The Poojer Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 What ever you want to call it, if you feel that the definition of marriage is between a man and woman...fine(frankly i don't think that combination has done too stellar a job of representing that term), marriage, union, or tapioca pudding...time to realize that who a person is attracted to has ZERO to do with the makeup of a fellow human being. I really hope NYS politicians vote to approve same sex 'marriage'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 What ever you want to call it, if you feel that the definition of marriage is between a man and woman...fine(frankly i don't think that combination has done too stellar a job of representing that term), marriage, union, or tapioca pudding...time to realize that who a person is attracted to has ZERO to do with the makeup of a fellow human being. I really hope NYS politicians vote to approve same sex 'marriage'. IF they do....I really hope that they put a law together without unintended consequences...that also doesn't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry, that can be used as a viable contract in other states, and doesn't open the door to all kinds of buffoonery marriages or anything else that brings the entire enterprise to a crashing halt...and clogs the court system for decades. How about this: you owe me 100 naked youtube push-ups if the ACLU files a suit, using an affirmative vote on this measure, to force a church to marry 2 dudes, or, if any other state refuses to recognize the contract, or, if the ACLU files suit to allow the marriage of 3 people, or anything else you don't intend occurs. This is not a moral question, because it is based merely on values, not principles. Rather, it is absolutely a legal question, and unless you have all the legal answers...you are signing up for a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 look, i get it that you are worried about worst case scenarios, and there will always be someone pushing the envelope......but pushing that envelope leads to consideration of things/ideas that may not have been part of mainstream/conventional/comfortable ways. Change happens, and we need to be able to adapt once we realize that the consequences are minimal at best. Not sure how we can still believe that same sex marriage/union/tapioca pudding can be compromised any further by allowing this to happen, but i hope if the ACLU represents a case where some dude wants to marry a wooly mammoth, that it opens up discussion and we can weigh weather or not that such a union would bring down society as we know it. I am not a lawyer so I don't have that kind of thought process. I just want to see my friends, families, co-workers etc, be able to lead the lives that mixed gender couples have been able to, and subsequently ruin(for the most part, myself included) lead. IF they do....I really hope that they put a law together without unintended consequences...that also doesn't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry, that can be used as a viable contract in other states, and doesn't open the door to all kinds of buffoonery marriages or anything else that brings the entire enterprise to a crashing halt...and clogs the court system for decades. How about this: you owe me 100 naked youtube push-ups if the ACLU files a suit, using an affirmative vote on this measure, to force a church to marry 2 dudes, or, if any other state refuses to recognize the contract, or, if the ACLU files suit to allow the marriage of 3 people, or anything else you don't intend occurs. This is not a moral question, because it is based merely on values, not principles. Rather, it is absolutely a legal question, and unless you have all the legal answers...you are signing up for a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) And, I don't want to see the entire legal system turned into a circus with case after case of buffoonery, which has real consequences, just so you can have a self-righteous Hallmark moment, which is worthless to everyone but you. What about marrying a woolly mamouth are we supposed to "weigh" exactly? Should the kids from this guys first marriage get f'ed out of their inheritance by the mammoth? Does a mammoth now have legal standing in court? How about kids from 2 different women? IF one of the women sue for divorce, does that mean the other woman can claim custody and visitation rights on kids that aren't hers? If the first women gets the divorce, does the other woman now have to pay child support on kids that aren't hers? These aren't "worse case scenarios" these are basic legal questions that have basic legal answers when we define marriage as between a man and a woman, and only in that circumstance. You appear to want to gleefully open a can of worms you have no idea how to deal with...all so you can have a Hallmark moment. That's capricious, to say the least. look, i get it that you are worried about worst case scenarios, and there will always be someone pushing the envelope......but pushing that envelope leads to consideration of things/ideas that may not have been part of mainstream/conventional/comfortable ways. Change happens, and we need to be able to adapt once we realize that the consequences are minimal at best. Not sure how we can still believe that same sex marriage/union/tapioca pudding can be compromised any further by allowing this to happen, but i hope if the ACLU represents a case where some dude wants to marry a wooly mammoth, that it opens up discussion and we can weigh weather or not that such a union would bring down society as we know it. I am not a lawyer so I don't have that kind of thought process. I just want to see my friends, families, co-workers etc, be able to lead the lives that mixed gender couples have been able to, and subsequently ruin(for the most part, myself included) lead. Edited June 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 IF they do....I really hope that they put a law together without unintended consequences...that also doesn't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry, that can be used as a viable contract in other states, and doesn't open the door to all kinds of buffoonery marriages or anything else that brings the entire enterprise to a crashing halt...and clogs the court system for decades. How about this: you owe me 100 naked youtube push-ups if the ACLU files a suit, using an affirmative vote on this measure, to force a church to marry 2 dudes, or, if any other state refuses to recognize the contract, or, if the ACLU files suit to allow the marriage of 3 people, or anything else you don't intend occurs. This is not a moral question, because it is based merely on values, not principles. Rather, it is absolutely a legal question, and unless you have all the legal answers...you are signing up for a mess. You can't force a Church to marry anyone. They are a religious institution, any such statute would quickly fall in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 IF they do....I really hope that they put a law together without unintended consequences...that also doesn't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry, that can be used as a viable contract in other states, and doesn't open the door to all kinds of buffoonery marriages or anything else that brings the entire enterprise to a crashing halt...and clogs the court system for decades. How about this: you owe me 100 naked youtube push-upscough cough closet if the ACLU files a suit, using an affirmative vote on this measure, to force a church to marry 2 dudes, or, if any other state refuses to recognize the contract, or, if the ACLU files suit to allow the marriage of 3 people, or anything else you don't intend occurs. This is not a moral question, because it is based merely on values, not principles. Rather, it is absolutely a legal question, and unless you have all the legal answers...you are signing up for a mess.Grampa OC opposed civil rights for the same reason "It might be messy" And, I don't want to see the entire legal system turned into a circus with case after case of buffoonery, which has real consequences, just so you can have a self-righteous Hallmark moment, which is worthless to everyone but you.He means it's worthless to him and of course he thinks he's everyone What about marrying a woolly mamouth must be new gay slang are we supposed to "weigh" exactly? Should the kids from this guys first marriage get f'ed out of their inheritance by the mammoth? Sounds like a personal issue , your dad could have got a prenup but maybe he got sick of you looking for handouts Does a mammoth now have legal standing in court and could a mammoth fit in a witness chair?? How about kids from 2 different women? IF one of the women sue for divorce, does that mean the other woman can claim custody and visitation rights on kids that aren't hers? If the first women gets the divorce, does the other woman now have to pay child support on kids that aren't hers? How is this different from any other blended family? These aren't "worse case scenarios" these are basic legal questions that have basic legal answers when we define marriage as between a man and a woman, and only in that circumstance. You appear to want to gleefully open a can of worms you have no idea how to deal with...all so you can have a Hallmark moment. That's capricious, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 You can't force a Church to marry anyone. They are a religious institution, any such statute would quickly fall in court. Do you want to bet on that? If/when this passes and a church refuses to marry them they will be violating their civil rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Do you want to bet on that? If/when this passes and a church refuses to marry them they will be violating their civil rights. A civil right does not trump the freedom of religion wrt churches being able to define their own rites, rules, membership, etc. Most of the concerns about this are unfounded. There may be some navigating to do wrt to OC's example of parentage and alimony, but I'm sure there's case law that will help guide the way. Regardless, that's not a valid excuse for the government to continue to deny freedom and equal rights/protections. Like I've said before, I'm ashamed at how fellow Republicans continue to impose their moral orders on people who don't hold those moral orders. Edited June 16, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Former SB hero speaks out against Gay marriage. http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/david-tyree-gay-marriage-will-lead-to-anarchy-20110616-ncx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Was grampa OC a democrat? I doubt it, so he probably wasn't opposing civil rights. You're just another self righteous revisionist, lyrbob. Edited June 16, 2011 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Do you want to bet on that? If/when this passes and a church refuses to marry them they will be violating their civil rights. Yeah, which is why the Catholic Church is being forced to ordain women as priests because it violates their civil rights. Oh wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Yeah, which is why the Catholic Church is being forced to ordain women as priests because it violates their civil rights. Oh wait. Nicely done. Who here would agree with this? Allowing gay marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” ofconventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration. Oh and OCin, that was one of the most pathetic arguments I have seen yet. Just admit that for whatever reason you do not like the idea of gay marriage. What would the rights of x gay couple in y situation be? Why the same rights that heterosexual couples have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Yeah, which is why the Catholic Church is being forced to ordain women as priests because it violates their civil rights. Oh wait. Umm, the government doesn't have a say in who does or doesn't get to be a priest, but they do have a say in who can or can't be married. You are naive to think that this will stop all the "fight for equality" rants. Edited June 16, 2011 by Gary M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 And, I don't want to see the entire legal system turned into a circus with case after case of buffoonery, which has real consequences, just so you can have a self-righteous Hallmark moment, which is worthless to everyone but you. What about marrying a woolly mamouth are we supposed to "weigh" exactly? Should the kids from this guys first marriage get f'ed out of their inheritance by the mammoth? Does a mammoth now have legal standing in court? How about kids from 2 different women? IF one of the women sue for divorce, does that mean the other woman can claim custody and visitation rights on kids that aren't hers? If the first women gets the divorce, does the other woman now have to pay child support on kids that aren't hers? These aren't "worse case scenarios" these are basic legal questions that have basic legal answers when we define marriage as between a man and a woman, and only in that circumstance. You appear to want to gleefully open a can of worms you have no idea how to deal with...all so you can have a Hallmark moment. That's capricious, to say the least. Who is having a moment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Who here would agree with this? Allowing gay marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration. Depends on who said it. If a clergyman said it, then it's ok. For a politician, ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Depends on who said it. If a clergyman said it, then it's ok. For a politician, ridiculous. Link I got the original quote from here. It compares arguments against gay marriage to interracial marriage. I thought I would get cute and change the interracial bit to gay. When you qualified your answer based on who said it I googled the quote looking for the original source. It seems I had inadvertently stolen the idea of a Chicago Tribune writer. So I guess props for the idea belong to Eric Zorn who seems to have not used the name of the people who made the initial statements about interracial couples. Apparently some Georgia State Representative. Link Edited June 16, 2011 by Booster4324 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Umm, the government doesn't have a say in who does or doesn't get to be a priest, but they do have a say in who can or can't be married. You are naive to think that this will stop all the "fight for equality" rants. Do you know why the government has no say in who becomes a priest? It's because the Church is a religious institution. Try not hiring someone because they are a woman in any other field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Do you know why the government has no say in who becomes a priest? It's because the Church is a religious institution. Try not hiring someone because they are a woman in any other field. And I fully expect, at some point, that some yahoo is going to try to take the Catholic Church to court over the very principle that religious freedom should not trump civil rights... Because, y'know, it's not like there isn't precedent already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I highly doubt more than 1% of the gay couples currently wishing and waiting to get married would want to get married in a Roman Catholic church. Most simply want their union to be recognized by their state and country and enjoy the same privileges that straight married couples have. So crowing about "making priests do something they don't wanna" is dumbassery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 The only private institutions subject to the constitutional civil rights requirements are those that perform quasi-public services. The church doesn't perform those services and don't have to perform any marriages that don't meet their own requirements. Even straight couples previously married in a catholic parrish and subsequently divorced have to get a church annulment to get married again by a catholic priest. Stop applying employment law to matrimonial standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts