- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
So, in the case of Judaism, you're the expert because you were a religious Jew; however, in the case of Christianity, you're the expert because you were and are not a Christian.
That makes sense. :roll:
Claiming esoteric knowledge by way of membership and then ****ting on that lame idea is rather strange behavior.
What "lesser status"? Are you suggesting that "Holy Matrimony" is a higher status than "civil union"? If so I totally agree with you but then I'd also suggest that regulating it through the law is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
You're describing most political discussion.I don't think love has anything to do with it legally actually.
why does marriage have to be about love? Most of the world it's a business/political/social transaction.
I am saying this because when people say the love argument... it's sole purpose is just to appeal to emotions and has nothing to do with it.
Yes, but that doesn't excuse the government's distinction of gender in recognizing a contract between two private individuals. Who are they to tell us who we cannot and cannot enter that contract with? Shouldn't they be required to demonstrate a compelling reason to restrict that particular choice?I'm not against SSM.... but can't people do that anyway? Without the government telling you so?
but I thought it was about love?
i'm saying that "marriage" is a higher status than "this thing that's like marriage but we're not calling it marriage because society favors a religion". Marriage is not yours. You don't get to steal it. And you have no idea how the first amendment works.
Likewise, nothing to say on the actual topic, just the same uninformed crap you bring up in every thread that has to do with homosexuality. Oh, except that women are egotistical because fewer of them are forced to marry for a decent life.
So, in your opinion, is marriage just a set of rights granted by the state or is there a spiritual component? I guess what I'm asking is what, in your opinion, makes it a higher status than a civil union?
It's more complicated than just "a set of rights", but it is a legal entity. How you or anyone else feels about something spiritually has no bearing on anyone else or in determining the law. Spiritual feelings are not the source of benefits or restrictions on anyone. This is, of course, not merely opinion, but rather how this country does its lawmaking.
I'm playing a little devil's advocate.Why are you defending the government's restriction on who we enter a contract with?
So, in your opinion, is marriage just a set of rights granted by the state or is there a spiritual component? I guess what I'm asking is what, in your opinion, makes it a higher status than a civil union?
That doesn't change the fact that the act itself contradicts nature.
You know what consummation is and I'm not going to explain it to you.
If it's more than just a set of rights then what's the "more" part? If it isn't spiritual then it must be something so what is it?
Depends on the type of marriage being talked about, context.
For legal marriage, it is just about becoming legal spouses and gaining the rights, benefits, etc. that come with that legal relationship.
For individuals, there might be a spiritual component, but that is part of the "personal marriage".
No civil unions have ever in the US been equal to marriage. Plus, the only reason they are being "offered" now is because some people are upset about same sex couples using the word marriage, not because those people really want to give up their marriages. They just don't want to share something they don't even own.
Now I'm just confused. If there's a difference between "legal marriage" and "personal marriage" then why is there so much resistance to codifying that difference in law?
"More" as in there is more to a legal status than just rights. There are duties, privileges, and categorization within the law. It ranges from taxes to how a car rental company treats the spouse of the person doing the renting. It affects bank loans, medical privacy, inheritance, and adoption. Even if you claim that a civil union is the same as a marriage, it isn't treated that way in the thousands of things that affect us due to marital status. The very act of having a separate status creates inequality.
Meanwhile, your calls for "no marriage for anyone" is taking marriage from people who have it, all because you don't want gays to have it, too. If you had your way, I wouldn't be able to have a heterosexual marriage because I'm not religious. You're still creating a secondary, lesser status. That we've been calling it marriage for centuries means that any separate status, called anything else, will not be equal, no matter how equal you claim it to be. You have no right to take that from me, and the government has no legitimate interest in doing so. Likewise, the government has no legitimate interest in taking it away from gay couples.
Religion.
You're describing most political discussion.
Now I'm just confused. If there's a difference between "legal marriage" and "personal marriage" then why is there so much resistance to codifying that difference in law?
Marriage in terms of legal status is just that. I do not want or expect me to explain or share the spiritual nature of my bond.
What marriage means to a couple spiritually is up to them.
I'd agree. However, if that's the case then why is there so much resistance to the suggestion that the state ONLY recognize "civil unions" and leave the term "marriage" off the book altogether?
Separate but equal is unconstitutional.
I'd agree. However, if that's the case then why is there so much resistance to the suggestion that the state ONLY recognize "civil unions" and leave the term "marriage" off the book altogether?
I am not sure it is as much resistance as familiarity with the terms .
I actually am ok with all legally recognized weddings being called "civil union". So even the most religious person would have a civil union. Whether that individually wanted to call it marriage - would be a case of individual preference or if the prefer, declaration by their church.
Heterosexual marriage is currently in decline, do you believe homosexual marriage is one of the reasons for that decline?
Yes
No
Other
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?