#282538 - 08/06/2006 11:20
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1919
Loc: London
|
Quote:
Who is attacking your marriage? If two women in Nebraska want to call themselves married, how in the hell does that have any impact, any bearing whatsoever on the personal relationship between you and your wife?
Got to agree with that. I can't see any threat in allowing gays/lesbians to marry, if their marrying is such a threat then so surely is their existence?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282539 - 08/06/2006 11:59
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
Shhhh.... That's already being worked on too.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282540 - 08/06/2006 13:06
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
The best part of that interview is how effortlessly Stewart refutes each and every point Bennett tries to make. You can see the gears turning in Bennett's head, and if you look very closely, the steam coming out of his ears as he tries to shape his argument so as not to come off as a bigot. Probably the best Stewart moment since he annihilated Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on Crossifre.
pwnge!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282541 - 08/06/2006 14:37
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Yep, just as soon as people are allowed to have same-sex marriages, the institution of heterosexual marriage will collapse. Probably just a matter of weeks, a year or two at most.
Heh. When Martin's government passed the bill legalizing gay marriage in Canada, he forced the cabinet to vote for it, and another party (NDP?) whipped everyone to vote in favour, as well. One of Steven Harper's election platforms was that he was going to bring the issue up again, and allow a free vote on the topic. (Not-so) oddly enough, he's having a difficult time drumming up support, even amongst his own party, to have the issue retabled, since a lot of MPs who were against the bill at the start, have realized in the intervening time that society has not, in fact, collapsed since gay people were accorded the right to marry.
It's the same story, over and over:
Society will collapse if we abolish slavery!
It didn't.
Society will collapse if we abolish segregation!
It didn't.
Society will collapse if we give women the right to vote!
It didn't.
Notice the pattern? In each, and every one of the above cases, conservatives predicted catastrophe, and yet, somehow, society not only didn't collapse, but it actually improved.
Society will collapse if we let gay people get married!
No, it won't.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282542 - 08/06/2006 15:21
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Probably the best Stewart moment since he annihilated Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on Crossifre.
Agreed.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282543 - 08/06/2006 22:58
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: hybrid8]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I support your right to be a bigot.
Thanks, man! I appreciate that. After all, it's my constitutional right!
Quote:
Just don't allow the federal governments or state governments to impose bigotry on anyone else.
WTF is a bigot anyways?
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own.
I'm not intolerant of gays. I've got no right or business stopping them from what they're doing. I am intolerant of the concept of marriage being redefined and destroyed. Perhaps some people are intolerant in my belief that a marriage is defined as man + woman?
I especially like the "marriage was once just a property arrangement" argument used by Jon Stewart and someone else in this thread. It's a tactic to belittle marriage and portray it as unworthy of being protected. I'm sure "marriage" has been defined as many different things in many different cultures during many different times. That doesn't make my definition of it worthless.
Quote:
Do you have any type of work trailer or pickup truck we can carry a large load of rocks in? I think it's time for a few stonings. After all, that's the way certain problems have always been solved. And it IS the Judeo-Christian way.
The term "Christian" derived from a man known as Jesus Christ. But you already knew that. Did you know this is one of Jesus' most famous quotes?
Let he without sin throw the first stone
He said this to a group of people preparing to stone a woman. People were stoned all the time 2000 years ago. That doesn't mean it's the "christian way". Quite the opposite, actually. Ever noticed how all 1st world nations were originally founded on christian principles? The same 1st world nations that don't stone people? If you want to see people beaten to death in the streets by angry mobs, look no further than the middle east, where christianity is non-existant. Do a search for some videos online and see for yourself.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282544 - 09/06/2006 03:37
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I'm sure "marriage" has been defined as many different things in many different cultures during many different times. That doesn't make my definition of it worthless.
Correct. Your definition is not worthless. It's been the tradition for a significant part of recent history.
But if you admit that historically, marriage has changed as cultures changed, then you don't have any logical reasoning behind any fight to prevent it from changing again.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282545 - 09/06/2006 07:23
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1919
Loc: London
|
Quote:
I'm not intolerant of gays. I've got no right or business stopping them from what they're doing. I am intolerant of the concept of marriage being redefined and destroyed. Perhaps some people are intolerant in my belief that a marriage is defined as man + woman?
How does a civil union in any way redefine or destroy the concept of religious marriage?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282546 - 09/06/2006 12:15
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
I believe the root of the objection to a "redefinition of marriage" is that it somehow "lessens" marriage if anybody can do it. The standard Republican argument goes something like this:
1) Marriage is the bedrock of society. It's all about having stable, healthy families.
2) If you redefine marriage to include "non-traditional" pairings, then you (somehow) damage the institution of marriage.
3) Ergo, you're damaging the bedrock of society.
The fallacy in this argument is point 2. The only effect on "traditional" families would be that their children might be somewhat more likely to assume a homosexual lifestyle due to the lower societal stigmatization of such. That particular change has been well underway for decades and is unlikely to ever go back, regardless of any laws passed.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282547 - 09/06/2006 12:32
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: DWallach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1919
Loc: London
|
Quote:
The only effect on "traditional" families would be that their children might be somewhat more likely to assume a homosexual lifestyle due to the lower societal stigmatization of such. That particular change has been well underway for decades and is unlikely to ever go back, regardless of any laws passed.
Absolutely, and any society that can't accept that (yes Billy, including all those muslim countries that either ignore homosexuality or treat homosexuals appallingly badly) is surely an unjust and dishonest one isn't it?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282548 - 09/06/2006 12:33
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
After all, it's my constitutional right!
You really need to decide if you're a student at UTwente in the Netherlands or a gun-toting redneck from Louisiana. For example.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282549 - 09/06/2006 12:43
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Ever noticed how all 1st world nations were originally founded on christian principles?
Yup. Those Japanese are down with the Christianity. The Israelis, South Koreans, Taiwanese, and Turks, too.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282550 - 09/06/2006 14:53
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Quote:
Ever noticed how all 1st world nations were originally founded on christian principles?
Yup. Those Japanese are down with the Christianity. The Israelis, South Koreans, Taiwanese, and Turks, too.
Oh, and don't forget Italy -- now *there's* a country that didn't exist before Christianity!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282551 - 09/06/2006 15:08
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
I'm not intolerant of gays. I've got no right or business stopping them from what they're doing.
And yet, you want to stop them from getting married? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Quote:
I am intolerant of the concept of marriage being redefined and destroyed. Perhaps some people are intolerant in my belief that a marriage is defined as man + woman?
What a stupid argument. If it's your belief that marriage is defined by a man and a woman, then, when it's your turn to get married, you're free to marry a woman (assuming that you're male). No-one is trying to keep men and women from getting married, so to say that some people are intolerant of your belief is nonsensical. On the otherhand, there are a lot of folks out there who are not free to apply their own definition of marriage -- simply because it doesn't fit your definition.
America -- land of the not-really-free.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282552 - 09/06/2006 15:21
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
True. Even the modern nation of Italy, not formed until the 1860s or so, was not a Christian state, fighting wars against the "Papal States", but it was certainly influenced by Christianity, so I left it out.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282553 - 10/06/2006 10:43
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
How does a civil union in any way redefine or destroy the concept of religious marriage?
There are some (few, maybe) who are fine with civil unions, but oppose the state recognizing gay marriages.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282554 - 10/06/2006 11:09
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not intolerant of gays. I've got no right or business stopping them from what they're doing.
And yet, you want to stop them from getting married? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
More specificly, the view is that the state should not recognize the marriage. The state cannot, nor should it, prevent people from entering into any type of relationship they wish, assuming all parties are willing and able to make rational decisions. People doing it, though, is different from the state recognizing it, and that's what people have an issue with. Having the state say what is or isn't a marriage is problematic because its definition will invariably differ from some people's deeply held beliefs. In a country like the US, where the state is not supposed to interfere with religion, we value our beliefs and rightly consider it our right not to have the state define our doctrines. Regardless of the history or origins of marriage, there are many who feel that it is a religious arrangement with certain conditions. There are others who do not view it as such, and for those who DO view it as a religious arrangement, there are many different variations on what exactly that means.
The real pickel we're in is that the state is ALREADY invovled in this definition of marriage, which is pretty tragic IMHO. Because no matter what, when the final word comes down, someone's definition is going to be labeld as wrong, and while we are all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage, those who have differening beliefs than those recognized by the state are going to feel that their fundamental right to define their own beliefs is being trampled. And when I say this, I mean it equally as strong for those on either side of the issue.
I know this is all a rehash of what I've said before, and that getting the state out of the marriage defining business is unrealistic, but IMHO it is the only outcome that will honor the spirit under which our country was founded. No, this isn't the conservative party line, but it is what I think is right.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282555 - 10/06/2006 16:14
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
addict
Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
|
You can sure tell when Jon has truly thought about an issue and has come to a passionately held belief about it, can't you?
_________________________
-- DLF
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282556 - 11/06/2006 05:40
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1919
Loc: London
|
Quote:
There are some (few, maybe) who are fine with civil unions, but oppose the state recognizing gay marriages.
A religious marriage? Surely it's not the state's business to decide whether a marriage is contrary to any religious law is it? If a Christian church (or other religious org) decides to marry gay men or women then surely that's an issue for that church and it's leadership and followers isn't it?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282557 - 11/06/2006 09:00
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
A religious marriage? Surely it's not the state's business to decide whether a marriage is contrary to any religious law is it? If a Christian church (or other religious org) decides to marry gay men or women then surely that's an issue for that church and it's leadership and followers isn't it?
Right. It is an issue for the church and NOT the state. The state should remain silent on the issue. Ultimately I'd say the state shouldn't recognize any kind of marriage- they should ALL be civil unions. This way the criteria for having a civil untion could be set up along the lines not of gender or religious belief, but whatever meets the needs of society best (insurance benifits, inheritence laws, etc.).
