Redefining Marriage and all that

[Reverend Rick]

Perhaps we should make everyone attend Christians schools so they would see everything our way and there would be no need to change anything and everyone could be happy with things just the way they are because any other opinion than mine is just plain ignorant and stupid. [/sarcasm]

Do you see how that looks when applied just the opposite way?

Christians are so stupid they need to be taken outside and shot and their children need to be taken away from them and reprogrammed to our way of thinking so we can change all the laws to agree with how 25% of us feel things should be run. To hell with the other 75% of the people, they are just plain wrong stupid uneducated bigots and need to die so we can be happy and run the country the way we want it run. [/extreme sarcasm].

 

[Somkid]

This has been a big topic in Buddhist studies as we really don't have marriage only in the sense of the document signed by the state and many Buddhist people don't even bother with that other than in Western countries. As there are no sacraments in Buddhism nothing is actually "sacred" in a holy sense even though it is sometimes referred to in that way for lack of better terms in English. A monk or priest (which is rear) has no "power vested in me" by the state or a god thus when a monk oversees a marriage he is simply saying "I witnessed a promise between two people who are accountable for how they respect that promise and are accountable for their actions in life". Although I am ordained as a Buddhist (I'm one of the rear occasions that gets the title priest) my Buddhist ordination was not striped because I became a chaplain and had to be ordained to do some chaplain type duties. I would say my wife has been my wife since we agreed to be together perhaps this could be considered "common law" in a loose kind of way, actually the only reason we officially got married was so she could stay in the USA but now we live in Thailand and we are not legally married here but we are in the eyes of the people. I don't know if that makes any sense at all.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Since the state does ot require a ceremony...


This is a rhetorical question, right?

And this is a non-answer right?

Seems to me that not only the state, but the majority of the USA disagree with ouy.

Reference? A right is something you have, not something given you. We are born with certain unalienable rights, that is unless your mother aborts you.

No I am not a federalist.
However when the states have conflicting laws, like the ones concerning same sex marriage, then the Federal Government is to step in and resolve the situation.

They have yet to do their job.

That's complete bull crap! Are you saying all state laws should be the same? Why have different states and different laws then? Are you sure you are not a federalist?

 

[McBell]

Perhaps we should make everyone attend Christians schools so they would see everything our way and there would be no need to change anything and everyone could be happy with things just the way they are because any other opinion than mine is just plain ignorant and stupid. [/sarcasm]

Do you see how that looks when applied just the opposite way?

Christians are so stupid they need to be taken outside and shot and their children need to be taken away from them and reprogrammed to our way of thinking so we can change all the laws to agree with how 25% of us feel things should be run. To hell with the other 75% of the people, they are just plain wrong stupid uneducated bigots and need to die so we can be happy and run the country the way we want it run. [/extreme sarcasm].

You just love that appeal to numbers fallacy.

 

[McBell]

And this is a non-answer right?

My bad.
My answer is the same way you can have these unalienable rights taken away by the church.

Reference? A right is something you have, not something given you.

I disagree.
A right is something that is not supposed to be taken away.
Yet here we have the church taking away the right of same sex couples to get married.
Yet I suspect that your refute will be along the lines of "You cannot take away something they never had"
Which is true, but they never should have been denied it in the first place.

So it seems to me that your refute (which you have used in other threads) merely goes to show just how controlling of "unalienable" rights your religion is.

We are born with certain unalienable rights,

Again I disagree.
You are supposed to be born with unalienable rights.
But the church has taken certain rights away and history is full of people having to fight to get them back.

that is unless your mother aborts you.

Irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

That's complete bull crap! Are you saying all state laws should be the same? Why have different states and different laws then? Are you sure you are not a federalist?

You wish it were crap.
If state A does not wish to perform same sex marriages that is fine.
However, Federal law states that state A does in fact have to recognize the marriage of same sex couples who were married in a state that allows them.

So the second that State A made the law that they would not recognize legal same sex marriage from another state, it is in violation of Federal law.
Therefore the Federal Government is supposed to step in and settle the matter once and for all.

When they finally do step in, they will have to look at the LEGALITY of the bans on same sex marriage.
Since there isn't even one legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage, the state laws banning same sex marriage will be found illegal and thus overturned.

 

[rheff78]

Wow, I leave gor the weekend and everything goes crazy. I'm confused. Someone please tell me. Can gay couples enter into a "common law" marriage?

 

[RUone2]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't marriage between two people, and the Rabbi, Priest, Minister just there to wittness it? If that is true, two people can marry same sex or not, it's a personal thing between the two people and God, at least as far as I am concerned.

 

[McBell]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't marriage between two people, and the Rabbi, Priest, Minister just there to wittness it? If that is true, two people can marry same sex or not, it's a personal thing between the two people and God, at least as far as I am concerned.

between two people except in the cases where a man has multiple wifes.

 

[Draka]

Perhaps we should make everyone attend Christians schools so they would see everything our way and there would be no need to change anything and everyone could be happy with things just the way they are because any other opinion than mine is just plain ignorant and stupid. [/sarcasm]

Do you see how that looks when applied just the opposite way?

Christians are so stupid they need to be taken outside and shot and their children need to be taken away from them and reprogrammed to our way of thinking so we can change all the laws to agree with how 25% of us feel things should be run. To hell with the other 75% of the people, they are just plain wrong stupid uneducated bigots and need to die so we can be happy and run the country the way we want it run. [/extreme sarcasm].

I never said anything about all Christians being bigots but, Christianity IS where most of this bigotry stems from. As for taking someone outside to be shot...whatever. However, as for taking someone's kids away...well, if someone is purposely raising their child to be a little hate monger then they do need to have their children taken away from them. Teaching prejudice is just as much child abuse as punching them in the face.

And as for those that are so adament about denying other human beings these "unalienable rights" that you seem to say we are "born" with...they ARE wrong, stupid, uneducated bigots IMHO.

 

[Magic Man]

isn't it interseting then that they have to swear on a Bible then? And I thought she would bring something better than that.

The reason a Bible is used to swear on is that whent eh system was devised, everyone who mattered, and therefore anyone who would be swearing in a court of law, was without a doubt a faithful Christian. Most Christians in those days were more supersticious, and fearful of God's wrath and therefore any faithful Christian would cringe from the concept of swearing on the symbol of God's word. It was the one-size-fits-all swearing object. It was easier than finding a specific thing for each individual to swear on.

By the way, as great as separation of church and state sounds, it has never been the case in this or any country. This is a perfect example.

 

[Smoke]

By the way, as great as separation of church and state sounds, it has never been the case in this or any country. This is a perfect example.

Not really. As prevalent as the custom is, there is no legal requirement to swear on the Bible, or even to swear at all. Theodore Roosevelt didn't swear on the Bible when he was inaugurated, and Lyndon Johnson didn't the first time. (He did in 1965.) Franklin Pierce didn't swear at all.

 

[Magic Man]

Not really. As prevalent as the custom is, there is no legal requirement to swear on the Bible, or even to swear at all. Theodore Roosevelt didn't swear on the Bible when he was inaugurated, and Lyndon Johnson didn't the first time. (He did in 1965.) Franklin Pierce didn't swear at all.

The point is that it has happened sometimes at least. To me there should just be no swearing on religious items at all in matters of the State. Even if it's not required, if it happens at all, it's mixing church and state.

 

[Reverend Rick]

However, as for taking someone's kids away...well, if someone is purposely raising their child to be a little hate monger then they do need to have their children taken away from them. Teaching prejudice is just as much child abuse as punching them in the face.

If you took someones child away for teaching them what their religion says and you deem that prejudicial and child abuse, would that not be fascist?

This is the real reason liberals want to outlaw guns, so they CAN brainwash everyone's children to think just like them and be underachievers who depend on the government and hate anyone who is an achiever and penalise them with draconian taxes and take all the credit for being compassionate and generous with other people's money.

One day, we just may have another civil war. That day for me will be when you come for my children because I want to raise them as I SEE FIT, NOT YOU!

