[Tuttyd]

yes ;EVERYONE would have a civil contract .Marriage would be between the couple and their church.

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

[tomder55]

Yet, under your formula you advocating that the church can exclusively define marriage.

yes because marriage is a religious institution that the state coopted .

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.

or they could find a church willing to marry them .

This is like the price one needs to pay when one has their religious beliefs defined by the Healthcare Act.

Nope the HHS is trying to force religion to do something against their belief... that is a HUGE difference.

[Tuttyd]

yes because marriage is a religious institution that the state coopted .

or they could find a church willing to marry them .

Nope the HHS is trying to force religion to do something against their belief ... that is a HUGE difference.

This is religion trying to force people who believe in civics to go against their beliefs.

"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

[smoothy]

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.

[Tuttyd]

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.

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.

[excon]

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??

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

Can I get my alimony back since I was never married?

Excon

[speechlesstx]

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?

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.

[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.

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.

There is no difference between "compelling interest" between those two groups.

[Wondergirl]

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 churchs etc....then they should show the same respect to Polygamists too, and for the very same reasons.

There is no difference between "compelling interest" between those two groups.

Then if polygamy is allowed, I insist on polyandry being allowed too.

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.

[smoothy]

Then if polygamy is allowed, I insist on polyandry being allowed too.

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...

[talaniman]

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 churchs etc....then they should show the same respect to Polygamists too, and for the very same reasons.

There is no difference between "compelling interest" between those two groups.

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?

[smoothy]

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?

No more or less than they would for Polygamy... less actually, because at least Biblicaly... polygamy was once accepted...

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.

[Wondergirl]

No more or less than they would for Polygamy....less actually, because at least Biblicaly...polygamy was once accepted.................

And throw in some OT concubines too?

[talaniman]

No more or less than they would for Polygamy....less actually, because at least Biblicaly...polygamy was once accepted.................

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.

Pay for what benefits in marriage the church doesn't condone?

[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.

[Tuttyd]

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 churchs etc....then they should show the same respect to Polygamists too, and for the very same reasons.

There is no difference between "compelling interest" between those two groups.

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[smoothy]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

You almost sounded like a conservative there.

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 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.

And free contraceptives are not a safety and labor law issue.