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282558 - 11/06/2006 10:49
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1919
Loc: London
|
Agree with you Jeff. The sooner that happens the better (in the UK too)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282559 - 11/06/2006 14:42
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
Agree with you Jeff. The sooner that happens the better (in the UK too)
In effect that is what we already do have in the UK. If you want a church marriage you can go to a church. If you are a hetrosexual couple you can get a civil marriage (which has no religious content). If you are a homosexual couple you can get a civil partnership, which as far as I know confers the same rights as marriage.
What we still do have is the term marriage attached to civil partnerships for hetrosexual couples. You wouldn't think this would be a problem, after all it is just a technicality.
It is though. I have a friend who has lived with her partner for 15 years or so. She refuses to take part in anything called a marriage, because of the baggage she says is attached to the word. Because of this her rights to her partners pension, inheritance tax implications etc are drastically different than if she were married or was able to sign up to a civil partnership.
We keep telling her not to be so silly, but she can't get past the sticking point of the seemingly simple word "marriage".
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282560 - 12/06/2006 06:09
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
I have a friend who has lived with her partner for 15 years or so. She refuses to take part in anything called a marriage, because of the baggage she says is attached to the word. Because of this her rights to her partners pension, inheritance tax implications etc are drastically different than if she were married or was able to sign up to a civil partnership.
Hmmm. I guess if the only reason she and her bloke are being denied a "civil partnership" is because they're straight, they might have a case under discrimination laws...
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282561 - 12/06/2006 07:51
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: andy]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1919
Loc: London
|
Quote:
In effect that is what we already do have in the UK. If you want a church marriage you can go to a church. If you are a hetrosexual couple you can get a civil marriage (which has no religious content).
Not really, as a muslim I had to have a religious ceremony AND a civil one as the muslim one has no legal recognition, either ALL faith ceremonies should have legal standing or none (my preference).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282562 - 12/06/2006 07:56
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: andy]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1919
Loc: London
|
Quote:
her rights to her partners pension, inheritance tax implications etc are drastically different than if she were married or was able to sign up to a civil partnership.
I think that's my core point the civil/legal union/partnership/contract (whatever you want to call it) should be the primary determinant when it comes to legal and taxation matters, a friend of mine got married to his partner of 15 years recently as she had a cancer scare and (apparently) he wouldn't automatically have been acknowledged as the legal guardian of their child unless they were married.
The religious marriage (whichever faith) is purely your contract in the eyes of your God isn't it?
Edited by tahir (12/06/2006 08:12)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282563 - 12/06/2006 08:08
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
the muslim one has no legal recognition
I had no idea that the muslim marriage had no legal recognition.
After a quick bit of Googling it appears that it applies to all religious marriages that aren't in a Church of England (or Church of Wales) church. So at least it isn't descrimination against non-Christians as the same applies to other Christian denominations.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282564 - 12/06/2006 08:16
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: andy]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1919
Loc: London
|
Quote:
After a quick bit of Googling it appears that it applies to all religious marriages that aren't in a Church of England (or Church of Wales) church.
You sure? I thought Catholics and Jews had theirs recognised.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282565 - 12/06/2006 08:19
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
A lot of people in the UK still think that there is such a thing as "common law marriage" in England and Wales, which confers rights to unmarried couples after a period of time. In reality, no such thing exists. If you aren't married or have a civil partnership then you have very few rights when you split up or one of you dies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage#United_Kingdomhttp://www.divorce.co.uk/hottopics/articles/cohabitants.htm
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282567 - 12/06/2006 18:52
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Having the state say what is or isn't a marriage is problematic because its definition will invariably differ from some people's deeply held beliefs.
Here's the definition of marriage according to the Canadian bill:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
How does that differ from your beliefs? Do you think it's an unlawful union? That it's three or more? That there shouldn't be any exclusivity between the partners?
Quote:
In a country like the US, where the state is not supposed to interfere with religion, we value our beliefs and rightly consider it our right not to have the state define our doctrines.
I agree completely. No-one is trying to change your doctrine. No-one wants to change your doctrine (except, perhaps, any members of your church who might be affected by said doctrine, but, as members, they have the right to attempt to influence said doctrine).
Again, from the Canadian bill:
WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;
[...]
3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Suppose you were Canadian -- can you point out in this bill how the state has defined your doctrine? Even though it expressly, and purposefully, contains language stating that it's not doing so?
Quote:
The real pickel we're in is that the state is ALREADY invovled in this definition of marriage, which is pretty tragic IMHO. Because no matter what, when the final word comes down, someone's definition is going to be labeld as wrong
So, tell me... who's definition of marriage got labeled as wrong in the above?
Other than a polygamist's?
Quote:
and while we are all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage,
You keep saying this, but it's still patently false. We are not all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage. If we were, then gay people would be free to get married.
Quote:
those who have differening beliefs than those recognized by the state are going to feel that their fundamental right to define their own beliefs is being trampled.
I keep waiting to hear how your rights and beliefs are being trampled. So far, I have heard none. Not a single shred of evidence that the state is trying to force you, or any church, to hold gay weddings against your desires, or beliefs.
Quote:
And when I say this, I mean it equally as strong for those on either side of the issue.
Of course... otherwise, you would have given in, already. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index