 

[Draka]

If you took someones child away for teaching them what their religion says and you deem that prejudicial and child abuse, would that not be fascist?

This is the real reason liberals want to outlaw guns, so they CAN brainwash everyone's children to think just like them and be underachievers who depend on the government and hate anyone who is an achiever and penalise them with draconian taxes and take all the credit for being compassionate and generous with other people's money.

One day, we just may have another civil war. That day for me will be when you come for my children because I want to raise them as I SEE FIT, NOT YOU!

There's a difference in teaching what YOUR religion says, and telling your child that not only should they believe every word of it, but that they should use said beliefs to torment and discriminate against others.

And what in the world does banning guns have to do with brainwashing or being "underacheivers"??? I love when that word brainwashing is used by certain people though. Just makes me want to re-introduce them to themselves..."Hello Pot...meet Kettle".

 

[Reverend Rick]

Heather has two mommies, prince and prince............

 

[McBell]

Heather has two mommies, prince and prince............

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My living will and my last will and testament make things crystal clear who does what and when. Marriage laws now a days just provide divorce rights which can be negated with a prenup. If I was gay and had a same sex partner, I would have an iron clad legal paper endowing my partner with all rights and interest. A living will fixes hospital decisions, the only problem is social security and that needs to be fixed.

I was under the impression that when it comes to child custody, family courts generally go with whatever they believe to be in the best interest of the child, regardless of what the prenup says. Maybe someone who knows the family law system better than I do can confirm or deny this.

Without marriage, what sort of lawyer would a person go to in order to ensure that he or she would be allowed by the hospital to stay at the patient's bedside after visiting hours (i.e. the way a spouse can now)?

And without marriage, what sort of contract, living will or what-have-you would give you the right to continue living in your rented home with your new spouse (though the term "spouse" wouldn't have any legal weight at this point) over the objections of a landlord who placed a "no roommates or sublettors" clause in the lease?

Without marriage, why would your spouse (reduced basically to "the person with whom I have certain contracts and agreements") have any more right to attend your child's parent-teacher interview than, say, your business partner (who is also, effectively, "the person with whom I have certain contracts and agreements")?

This is the real reason liberals want to outlaw guns, so they CAN brainwash everyone's children to think just like them and be underachievers who depend on the government and hate anyone who is an achiever and penalise them with draconian taxes and take all the credit for being compassionate and generous with other people's money.

I was under the impression that anti-gun activists want to outlaw (or restrict) guns so that fewer people would get shot.

Whether their proposals would actually be effective at reducing the number of people shot by firearms is probably debatable, but that seems to me to be the general intent.

 

[McBell]

Sure, if you like. I can think of a couple places it would definitely get you banned, though.

I did.
They even deleted it. :sad4:

 

[Smoke]

I did.
They even deleted it. :sad4:

You should have seen the time I posted the sarcastic OP about why Pentecostals shouldn't be allowed to marry on a Christian-dominated board. They were not amused. Several of the moderators told me I was the most horrible person they'd ever encountered.

 

[Fluffy]

I never said anything about all Christians being bigots but, Christianity IS where most of this bigotry stems from.

But we find bigotry in any demographic. Christians are the largest religious demographic and so we would expect to find the largest proportion of bigotry coming from them. In other words, there is nothing about Christianity that causes this to be so, only that bigots are proportionally, and not evenly, distributed amongst religions.

This is the real reason liberals want to outlaw guns, so they CAN brainwash everyone's children to think just like them and be underachievers who depend on the government and hate anyone who is an achiever and penalise them with draconian taxes and take all the credit for being compassionate and generous with other people's money.

I think the real reason why liberals wish to outlaw guns is because we genuinely believe that it will save more lives and not for any ulterior motive. Also liberals do not wish to become underachievers, we just believe that ending suffering and inequality is more important than encouraging people to be achievers. We also do not hate achievers. We do not wish any credit or praise because there is nothing praiseworthy about this. If you see someone struggling with a door then you open it for them. It is just something that is expected of you.