes because marriage is a religious institution that the state coopted .Quote:
Yet, under your formula you advocating that the church can exclusively define marriage.
or they could find a church willing to marry them .Quote:
So atheists miss out. Alternatively if they really wanted a marriage and not a civil contract they could get married in a church and look like hypocrites. But this would be the price ones needs to pay.
Nope the HHS is trying to force religion to do something against their belief... that is a HUGE difference.Quote:
This is like the price one needs to pay when one has their religious beliefs defined by the Healthcare Act.
This is religion trying to force people who believe in civics to go against their beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
"I am not the only one redefining marriage. It always was and always will be a religious institution"
Tom, in this particular discussion I think you use too many universal quantifiers in many of your statements. There types of statements are impossible to defend. For example ,"always was" and "always will".
This is why it has led you to the position of saying that if people object to religion and still want to get married then it is too bad for them. They can always find a less than suitable alternative.
So long as your formula is correct then we don't have to worry about their beliefs.
Tut
Nobody wants to approcah the question of why they are still trying to deny the rights of Polygamists to marry multiple wives...
We aren't talking people hiding their spouces from each other... but wives that know there are others... and agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
The short answer to that question is the ability of the state to show a 'compelling interest'
In preventing such arrangements. If a short answer to that question is possible.
Hello again,
I wasn't sure whether to put this in the war on women thread or this one..
If you live in Kentucky, and your religious belief is STRONG enough, you'll be able to discriminate against gays, women and black people too if this bill passes. And, who the hell does the federal government think it is, anyway??Can I get my alimony back since I was never married?Quote:
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 446 to specify that government shall not burden a person's or religious organization's freedom of religion; protect the right to act or refuse to act on religious grounds
Excon
I can't help you with your alimony but never fear, that famous (and hot) populist that winters in Scotland, Ashley Judd, is coming to the rescue of Kentuckians.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
WHich I have a problem with... because if civil unions aren't good enough for the gay community... and they plan to FORCE it down the troats of churches etc... then they should show the same respect to Polygamists too, and for the very same reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
There is no difference between "compelling interest" between those two groups.
Then if polygamy is allowed, I insist on polyandry being allowed too.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
From Same-sex marriage: They'll just never get it - Salon.com --
Polygamous societies are almost always polygynous, where one husband has multiple wives. (Polyandry — one wife with multiple husbands — is, by contrast, quite rare.) The usual result is a sexist and classist society where high-status males acquire multiple wives while low-status males become virtually unmarriageable. Thus, from a social-policy point of view, there are reasons to be wary of polygamy. Perhaps those reasons could be overcome by further argument, but the central point remains: Arguments about the morally appropriate number of sexual partners are logically distinct from arguments about the morally appropriate gender of sexual partners.
I've got no problem there... but personally I think one spouse is more than enough to deal with...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
What are they forcing down the churches throat? How will their having the rights to marry and the benefits to go with it harm the church?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
No more or less than they would for Polygamy... less actually, because at least Biblicaly... polygamy was once accepted...Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Because they are trying to force the church to pay for benefits in marriages the Church doesn't condone.. and pay for things the church doesn't condone... so much for any separation of church and state under Owebama.
And throw in some OT concubines too?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Pay for what benefits in marriage the church doesn't condone?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Abortions... birth control... anything relating to same sex partners... things the government has no business tell the church what they can and can't do... you know the Separation of church and state thing your side loves to toss around so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
The onus is on the state is to show a compelling interest. One could certainly argue that it is the interest of the state not to promote same sex marriages, or force churches to perform such marriages.
When it comes to polygamist there is also a good argument for it being in the interest of the state not to allow men to have more than one wife.
As for the state forcing same sex marriages? I would doubt that there is any potential for the state to do such a thing. I would also imagine there would be legislation, or proposed legislation to prevent such a thing.I don't know the answer when it comes to this aspect. I would imagine you would need to do some research to find the answer.
Tut
Yeah the state takes a wide latititude with that term 'compelling interest'. That is why many of the founders thought it necessary to spell out the specific right for religious liberty .
Also funny how "The State" can ignore the Constitution when it comes to Separation of CHurch and state... but we all know... if it's a liberal cause of the day they are trying to promote... the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Unless its something the Church wants to do then the same people wave around that "piece of paper" in a whole different way.
The separation of church and state is a concept, not a written law found in the constitution, but its clear that in the constitution the government cannot establish any religion, nor support one over another nor make any citizen belong to or support any religion. So good luck thinking any religion acting as a private entity can deny its employees their rights under the law, especially those reimbursed by the federal government for services rendered.
Specifically hospitals. Nor can the church define, or deny the rights of citizens the benefits under law that they are duly granted by the federal government of the US. Be it contraception, or gay marriage, the church has NO authority to deny anyone their rights to use or practice either.
Just as the church is compelled to obey and follow the rule of law in safety, and labor practice, so must they follow the rule of law and honor the individual free practice of the rights and freedoms they are due.
You almost sounded like a conservative there.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And there you go with the straw man again. My church has never denied my rights or interfered in my private life. No one is arguing about the right to use contraception but you.Quote:
Specifically hospitals. Nor can the church define, or deny the rights of citizens the benefits under law that they are duly granted by the federal government of the US. Be it contraception, or gay marriage, the church has NO authority to deny anyone their rights to use or practice either.
Just as the church is compelled to obey and follow the rule of law in safety, and labor practice, so must they follow the rule of law and honor the individual free practice of the rights and freedoms they are due.
And free contraceptives are not a safety and labor law issue.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:22 AM. |