Burn-E Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 Do really believe the reason gay couples can not marry is because "it is not in the best interest of society/doesn't fit the nuclear family mold?" Really? You're sure it's just not people hiding behind their religion to disguise their "bigotry". Let's see, now where did I say that? Careful reading is your friend, careless reading pwns you. I said that the historical basis behind the benefits the State provides to married couples was inherently focused on supporting the nuclear family. And historically that meant man-woman-children. I said nothing about whether or not those benefits should be restricted from same sex couples, in fact I stated: 1. In civil unions same sex couples should have the same benefits OR 2. Since the majority of families are now single parent I see many reasons why it makes sense to remove those benefits Where is the bigotry in that statement? Seems like it solves all of the key issues except for declaring same sex unions = marriage. The point is, marriage is a religious institution that the State has co-opted in order to recognize all of the legal expectations of the couple that is generally satisfied in civil unions. Look at other countries like France for instance. The State in that case does not recognize religious unions, i.e. marriages but instead you must perform a civil union at the village hall in order for your relationship to be given legal status. Only then can you go be married at the church. There is absolute separation of Church and State. And that is what I'm advocating here. As Jesus taught in the New Testament (Matt 22:17-21) 13 ¶And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. 14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not? 15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. 16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Cæsar’s. 17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him. What the Pharisees were asking Jesus was whether it was appropriate for Jews to pay taxes to the Romans empire that oversaw Palestine at the time. The tribute money was a Roman coin which would be used for paying taxes And his response is in part the basis for separation between Church and State. Erik, like I said, marriage is a religious institution that was co-opted by the State. Just because that is the case does not change its historical foundation. So if you want unions of same sex or atheistic couples then great. Go ahead and do it. But it's only really marriage within a religious context. So this is why the model in France accomplishes satisfying all parties involved. Except we know that's not what the most vocal advocates want, they want the churches to recognize them and be labeled as bigots if they refuse to do so. And that is where we begin to intrude upon the 1st Amendment rights of religious institutions and believers in order to support a group that has no right to make such a demand. It seems to me that the bigotry is in reverse at the point, is it not? Professor Stone from UofC Law School adds a legal explanation to support what I'm advocating while examining the impact of such a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 But it's only really marriage within a religious context. No, it is not. Real people get married for real, no religion involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 Funny I didn't realize we were debating whether robots could marry. And therein lies the rub. Sorry Erik but it's that attitude on both sides of the issue that will continue to draw this out into a nasty, ugly conflict. There is an easier path forward which I believe is the ultimate direction all of this will take but not for a long time and the likelihood of a single Federal solution is very slim. This will move back into States rights. The Supreme court is going to punt on both of the issues brought before them ultimately because neither party that brought the cases to the court has standing to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 A little OT but, I find it funny that it is socially acceptable to believe in a magic man in the sky. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 It's OK, we tolerate your unbelief and don't hold it against you... especially since you are in the very small minority in the US: . The ones you should worry about are the 27% who believe God even cares about the outcome of a sporting event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 It's OK, we tolerate your unbelief and don't hold it against you... Same, here. What did you feed the invisible dragon in your garage today? Mine got celery sticks. Nom nom nom nom ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 (edited) It's OK, we tolerate your unbelief and don't hold it against you... It's ok. Never been in to cults. "The fastest growing "religious" group in America is made up of people with no religion at all, according to a Pew survey showing that one in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion." Edited April 13, 2013 by fivex84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 Same, here. What did you feed the invisible dragon in your garage today? Mine got celery sticks. Nom nom nom nom ... Don't feed it that! Its a carnivore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 I didn't realize you had converted the 854 to an organic fuel Erik. "The fastest growing "religious" group in America is made up of people with no religion at all, according to a Pew survey showing that one in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion." Doesn't matter whether they attend any organized faith, the majority of them still believe in God. This large and growing group of Americans is less religious than the public at large on many conventional measures, including frequency of attendance at religious services and the degree of importance they attach to religion in their lives. However, a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 Nice. We out number the JS Jr. cult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted April 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 JS jr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 JS jr? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(n)A-GAME Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to bashing someone's religion to get your point across. Really, it's a sad state of affairs in this country when you can't engage someone in a spirited political debate on the substance of an issue without going down that road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 This has taken an unfortunate turn.So let's make a come back. Anyone have a quality site providing 50 state definitions of marriage? I just looked up Illinois (figuring that Alain would be most familiar with it).http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=075000050HPt.+II&ActID=2086&ChapterID=59&SeqStart=900000&SeqEnd=3000000(750 ILCS 5/201) (from Ch. 40, par. 201)Sec. 201. Formalities.) A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State.(Source: P.A. 80-923.)0 ILCS 5/203) (from Ch. 40, par. 203)Sec. 203. License to Marry. (see link for full text)Neither of those referenced any religious institutions. So perhaps the term's history is with a religious organization. But the state of Illinois doesn't care and has redefined it. Welcome to 1984? Anyway, based strictly on the state's definition that I'm seeing here, I'd call excluding homosexual marriage bigotry. Oh there's that word again!And surprisingly :(750 ILCS 5/213.1)Sec. 213.1. Same-sex marriages; public policy. A marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex is contrary to the public policy of this State.(Source: P.A. 89-459, eff. 5-24-96.)Contrary to public policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 (edited) I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to bashing someone's religion to get your point across. Really, it's a sad state of affairs in this country when you can't engage someone in a spirited political debate on the substance of an issue without going down that road. It's a joke man.Who's Mormon any way? Your talking it to seriously. I bet if someone on here was a Scientologist no one would care if I posted a meme about it. Edited April 14, 2013 by fivex84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts