Jon Stewart FTMFW

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

Says who? The Federal government and 50 out of 50 states have statutes defining civil marriage, and defining civil rights, duties and benefits that apply to married couples, irrespective of the religion of the participants or the lack therof. Those same state statutes authorize religious institutions to act as their agents to perform marriages recognized under the laws of the states.

Religions are free to define marriage as it applies to their followers, but civil marriage is an institution of the state, not religion, and religious marriages are deemed to be valid civil marriages ONLY because they are recognized under the authority of the state.

Would you also bar heterosexual atheist couples from marriage? :roll:

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Threads like this just re-affirm why I will never watch the daily show ever again.

This thread is nothing more than a liberal circle-jerk because Huckabee is a Republican - and all Republicans are racists, bigots & tyrants.

When a man and a woman marry, many ways they become a single entity in the eyes of the law - and is for the benefit of parenthood. They are not supposed to be able to divorce. Marriage is supposed to be a life-long commitment to parenthood. It's not my fault the concept of marriage has been destroyed over the years.

But seriously, show me two gay men who have biologically reproduced a child between themselves, and I will stand up and fight for their right to marry.

Until then, gay marriage will not be acceptable to a certain percentage of the population.

Your contention with gay marriage is illogical/unreasonable. If reproduction/parenthood is the prerequisite to marriage then infertile married couples have a problem. An unreasonable/illogical argument opens you up to ridicule.

And ultimately anyone that employs bad logic/irrationality to defend a position can be guilty of being bigoted, and/or predjudiced. Look up the definitions if you dont believe me.

You may not like the label being thrown at you...but you cannot dispute peoples reasons for labeling you a bigot or predjudiced. Your position on this issue fits the definitions of those words.

 

[cirrrocco]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
My question for Huck: What gives some Christians to define what marriage is for all others? What if a religion wants to marry gays?

That's actually a really interesting idea.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So when is Obama going to get the message that gay marriage is OK?

his public position on gay marriage is wrong. bye troll.

Oh, his "public" position. Sorry. I forgot you know him personally and know how he really feels. :laugh:

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

Says who? The Federal government and 50 out of 50 states have statutes defining civil marriage, and defining civil rights, duties and benefits that apply to married couples, irrespective of the religion of the participants or the lack therof. Those same state statutes authorize religious institutions to act as their agents to perform marriages recognized under the laws of the states.

Religions are free to define marriage as it applies to their followers, but civil marriage is an institution of the state, not religion, and religious marriages are deemed to be valid civil marriages ONLY because they are recognized under the authority of the state.

Would you also bar heterosexual atheist couples from marriage? :roll:

The state has taken a religious institution and poorly attempted to secularize it. IMO the state has no business in personal unions whatsoever.

As I stated very clearly, if the government is not involved in personal relationships, there is no question of which unions to support (MF, MM, FF, MFF, MMF, MD, MFFFFFFFFFF etc.), and my personal opinion becomes politically irrelevant. Way too many personal issues exist out in political space...

Define things however you like, or pick new words to mean separate things... but getting past all that... recognizing a couple is historically a religious device. The fact that SECULAR states authorize religious institutions as their agents should be a clue that marriage is still very much a religious construct.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I think Obama has a personal opinion of gay marriage, that as a religious man he doesn't support it, but his political opinion is that it should not be made explicitly illegal.

 

[TheSlamma]

Huckabee got trashed, his argument about the definition of the word is a complete pile of shit.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

Many non-Christian people have been getting married for centuries before Christianity ever came along. Next.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I think Obama has a personal opinion of gay marriage, that as a religious man he doesn't support it, but his political opinion is that it should not be made explicitly illegal.

This is a crucial distinction to make, and far too few people understand it. Issues involved with religion and other personal beliefs and actions should be left outside of the political realm. We should not be legislating these type of things (rendering personal opinions of the the politicians irrelevant). Then again, as long as the voters desire to mandate their beliefs on others, they will expect politicians to behave the same way.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

Many non-Christian people have been getting married for centuries before Christianity ever came along. Next.

I never said it was a Christian construct.

 

[First]

^ Lord almighty. :laugh:

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

marriage is a civil contract that may or may not also be endorsed by a religion if the couple so chooses.

Technically, HardcoreRobot is more accurate since "marriage" was a religious institution long before it became codified in secular law.

More pragmatically though, I agree with loki.

The problem, of course, is that people seem unable or unwilling to understand that "marriage" in the secular sense is not the same as "Marriage" in the sacramental sense. This leads to religious people misunderstanding the issue and believing that if the government allows homosexual marriage as a secular institution it will force churches to grant the sacramental variant as well. This is, of course, patently ridiculous.

From a legal perspective some sort of recognized union is required and I'm personally in favor of the government granting something like a "cohabitation license" to both heterosexuals and homosexuals and this license would confer all the secular rights and privileges that a current "marriage license" does. This would solve the issue with less of a stink made from a misunderstanding of the fact that, currently, the term "marriage" is used for two distinct and separate entities.

ZV

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

marriage is a civil contract that may or may not also be endorsed by a religion if the couple so chooses.

Technically, HardcoreRobot is more accurate since "marriage" was a religious institution long before it became codified in secular law.

More pragmatically though, I agree with loki.

The problem, of course, is that people seem unable or unwilling to understand that "marriage" in the secular sense is not the same as "Marriage" in the sacramental sense. This leads to religious people misunderstanding the issue and believing that if the government allows homosexual marriage as a secular institution it will force churches to grant the sacramental variant as well. This is, of course, patently ridiculous.

From a legal perspective some sort of recognized union is required and I'm personally in favor of the government granting something like a "cohabitation license" to both heterosexuals and homosexuals and this license would confer all the secular rights and privileges that a current "marriage license" does. This would solve the issue with less of a stink made from a misunderstanding of the fact that, currently, the term "marriage" is used for two distinct and separate entities.
ZV

ZV you are on the right track and I appreciate your support . Your solution is the most obvious and as you said, pragmatic. I can't buy into 100% because it does not allow for any of the more exotic scenarios (ex. polygamy). Polygamy should absolutely 100% be legal, consenting adults should be able to structure their relationships however they choose and afford the protection of law. What I have been trying to get at is that as long as we have laws and regulations based on something as personal as relationships we will CONSTANTLY face controversy as society changes. The only TRUE solution will be to remove the presence of government in this arena entirely.

EDIT: just wanted to note that i really regret my wording of 'allow for'. that is the wrong approach to take, we should only view laws in their true context - taking AWAY freedom as opposed to specifically granting it

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
ZV you are on the right track and I appreciate your support . Your solution is the most obvious and as you said, pragmatic. I can't buy into 100% because it does not allow for any of the more exotic scenarios (ex. polygamy). Polygamy should absolutely 100% be legal, consenting adults should be able to structure their relationships however they choose and afford the protection of law. What I have been trying to get at is that as long as we have laws and regulations based on something as personal as relationships we will CONSTANTLY face controversy as society changes. The only TRUE solution will be to remove the presence of government in this arena entirely.

EDIT: just wanted to note that i really regret my wording of 'allow for'. that is the wrong approach to take, we should only view laws in their true context - taking AWAY freedom as opposed to specifically granting it

Do you feel the same way about 2 consenting adults, that just happen to have the same parents?

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
ZV you are on the right track and I appreciate your support . Your solution is the most obvious and as you said, pragmatic. I can't buy into 100% because it does not allow for any of the more exotic scenarios (ex. polygamy). Polygamy should absolutely 100% be legal, consenting adults should be able to structure their relationships however they choose and afford the protection of law. What I have been trying to get at is that as long as we have laws and regulations based on something as personal as relationships we will CONSTANTLY face controversy as society changes. The only TRUE solution will be to remove the presence of government in this arena entirely.

EDIT: just wanted to note that i really regret my wording of 'allow for'. that is the wrong approach to take, we should only view laws in their true context - taking AWAY freedom as opposed to specifically granting it

Do you feel the same way about 2 consenting adults, that just happen to have the same parents?

Absolutely, why should I have any right to tell them otherwise?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

marriage is a civil contract that may or may not also be endorsed by a religion if the couple so chooses.

Technically, HardcoreRobot is more accurate since "marriage" was a religious institution long before it became codified in secular law.

More pragmatically though, I agree with loki.

The problem, of course, is that people seem unable or unwilling to understand that "marriage" in the secular sense is not the same as "Marriage" in the sacramental sense. This leads to religious people misunderstanding the issue and believing that if the government allows homosexual marriage as a secular institution it will force churches to grant the sacramental variant as well. This is, of course, patently ridiculous.

From a legal perspective some sort of recognized union is required and I'm personally in favor of the government granting something like a "cohabitation license" to both heterosexuals and homosexuals and this license would confer all the secular rights and privileges that a current "marriage license" does. This would solve the issue with less of a stink made from a misunderstanding of the fact that, currently, the term "marriage" is used for two distinct and separate entities.

ZV

Bullshit. Let the churches call their ritual a cohabitation license. Lets keep the sacred tradition of declaring ones love before the citizens and God by its usual name of marriage.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

The state has taken a religious institution and poorly attempted to secularize it. IMO the state has no business in personal unions whatsoever.

Cosumate BULLSHIT! Civil and religious marriage are two separate issues. As long as the Federal and state statutes afford rights, duties and privileges, including tax benefits and matters of legal standing between wedded couples, those laws must be applied equally to all couples. Anything else violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Those same statutes recognize weddings performed by clergy as a matter of convenience and accomodation to religious institutions, but even then, the couple must obtain a civil marriage license.

You and your church can define the word, "marriage" any way you want. That does not preclude the state from choosing the same name for the civil relationship defined by their statutes.

Nobody's forcing you to marry someone of the same gender. Why are you so hung up over which letters in which sequence describe the term defined by the civil statute?

What great, overriding interest do you have in being an asshole to others whose only offense is that they don't happen to accept your definition of a freaking word, especially since it doesn't impact your life in any way whatsoever? It's just so many letters, so much ink on a page or so many pixels on a screen.

Get over your bigoted self. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Bullshit. Let the churches call their ritual a cohabitation license. Lets keep the sacred tradition of declaring ones love before the citizens and God by its usual name of marriage.

I never declared my love to anyone but my wife.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

The state has taken a religious institution and poorly attempted to secularize it. IMO the state has no business in personal unions whatsoever.

Cosumate BULLSHIT! Civil and religious marriage are two separate issues. As long as the Federal and state statutes afford rights, duties and privileges, including tax benefits and matters of legal standing between wedded couples, those laws must be applied equally to all couples. Anything else violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Those same statutes recognize weddings performed by clergy as a matter of convenience and accomodation to religious institutions, but even then, the couple must obtain a civil marriage license.

You and your church can define the word, "marriage" any way you want. That does not preclude the state from choosing the same name for the civil relationship defined by their statutes.

Nobody's forcing you to marry someone of the same gender. Why are you so hung up over which letters in which sequence describe the term defined by the civil statute?

What great, overriding interest do you have in being an asshole to others whose only offense is that they don't happen to accept your definition of a freaking word, especially since it doesn't impact your life in any way whatsoever? :thumbsdown: :|

Because many states clearly don't agree with what you have just said. But it would be much more logical to move toward what HCR was saying. Of course that will happen no time soon because religious people will feel disenfranchised.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Because many states clearly don't agree with what you have just said. But it would be much more logical to move toward what HCR was saying. Of course that will happen no time soon because religious people will feel disenfranchised.

Under the U.S. Constitution, religious people were never more enfrancised than anyone else in the first place. The majority is not always right. Amongst other things, the Constitution is intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jonks

Not in this country. And weren't there restrictions on women inheriting property anyway, didn't it go to their oldest son or other male relative who would then tolerat the crone's presence in his house?

actually the 'crone' had a dower of 1/3 her husband's estate and women's legal rights were upheld in the early common law.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

The state has taken a religious institution and poorly attempted to secularize it. IMO the state has no business in personal unions whatsoever.

Cosumate BULLSHIT! Civil and religious marriage are two separate issues. As long as the Federal and state statutes afford rights, duties and privileges, including tax benefits and matters of legal standing between wedded couples, those laws must be applied equally to all couples. Anything else violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

totally agree. which is why these laws must be eliminated. as long as you attempt to define marriage, or unions, or couples in ANY fashion, there will be dispute.

Those same statutes recognize weddings performed by clergy as a matter of convenience and accomodation to religious institutions, but even then, the couple must obtain a civil marriage license.

if they still need a civil marriage license why involve the church at all?

You and your church can define the word, "marriage" any way you want. That does not preclude the state from choosing the same name for the civil relationship defined by their statutes.

I am not, and likely will never be a member of any church. No matter how many laws you make, or legal definitions, you cannot ignore the religious legacy of the marriage concept

Nobody's forcing you to marry someone of the same gender. Why are you so hung up over which letters in which sequence describe the term defined by the civil statute?

That is not my concern at all. The concept of binding two people together spiritually is a religious marriage, the state's interpretation of this is what you call civil, but at the end of the day it is the same thing, and it is the government making policy based on personal decisions which it should not be involved with.

What great, overriding interest do you have in being an asshole to others whose only offense is that they don't happen to accept your definition of a freaking word, especially since it doesn't impact your life in any way whatsoever? :thumbsdown: :|

you clearly have not read into anything i have typed into this thread. you see religion + marriage in my post and you jump to god knows conclusions. i suggest you actually read what i am trying say, i think you will find it is nothing like you are assuming.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Harvey
...church can define the word, "marriage" any way you want. That does not preclude the state from choosing the same name for the civil relationship defined by their statutes.

While I agree with you in the overall theory of what is "right", I can't agree pragmatically.

From the pragmatic standpoint, simply changing the name of what the government grants for everyone (heterosexuals included) to something other than "marriage" would allow an end-run around the "no gay marriage" idiots and stands to bring the overall desired result much faster.

In an ideal world, people would understand that a secular "marriage" is a legal construct that is at most superficially related to the religious construct of "Marriage". However, we don't live in an ideal world and we never will. Simply changing the name of the legal construct stands a very good chance at accomplishing the desired result much sooner that might otherwise be possible.

ZV

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TallBill

Because many states clearly don't agree with what you have just said. But it would be much more logical to move toward what HCR was saying. Of course that will happen no time soon because religious people will feel disenfranchised.

Under the U.S. Constitution, religious people were never more enfranchised than anyone else in the first place. The majority is not always right. Amongst other things, the Constitution is intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

I completely agree, but good luck convincing the religious groups that. It'll fade away with time as the US becomes less religious as a whole.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Bullshit. Let the churches call their ritual a cohabitation license. Lets keep the sacred tradition of declaring ones love before the citizens and God by its usual name of marriage.

I never declared my love to anyone but my wife.

And your point is?