|
On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years.
Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment.
If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community.
|
On June 24 2013 02:28 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:14 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 02:07 Grumbels wrote:
I can hardly believe that someone who is gay would be so dumb as to use the line "if we allow teh gayz to marry, next you can marry cats and dogs". What a mature and thought out post that doesn't have any logical fallacies in it at all. I'm just using your same reasoning. Who are you to say that my love with more than one woman is not genuine? "you can not get married to three women, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for ONE man and ONE woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." Am I supposed to bow my head and accept that I am not worthy to love three women at the same time? The entire point is that the logic is faulty because it can be appropriately applied to bestiality and polygamy. It's not about a slippery slope, I'm not saying we'll soon be able to fuck dogs legally if we allow gay marriage. It's about showing that what you posted is incredibly inane and a complete strawman because I can easily substitute gay marriage for bestiality or polygamy and it's just as a legitimate argument as before. P.S. - I don't appreciate you insulting me. Please try and act like an adult. I haven't insulted you or your intelligence, so I hope you can have the same courtesy towards me. Your argument kinda deserves that you have your intelligence questioned. I take it that you also opposed counting black people as 'people'? After all, there was already an existing legal framework that deemed them subhuman. And perhaps we should have been so considerate as to give them rights, that would only be fair, so perhaps we could invent a new class called "people2", since after all, they wanted to be called people too. (it could be a funny nation wide joke) This obsession with the sanctity of a legal definition someone arbitrarily made in an era where homosexuality was repressed is just bizarre. I literally don't see why you would care. Especially since you would directly benefit from a more inclusive definition. Do you feel like not fighting for your rights because you don't want to be a burden or something? I can come up with some psychoanalytic theories, but best to let you explain yourself. (since obviously you can't seriously believe your own arguments, so there has to be a deeper reason)
If you're already resorting to calling me a racist, dumb, and mentally disabled, I'm done here. I've already responded to every single one of your arguments in previous posts and it's astounding that you're still bringing them up.
Please try and do some self inflection and learn how to have discussions with people like adults do.
(since obviously you can't seriously believe your own arguments, so there has to be a deeper reason)
I mean fucking really?
EDIT: You also never responded to one of my posts, instead conveniently ignored it just to cherrypick something out of one of my other posts and derail the discussion into me being mentally disabled. Here, I'll link it again for your convenience:
How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term.
It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't.
|
On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community.
My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term.
|
On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term.
Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one.
Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"?
|
On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"?
I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean...
|
On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"?
Not as opposed to, in addition to. Marriage involves society, culture, government, and religion. The hierarchy of those influences is another question entirely.
|
On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean...
From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs.
|
On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs.
Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ??
|
There as always been laws involving marriage and things relating to it. Imagine how much more headache there would have been through history without the various laws that have dealt with the problems divorce and inheritance, for example.
|
On June 24 2013 02:34 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:28 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 02:14 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 02:07 Grumbels wrote:
I can hardly believe that someone who is gay would be so dumb as to use the line "if we allow teh gayz to marry, next you can marry cats and dogs". What a mature and thought out post that doesn't have any logical fallacies in it at all. I'm just using your same reasoning. Who are you to say that my love with more than one woman is not genuine? "you can not get married to three women, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for ONE man and ONE woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." Am I supposed to bow my head and accept that I am not worthy to love three women at the same time? The entire point is that the logic is faulty because it can be appropriately applied to bestiality and polygamy. It's not about a slippery slope, I'm not saying we'll soon be able to fuck dogs legally if we allow gay marriage. It's about showing that what you posted is incredibly inane and a complete strawman because I can easily substitute gay marriage for bestiality or polygamy and it's just as a legitimate argument as before. P.S. - I don't appreciate you insulting me. Please try and act like an adult. I haven't insulted you or your intelligence, so I hope you can have the same courtesy towards me. Your argument kinda deserves that you have your intelligence questioned. I take it that you also opposed counting black people as 'people'? After all, there was already an existing legal framework that deemed them subhuman. And perhaps we should have been so considerate as to give them rights, that would only be fair, so perhaps we could invent a new class called "people2", since after all, they wanted to be called people too. (it could be a funny nation wide joke) This obsession with the sanctity of a legal definition someone arbitrarily made in an era where homosexuality was repressed is just bizarre. I literally don't see why you would care. Especially since you would directly benefit from a more inclusive definition. Do you feel like not fighting for your rights because you don't want to be a burden or something? I can come up with some psychoanalytic theories, but best to let you explain yourself. (since obviously you can't seriously believe your own arguments, so there has to be a deeper reason) If you're already resorting to calling me a racist, dumb, and mentally disabled, I'm done here. I've already responded to every single one of your arguments in previous posts and it's astounding that you're still bringing them up. Please try and do some self inflection and learn how to have discussions with people like adults do. Show nested quote + (since obviously you can't seriously believe your own arguments, so there has to be a deeper reason) I mean fucking really? EDIT: You also never responded to one of my posts, instead conveniently ignored it just to cherrypick something out of one of my other posts and derail the discussion into me being mentally disabled. Here, I'll link it again for your convenience: Show nested quote +How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term.
It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't.
There really is nothing to discuss, your opinion is beyond childish and barely deserves consideration. If some law says "marriage is only for the straight peoples" then you change the law since it's bigoted. You instead want to create a new law with new terminology that you invented specifically for gay people, specifically because you don't want to allow them to get married. Then you have the nerve to accuse others of obsessing about words, when you are the one that deemed it offensive that gay people are allowed to have marriages, so you are obsessed about wanting to have a new word with the exact same meaning. But if it really is arbitrary then you didn't need to have come up with the new word to begin with, this betrays your intentions and shows that your position is inconsistent. And since it's inconsistent I think it's only a small step to ask you to perhaps look inward about what it is about yourself that makes you have such a bizarre point of view, one that directly harms yourself.
|
On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one.Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"?
The problem is that you have no hard evidence to make this statement. Where is the evidence that marriage was once simply a cultural/religious concept and then big government came in and imposed their will on it? Because as far as I know, marriage (or very similar concepts) have had legal connotations for as far back as we can tell. You're working under the assumption that marriage was cultural/religious first, then legal later. I'm asking you to prove that this is actually the case, because if it isn't, then religion has no place telling government to get out of the marriage issue.
|
On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ??
If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious.
If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious.
What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept
|
On June 24 2013 01:17 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote:
It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name. How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term. It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't.
So if a man got a degree in physics and a woman got a purple elephant in physics you'd have no problem with it as long as the underlying details are the same?
|
On June 24 2013 02:51 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ?? If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious. If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious. What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept
Is there something such as a civil marriage yes or no ? Does marriage in the US have legal consequences yes or no ?
If yes to any of those questions, then I'm sorry for you, but marriage is already a legal term, and you can't do anything about it.
|
On June 24 2013 02:51 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 01:17 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote:
It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name. How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term. It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't. So if a man got a degree in physics and a woman got a purple elephant in physics you'd have no problem with it as long as the underlying details are the same?
He clearly is not a happy person, read this post here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=414446¤tpage=3#44 (I took the privilege of reading some of his post history).
|
So explain again why you are allowed to draw the line at gay marriage but I'm not allowed to draw the line at polygamy or bestiality or straight marriage? How is it not also bigoted to say that I can't love multiple women and I shouldn't be able to marry them all? Also, it is not a word with the exact same meaning. Gay marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is not the same as a man and a woman. Would you like me to explain the biology behind that?
My point from the beginning that focusing on the word is fucking pointless. If gay unions get the same exact rights from top to bottom as straight unions do, who the fuck cares what they decide to call it? The rights are what should matter, not what you're being called. I'm saying it's the bottom of the totem pole. But that doesn't mean it's justified to go around wantonly changing 225 year old legal definitions because of some hurt feelings.
I love how every single post you post has subtle insults towards me by the way. You're very mature. 
On June 24 2013 02:53 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:51 SnipedSoul wrote:On June 24 2013 01:17 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote:
It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name. How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term. It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't. So if a man got a degree in physics and a woman got a purple elephant in physics you'd have no problem with it as long as the underlying details are the same? He clearly is not a happy person, read this post here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=414446¤tpage=3#44 (I took the privilege of reading some of his post history).
Are you honestly taking this discussion this personally? Jesus dude, chill out.
|
On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs.
?
See this is the kind of North American conservative nonsense that makes absolutely no sense to me as someone that's lived outside of it and in a very nonreligious nation in the Far East. Marriage isn't fundamentally a religious event and it really hasn't been for most people not just in modernity but through history. Marriage is always ritualistic, but even in the West there's various social rituals within the secular sphere. In the Far East the notion of "religion" and "secular" didn't even really exist until Western imperialism reached the area, and even now in Japan the notion of religious and nonreligious doesn't exist as it does in the West. Of course there's marriage rituals in every religion but that's because religions are all-encompassing for an individual's life, not because marriage was born out of religion. Unless you wish to say that the state has no right to regulate clothing because it has no authority over religious affairs since many religions have their own rules on clothing.
|
On June 24 2013 02:55 Fruscainte wrote:So explain again why you are allowed to draw the line at gay marriage but I'm not allowed to draw the line at polygamy or bestiality or straight marriage? How is it not also bigoted to say that I can't love multiple women and I shouldn't be able to marry them all? Also, it is not a word with the exact same meaning. Gay marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is not the same as a man and a woman. Would you like me to explain the biology behind that? My point from the beginning that focusing on the word is fucking pointless. If gay unions get the same exact rights from top to bottom as straight unions do, who the fuck cares what they decide to call it? The rights are what should matter, not what you're being called. I'm saying it's the bottom of the totem pole. But that doesn't mean it's justified to go around wantonly changing 225 year old legal definitions because of some hurt feelings. I love how every single post you post has subtle insults towards me by the way. You're very mature.
Visibly, you do, and a lot. But I guess people who disagree with you shouldn't care... probably because they disagree with you. You're the one who needs to grow up.
|
On June 24 2013 02:55 Fruscainte wrote:So explain again why you are allowed to draw the line at gay marriage but I'm not allowed to draw the line at polygamy or bestiality or straight marriage? How is it not also bigoted to say that I can't love multiple women and I shouldn't be able to marry them all? Also, it is not a word with the exact same meaning. Gay marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is not the same as a man and a woman. Would you like me to explain the biology behind that? My point from the beginning that focusing on the word is fucking pointless. If gay unions get the same exact rights from top to bottom as straight unions do, who the fuck cares what they decide to call it? The rights are what should matter, not what you're being called. I'm saying it's the bottom of the totem pole. But that doesn't mean it's justified to go around wantonly changing 225 year old legal definitions because of some hurt feelings. I love how every single post you post has subtle insults towards me by the way. You're very mature.
Specifics of this debate aside, historical precedent tells us that "separate but equal" in theory is almost always "separate and inequal" in practice.
|
On June 24 2013 02:51 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 01:17 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote:
It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name. How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term. It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't. So if a man got a degree in physics and a woman got a purple elephant in physics you'd have no problem with it as long as the underlying details are the same?
I don't think that's a fair analogy because it would include redefining what a degree was. I see your point though, and I guess I see where you're coming from. I guess what I've been meaning to say is that while the name is important, it shouldn't be the focus of the argument. The focus should be on the rights, not the name. The name can come later. It would be like if women already received inferior degrees to men de facto and instead of worrying about making the degrees equal, women were focusing on making sure they were called the same thing first which I would find incredibly pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
