KO on Prop 8
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Friday, November 14, 2008 13:30
VIEWED: 7790
PAGE 10 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No more than banning marriage between very close relatives, or polygamy. Say what you want, but merely asking that marriage be defined as 1 man + 1 woman is not, by any stretch of the imagination hateful , mean or discriminatory.
All those are obviously discriminatory. To discriminate is, by itself, not a dirty word.
Banning incest marriages discriminates against incest. Banning polygamous marriages discriminates against polygamy. Banning gay marriage discriminates against homosexuality.
The real point here is whether the discrimination is appropriate.
The reason why discrimination is often treated as a dirty word is because so often things have been discriminated against for absolutely no good reason.
Is there a good reason to discriminate against homosexuality?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But the discussion runs into a brick wall when you bring up the LEGAL aspects of marriage. Maybe "in theory" we could adopt different words to distiguish between religious "marriage" and civil "marriage" but in practice state laws, federal laws, insurance contracts etc. refer to the term marriage. Maybe there is a neat legal trick... a new law that says "In all past and future laws the term marriage refers to both a religious marriage and civil marriage, the civil marriage from here on in known as (fill in the blank)... but that would STILL require passing at least 50 state laws, a Federal Law, changing the tax code, changing Social Security regulation, and modifying numerous laws regarding probate, insurance contracts etc. And for what???
However, if you recall, most people (religious or not) who argue against gay marriage argue against it because of what the word "marriage" means to them, and that gay marriage doesn't fit into their personal definition of marriage, so the entire discussion of the word is pretty subjective in the first place, regardless of what the dictionary says.
What the religious folks forget is the part that says "By the powers invested in me by the State I now pronounce you...."
Quote:I think I've already made MY opinion on this pretty clear. I'm against peeps marrying into a situation where there is an inherent imbalance of capability: adults marrying children, NTs marrying retarded people, one person marrying many (puts the many in competition with each other).
To the real discussion at hand, I still think the state should only allow civil unions (call them common-law marriages, then, or whatever) between any two consenting people not too closely related and old enough, just clearly distinguish the line between church and state on this issue, because in a lot of people's mind it's quite muddled
But if two people want to commit to each other and trust each other with their worldly possessions, to have each other's backs and be able to grow old together... that's a beautiful thing. Why would I be against it??
But I'd like to hear what other people think about that.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm with you.
I'd be curious as to who is against, and why, because --- I can't imagine why.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This whole debate/argument seems very familiar...
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Taken from the Wikipedia page on "Common-Law Marriage".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
Some thoughts concerning marriage as a legal contract, not primarily a religious one... Look how recently the connection was even made legally necessary, between the legal and the religious aspect. That's hardly going back to the roots of the institution itself. Shows clearly that marriage is not by definition a religious institution.Quote:
In medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognised as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband, even in absence of any witnesses.
The Council of Trent (convened 1545–1563) ruled that in future a marriage was only valid in Roman Catholic countries if it was witnessed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church or, if obtaining a priest were impractical, by other witnesses. This ruling was not accepted in the newly Protestant nations of Europe, nor by Protestants who lived in Roman Catholic countries or their colonies in the Americas or elsewhere, nor by Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Common law marriages were abolished in England and Wales by the Marriage Act 1753. The Act required marriages to be performed by a priest of the Church of England – unless the participants in the marriage were Jews or Quakers. The Act applied to Ireland after the Act of Union 1800, but the requirement for a valid marriage to be performed by a Church of England priest created special problems in predominantly Roman Catholic Ireland. The law did not provide an exception.
And even then it created problems to make that connection between church and state.
*Applauds loudly*
I found this a good read if you are interested, http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/leneman.html, it explains how the 1753 act came about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369 Gays are funny 
I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"No more than banning marriage between very close relatives, or polygamy."
Hello,
For the record, I don't think that unions between adults of any stripe should be outlawed, regardless of relation or number. These Unions exist as an economic and legal construct, and should be blind to any question other than "Adult? Y/N." As such, any number of agreeable adults of any sex, any relation, any race, any ethnicity, and any orientation should be able to join in a Union.
I find it lamentable that the close-minded masses of the world have stamped the word 'marriage' with their moral and religious bias, but I would love nothing more than to rob the very term out from under them. And by all means let 10,000 lawyers argue for 10,000 days about eliminating 'marriage' from government. By the end of that sickening debacle, maybe people will be disgusted enough to remember not to let their personal narrow-minded opinions muddle the government process.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why.... that means we pretty much agree!
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would add the caveat that it has to be voluntary - which probably goes without saying, but it seems like for completeness' sake it should be mentioned.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Indeed: "As such, any number of agreeable adults..."
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saw this today, and just had to share it here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm
A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.
The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.
They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.
"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.
Mr Alifi, of Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.
"When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up."
Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.
Let's hear it for progressive town elders!
Of course, it woulda been a little nicer if they'd asked the Goat his/her opinion, however.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME