[quote]orion wrote:
…
[/quote]
No, he literally changed the name…
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
You have to understand that how other people live their lifes really does not concern me that much
[/quote]
That’s because you’re naive, and have little to no thought to the type of society that will follow after your death. Your philosophy only worries about yourself, in the now. Which also happens to be fertile soil of the nanny state. I pretty much look at libertarianism as the dumb, useful, younger brother to welfare state progressivism. [/quote]
Swell, but I am not on welfare nor do I intend to be.
Will I take every last dime that I am allegedly entitled to?
Yes, but just because I want my money back.[/quote]
Your folks are naive. You fantasize a socially liberal society that refrains from turning to the state as a replacement for the extended traditional family. Progressives are intelligent at least. They understand, and count on, the inevitable outcome of social liberalism.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
…
[/quote]
No, he literally changed the name…
[/quote]
[quote]
Mak
For government purposes, let couples get a civil union. It’s not ending state recognized marriage, it’s renaming it.[/quote]
Cute, but transparent. Let’s be serious.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
…
[/quote]
No, he literally changed the name…
[/quote]
[quote]
Mak
For government purposes, let couples get a civil union. It’s not ending state recognized marriage, it’s renaming it.[/quote]
Cute, but transparent. Let’s be serious.[/quote]
Yeah, so I refined his point a bit to make it more palatable.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
You have to understand that how other people live their lifes really does not concern me that much
[/quote]
That’s because you’re naive, and have little to no thought to the type of society that will follow after your death. Your philosophy only worries about yourself, in the now. Which also happens to be fertile soil of the nanny state. I pretty much look at libertarianism as the dumb, useful, younger brother to welfare state progressivism. [/quote]
Swell, but I am not on welfare nor do I intend to be.
Will I take every last dime that I am allegedly entitled to?
Yes, but just because I want my money back.[/quote]
Your folks are naive. You fantasize a socially liberal society that refrains from turning to the state as a replacement for the extended traditional family. Progressives are intelligent at least. They understand, and count on, the inevitable outcome of social liberalism.[/quote]
Bankruptcy?
Tyranny?
Both?
Combined with a “progressive” welfare state that is.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
…
[/quote]
No, he literally changed the name…[/quote]
I called government run marriage ‘civil unions’ and pushed marriage into the realm of the religious, allowing you to define marriage as you see fit and allowing monogamous couples to benefit from the current status quo with regard to taxes, inheritance, child custody, and hospital visitation (obviously there is more but you get the idea).
Wanna get married and form a sacred bond with your partner? Go to the church. Wanna file for things like hospital visitation? Civil union. Want both? Get both.
It’s not a hard concept. And hey, it opens up new possibilities, like making marriage mean something again, instead of the stripped down bastardized version of what it could be. It would be on you and your religious institution to define what marriage is again! The government and the pesky liberal who seek to redefine it would have no say, and the people who want to be able to visit their partner in hospital can do so without the extra bullshit that currently exists!
It’s win-win.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
…
[/quote]
No, he literally changed the name…
[/quote]
[quote]
Mak
For government purposes, let couples get a civil union. It’s not ending state recognized marriage, it’s renaming it.[/quote]
Cute, but transparent. Let’s be serious.[/quote]
Yeah, so I refined his point a bit to make it more palatable. [/quote]
I wasn’t responding to your refinement. I responded to his post. You then said ‘no,’ when I said all he did was change the name. No, to your no.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
…
[/quote]
No, he literally changed the name…[/quote]
I called government run marriage ‘civil unions’ and pushed marriage into the realm of the religious, allowing you to define marriage as you see fit and allowing monogamous couples to benefit from the current status quo with regard to taxes, inheritance, child custody, and hospital visitation (obviously there is more but you get the idea).
Wanna get married and form a sacred bond with your partner? Go to the church. Wanna file for things like hospital visitation? Civil union. Want both? Get both.
It’s not a hard concept. And hey, it opens up new possibilities, like making marriage mean something again, instead of the stripped down bastardized version of what it could be. It would be on you and your religious institution to define what marriage is again! The government and the pesky liberal who seek to redefine it would have no say, and the people who want to be able to visit their partner in hospital can do so without the extra bullshit that currently exists!
It’s win-win.[/quote]
So you changed the name…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
…
[/quote]
No, he literally changed the name…[/quote]
I called government run marriage ‘civil unions’ and pushed marriage into the realm of the religious, allowing you to define marriage as you see fit and allowing monogamous couples to benefit from the current status quo with regard to taxes, inheritance, child custody, and hospital visitation (obviously there is more but you get the idea).
Wanna get married and form a sacred bond with your partner? Go to the church. Wanna file for things like hospital visitation? Civil union. Want both? Get both.
It’s not a hard concept. And hey, it opens up new possibilities, like making marriage mean something again, instead of the stripped down bastardized version of what it could be. It would be on you and your religious institution to define what marriage is again! The government and the pesky liberal who seek to redefine it would have no say, and the people who want to be able to visit their partner in hospital can do so without the extra bullshit that currently exists!
It’s win-win.[/quote]
So you changed the name…[/quote]
Why are you so hesitant to accept marriage as a religious institution again?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
…
[/quote]
No, he literally changed the name…[/quote]
I called government run marriage ‘civil unions’ and pushed marriage into the realm of the religious, allowing you to define marriage as you see fit and allowing monogamous couples to benefit from the current status quo with regard to taxes, inheritance, child custody, and hospital visitation (obviously there is more but you get the idea).
Wanna get married and form a sacred bond with your partner? Go to the church. Wanna file for things like hospital visitation? Civil union. Want both? Get both.
It’s not a hard concept. And hey, it opens up new possibilities, like making marriage mean something again, instead of the stripped down bastardized version of what it could be. It would be on you and your religious institution to define what marriage is again! The government and the pesky liberal who seek to redefine it would have no say, and the people who want to be able to visit their partner in hospital can do so without the extra bullshit that currently exists!
It’s win-win.[/quote]
So you changed the name…[/quote]
Why are you so hesitant to accept marriage as a religious institution again?[/quote]
It already is, despite what the government ends up doing. I’m just not prone to destroying a vital, critical, institution simply to make room for an unjustified object of obsession (small gay population, compared to all other forms of human relationships, like the polyamorous, with zero critical function) which, if biologically explained, will virtually go extinct when hormonal/genetic therapies are found.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
…
[/quote]
No, he literally changed the name…[/quote]
I called government run marriage ‘civil unions’ and pushed marriage into the realm of the religious, allowing you to define marriage as you see fit and allowing monogamous couples to benefit from the current status quo with regard to taxes, inheritance, child custody, and hospital visitation (obviously there is more but you get the idea).
Wanna get married and form a sacred bond with your partner? Go to the church. Wanna file for things like hospital visitation? Civil union. Want both? Get both.
It’s not a hard concept. And hey, it opens up new possibilities, like making marriage mean something again, instead of the stripped down bastardized version of what it could be. It would be on you and your religious institution to define what marriage is again! The government and the pesky liberal who seek to redefine it would have no say, and the people who want to be able to visit their partner in hospital can do so without the extra bullshit that currently exists!
It’s win-win.[/quote]
So you changed the name…[/quote]
Why are you so hesitant to accept marriage as a religious institution again?[/quote]
It already is, despite what the government ends up doing. I’m just not prone to destroying a vital, critical, institution simply to make room for an unjustified object of obsession (small gay population, compared to all other forms of human relationships, like the polyamorous, with zero critical function) which, if biologically explained, will virtually go extinct when hormonal/genetic therapies are found, anyways.
Just look at the extremes you’re willing to go to. Look at what you’ve just proposed for a relationship that deserves no more special recognition than a friendship. Homosexuality could vanish tomorrow and we’d shrug our shoulders and move on. Not the same with heterosexual coupling. [/quote]
Are you insane?
Who will perform in musicals?
Who will choreograph award shows?
The blow to interior designing alone would throw us back centuries!
But don’t let me make you miss your flight.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
…
[/quote]
No, he literally changed the name…[/quote]
I called government run marriage ‘civil unions’ and pushed marriage into the realm of the religious, allowing you to define marriage as you see fit and allowing monogamous couples to benefit from the current status quo with regard to taxes, inheritance, child custody, and hospital visitation (obviously there is more but you get the idea).
Wanna get married and form a sacred bond with your partner? Go to the church. Wanna file for things like hospital visitation? Civil union. Want both? Get both.
It’s not a hard concept. And hey, it opens up new possibilities, like making marriage mean something again, instead of the stripped down bastardized version of what it could be. It would be on you and your religious institution to define what marriage is again! The government and the pesky liberal who seek to redefine it would have no say, and the people who want to be able to visit their partner in hospital can do so without the extra bullshit that currently exists!
It’s win-win.[/quote]
So you changed the name…[/quote]
Why are you so hesitant to accept marriage as a religious institution again?[/quote]
It already is, despite what the government ends up doing. I’m just not prone to destroying a vital, critical, institution simply to make room for an unjustified object of obsession (small gay population, compared to all other forms of human relationships, like the polyamorous, with zero critical function) which, if biologically explained, will virtually go extinct when hormonal/genetic therapies are found, anyways.
Just look at the extremes you’re willing to go to. Look at what you’ve just proposed for a relationship that deserves no more special recognition than a friendship. Homosexuality could vanish tomorrow and we’d shrug our shoulders and move on. Not the same with heterosexual coupling. [/quote]
Are you insane?
Who will perform in musicals?
Who will choreograph award shows?
The blow to interior designing alone would throw us back centuries!
[/quote]
Racist!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It already is, despite what the government ends up doing. I’m just not prone to destroying a vital, critical, institution simply to make room for an unjustified object of obsession (small gay population, compared to all other forms of human relationships, like the polyamorous, with zero critical function) which, if biologically explained, will virtually go extinct when hormonal/genetic therapies are found.[/quote]
I do have to bugger off after this post, so I don’t know if I will even be back before this thread ends (I will likely be away for a few days) but I will say this - if homosexuality served no purpose it would have been bred out generations ago. One theory posits that a homosexual relative could have aided in raising the offspring of their own siblings, allowing for more resources to be devoted to the child who carried similar genetic code.
And if hormonal/genetic therapies are found, are you trying to imply there will be no backlash to trying to change a child in the womb (as that is the current theory on when people are exposed to the hormone concentrations that may dictate sexuality)? Come now, we know there would be considerable backlash and cries of tampering with nature.
Anyway, I’m drunk at 9am and have to get to the airport now.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< I looked those up and did not get a definition of the purpose of marriage at all. If you can find it, please copy and paste the definition of the purpose of marriage according to US law into this thread.
That goes for anyone who can find it.[/quote]I’ll type this real slow. Jist fer you. Our founders did not feel the need to define marriage legally because they accepted the church’s definition and never dreamed THEY would need a legal one. (although adultrey and homosexuality were both illegal at the state level all over.) Listen carefully now. They relied on the preponderance of people to act like Christians on their own for their country to be strong and prosper. Are ya in there? Limited civil government made possible by Christian self government. You will make an absolute idiot of yourself if you deny that. You can hate it all ya want, but that’s how it was.
The following was a VERY widely accepted view and one which was vital to our founding and survival. Hence our present decline.
The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:
[quote]CHAPTER XXIV.
Of Marriage and Divorce.
I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.
II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.
III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.
IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.
V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case. [/quote]
I would tell you to some diggin but you won’t. Just like you probably won’t even really read this post.
[/quote]
This is the only part of that which addressed what I was talking about: “Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.” Everything else was superfluous.
It’s too bad that the only thing you could find wasn’t an actual part of the US law. If it was, this entire argument might be worthwhile. However, it’s impossible to argue that gays or polygamous situations don’t qualify for marriage unless we have a working definition of what marriage is supposed to DO. Also, it may be that many of the people who are married today aren’t involved with the purpose of marriage and therefore shouldn’t be married either.
Once again, we need a real purpose of marriage according to law in order to say anything about marriage.[/quote]You actually ARE this clueless huh?
[/quote]
I hate to break it to you, T-Cat, but your religion’s definition of marriage isn’t considered law in America. If you want it to be, you need to move to a country where there’s no such thing as separation of church and state.[/quote]Yep. You actually are.
You are quite cluelessly I’m sure, attacking a point that I am NOT making. Think some more. I know ya got it in ya.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
And if hormonal/genetic therapies are found, are you trying to imply there will be no backlash to trying to change a child in the womb (as that is the current theory on when people are exposed to the hormone concentrations that may dictate sexuality)? Come now, we know there would be considerable backlash and cries of tampering with nature.[/quote]
There would be very, very, very little backlash. The vast majority, conservative or progressive, would not oppose it in any way. What is there for a progressive to say? Your choice to kill it, but not to correct it’s orientation to match it’s reproductive reality? Does anyone honestly think we’d see that argument from the left, with any real frequency? To the right, it would be simply be a reasonable medical procedure. It would quickly become a standard test and procedure for pregnancies. And that’s for expectant parents on both sides of the political aisle. Don’t fool yourself here. And, it’d get cheaper and cheaper over time. If it’s biological, it’s all but certain that it will be nearly wiped out in developed countries.
9 am? Slow down there, Mak…Have a safe flight.
I don’t see the problem in letting anyone marry who wants to marry. Change it to be a contact that allows the rights to make certain decisions if you’re unable to (in cases like pulling the plug), and the other rights that married people typically get when their partner dies. I don’t care if it’s a man and a woman, woman and woman, brother and brother, aunt and nephew, etc. personally. The vast majority of marriages will still always be between a man and a woman who are not related.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< I looked those up and did not get a definition of the purpose of marriage at all. If you can find it, please copy and paste the definition of the purpose of marriage according to US law into this thread.
That goes for anyone who can find it.[/quote]I’ll type this real slow. Jist fer you. Our founders did not feel the need to define marriage legally because they accepted the church’s definition and never dreamed THEY would need a legal one. (although adultrey and homosexuality were both illegal at the state level all over.) Listen carefully now. They relied on the preponderance of people to act like Christians on their own for their country to be strong and prosper. Are ya in there? Limited civil government made possible by Christian self government. You will make an absolute idiot of yourself if you deny that. You can hate it all ya want, but that’s how it was.
The following was a VERY widely accepted view and one which was vital to our founding and survival. Hence our present decline.
The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:
[quote]CHAPTER XXIV.
Of Marriage and Divorce.
I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.
II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.
III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.
IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.
V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case. [/quote]
I would tell you to some diggin but you won’t. Just like you probably won’t even really read this post.
[/quote]
This is the only part of that which addressed what I was talking about: “Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.” Everything else was superfluous.
It’s too bad that the only thing you could find wasn’t an actual part of the US law. If it was, this entire argument might be worthwhile. However, it’s impossible to argue that gays or polygamous situations don’t qualify for marriage unless we have a working definition of what marriage is supposed to DO. Also, it may be that many of the people who are married today aren’t involved with the purpose of marriage and therefore shouldn’t be married either.
Once again, we need a real purpose of marriage according to law in order to say anything about marriage.[/quote]You actually ARE this clueless huh?
[/quote]
I hate to break it to you, T-Cat, but your religion’s definition of marriage isn’t considered law in America. If you want it to be, you need to move to a country where there’s no such thing as separation of church and state.[/quote]Yep. You actually are.
You are quite cluelessly I’m sure, attacking a point that I am NOT making. Think some more. I know ya got it in ya.
[/quote]
If your point doesn’t have to do with the actual US law, then I’m sorry to say that I’m not interested in it and it’s irrelevant to this conversation. Considering your original post DIDN’T have anything to do with the US laws on marriage, one can only surmise that you were being hopeful.
Don’t ask me why, but I’ll try one more time. There was not meant to be any such thing as U.S. law concerning marriage because what I posted was nearly universally agreed upon privately (that’s where ya don’t have ta be forced see?) as the definition of marriage, family and sex we would have in the United States. You and people like you with no moral grounding, MUST have civil law. A Judeo-Christian society will behave in accordance with that model NO MATTER WHAT THE LAW SAYS. Because, hang on tight, they have convictions (I know how foreign those are to you) that have NOTHING to do with anybody’s external rules. For example:
[quote]We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
John Adams
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)[/quote]
Now did ya see that? Little government… BIG personal conviction. Little------big… based on religious morality. If need be I can break out my wall again if you have any doubt about what religion we’re talkin about here. We are dying the inevitable death as a nation for having forsaken those roots. Just own that and declare your hatred for the United States as founded already while campaigning for your modern vision of wickedness that was never EVER, in their worst nightmares, dreamed of by those who put us in motion. Go ahead and challenge that. I dare ya.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Don’t ask me why, but I’ll try one more time. There was not meant to be any such thing as U.S. law concerning marriage because what I posted was nearly universally agreed upon privately (that’s where ya don’t have ta be forced see?) as the definition of marriage, family and sex we would have in the United States. You and people like you with no moral grounding, MUST have civil law. A Judeo-Christian society will behave in accordance with that model NO MATTER WHAT THE LAW SAYS. Because, hang on tight, they have convictions (I know how foreign those are to you) that have NOTHING to do with anybody’s external rules. For example:
[quote]We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
John Adams
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)[/quote]
Now did ya see that? Little government… BIG personal conviction. Little------big… based on religious morality. If need be I can break out my wall again if you have any doubt about what religion we’re talkin about here. We are dying the inevitable death as a nation for having forsaken those roots. Just own that and declare your hatred for the United States as founded already while campaigning for your modern vision of wickedness that was never EVER, in their worst nightmares, dreamed of by those who put us in motion. Go ahead and challenge that. I dare ya.[/quote]
The WHOLE problem with your argument is that DESPITE your (and the rest of the bible thumpers on here’s) most fervent delusion/desire… Wait for it… WE DON’T LIVE IN A JUDEO-CHRISTIAN SOCIETY!!!
The FIRST AMENDMENT guarantees FREEDOM of religion. SEPARATION of church and state. You brought up Adams, how about a little Jefferson?
Jefferson’s metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson’s comments “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.” In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.”
So your assertions that AMERICANS have to abide by YOUR interpretation of what a “Judeo-Christian society” SHOULD be, has NO bearing on the the rest of us!