- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,575
- Reaction score
- 6,767
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
I said its both, point is simple as the polls for civil unions prove. If you scrub "marriage" from government's lawbooks books and change to civil union, does anything really change? All rights and benefits would be the same, would it not? Its putting the meaning of marriage back where it belongs, between the two individuals.
Think you'd be surprised. The church would still refer to as marriage. The state license would say civil unions. I could care less whats on my "marriage license."
I said its both, point is simple as the polls for civil unions prove. If you scrub "marriage" from government's lawbooks books and change to civil union, does anything really change? All rights and benefits would be the same, would it not? Its putting the meaning of marriage back where it belongs, between the two individuals.
Let me ask you something. Despite your belief that marriage is a religious institution, why do you suppose everybody else wants to take part in it?
The history of marriage is either a religious or private contractual agreement between two families. The only reason this is debate is because, at least in the US, the government stepped in and begun to "license" marriage in the mid-1800s.
Why do people take part of it? Well, guess its to have a committed relationship recognized. Further supports my proposal. Scrub "marriage" out of federal law, replace it with "civil union" and that accomplishes that desire for recognition for everyone, regardless of their sexuality will be recognized equally under the law and receive the same benefits. Let the institutions who conduct "marriage ceremonies" decide on their requirements to perform them.
So now historically it's a state and federal contractual agreement. If you're going to use the historical fallacy then you have to use all of the history, not cherry pick the parts that are convenient to you.
Intriguing offer, but I don't see how that does me any good, so...no. The water fountain the white people are using is a lot nicer and cleaner looking.
Ummm, its not. The lines blurred when the church was heavily intertwined with government. There's no fallacy in what I claimed. It was either a private agreement (as in no government involvement) or church sanctioned. It really didn't become a federal issue until the mid 1900s that the federal government got involved. You probably look up what "fallacy" means as you clearly misused it here. Look it up marriage license history and when the federal government got involved in its recognition.
Yup, because the entrenchment you display here has progressed this issue how far now?
I not using the argument either way. Just using the history of the recognition of marriage via government, religious and society at large to consider a path forward that would be acceptable to all or more so supporting the compromise I originally proposed.Are you or are you not using history as a basis for what legitimate marriage is? If you're using the argument that marriage is a religious institution because it has historically been that way, then you are using the historical fallacy. And if you're allowed to use that historical fallacy, then I'm allowed to say that marriage is also a government sanctioned institution because it has historically been that way.
Huh. You say this as if civil unions are going to be the law of the land any minute now and I'm just spitting into a hurricane. Do you actually believe this will happen?
I not using the argument either way. Just using the history of the recognition of marriage via government, religious and society at large to consider a path forward that would be acceptable to all or more so supporting the compromise I originally proposed.
And you're obviously selectively reading my posts as I clearly stated that its currently both, but historically wasn't always. Clear?
So then, what is legitimate marriage? Government recognition? Religious? Societal?
If your position is governmental recognition, then what I proposed would meet your position, would it not?
I never said "any minute now." Again, go back and read my posts as you're clearly trying to paint my position on this issue into something its not. Just like any idea, it would take time to garner support. But as I mentioned, current polling would indicate the idea I proposed would gain momentum much faster than the current entrenched positions of both sides.
I am married and it is LEGALLY recognized in every state and I am not of a religious institution. YOU may treat yours as religious, but marriage is a civil institution.
Nothing in such a law as Fishstyx proposes would allow churches a monopoly on "marriage". It would remove Marriage from state and federal law.Except that churches wanting to monopolize marriages for themselves is absolutely entrenched and in no way a compromise, no matter how much you may want to package it as that. You're not the only one who is aware of the symbolic and historic weight that a marriage conveys, so your "compromise" is transparent to everyone else.
Nothing in such a law as Fishstyx proposes would allow churches a monopoly on "marriage". It would remove Marriage from state and federal law.
Did you have a minister/priest/rabbi/pastor/justice of the peace administer the vows and sign your "marriage License"?
That's why the state should be in the civil union business and leave the marriage ceremonies to the religions.
ROFLMAO@ lefties suddenly being proponents of states' rights.
Nothing in such a law as Fishstyx proposes would allow churches a monopoly on "marriage". It would remove Marriage from state and federal law.
You could have any number of community organizations, groups, ad infinitum that recognize marriage, that are NOT religious.
What I'm getting a kick out of is these people who want to take marriage of government, they say how awesome it's gonna be when that happens, and how happy I and every one else should be when we finally get to have civil unions instead of this awful, burdensome marriage. But they cannot in any detail whatsoever explain to me how this could be of any benefit to me or why I should be grateful for it.
Why do that? Why does religion get to own that word? I want to own that word.
The benefit is simple, you're just ignoring it. You'd receive the same financial benefit in the terms of taxes, same rights for the purpose of next of kin. As the civil union, in the eyes of the government, would apply to all, opposite and same sex unions.
The compromise would be that those religious organization that oppose same sex marriage would not be compelled via the law or lawsuits to perform them.
I didn't ask if I'd get to keep the same perks of marriage, I asked what the benefits would be of government getting out of marriage. Your post doesn't answer this.
Are religious organizations required to recognize other types of marriages now?
Umm, the only thing that the government's current recognition of marriage give you is the "perks" I mentioned. Otherwise, it has no impact on marriage whatsoever.
Not sure your point here. Are you saying you want a religious organization to be forced to recognize a marriage they don't believe in?
Then why would I agree to having a civil union when somebody going to a church gets marriage? What's in it for me?
You can go to a church that would perform a marriage ceremony a same sex couple, thats whats "in it for you." On fact, you can do that right now. The change would that in the eyes of the federal government, your union would be recognized with all the perks that come with it.
Going to a church to get my marriage performed would not be a perk -- it would be an additional obligation.
An obligation to whom?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?