Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 2,055 - 2,066 of 6,170
Posts 2,055 - 2,066 of 6,170
Just me, I think both sides of this debate are taking the wrong approach. Instead of debating which marraiges the government should recognize, why bother recognizing any of them?
There's all kinds of legal means out there regarding child support, estate planning, property disputes when common-law couples split up, there's really no need for some official marraige to be on some government records. Just have everyone file their taxes individually (marriage is not a requirement to claim dependents anyway), maybe define some basic rules for property division when long-term relationships end, and the only people who should see any downside out of this would be divorce lawyers.
There's all kinds of legal means out there regarding child support, estate planning, property disputes when common-law couples split up, there's really no need for some official marraige to be on some government records. Just have everyone file their taxes individually (marriage is not a requirement to claim dependents anyway), maybe define some basic rules for property division when long-term relationships end, and the only people who should see any downside out of this would be divorce lawyers.
As it stands, two people can be called commonlaw spouses if they live together for a certain amount of time. If the legal definition of "marriage" were to change, then the church would be forced to wed same-sex couples in holy matrimony, due to pressure from outside sources as well as other things i can't think of right now because i'm sick 
I hope no one's taking this personally
I hope no one's taking this personally
You mentioned it was for purposes of procreation, Shady. What if they're too old, sterile, or just don't want to have children? Why do they have to have children at all?
... And surely no one could compel the church to perform a ceremony it didn't endorse. That's silly.
Just curious...out of the people who think gay marriage should be legal, how many of you are religious? How do you reconcile your religious beliefs with your advocation of gay marriage, if these beliefs conflict? I'm sure ALL people who want gay marriage legalized can't be atheists or non-Christians, so it's obvious that SOME people have managed to make their beliefs compatible. In which case, it might not be as big an argument as most people think.
I personally believe in God, although most people wouldn't consider me religious because I don't go to church. (Organized religion sucks IMO, since there's no way millions of ppl can believe exactly the same thing.) I also believe that marriage isn't particularly sacred. If marriage was sacred, that means wife-beaters are sacred, and I can't abide the thought of that. And what about people of different religions who marry and coexist peacefully regardless of what their churches say? I think in a lot of cases, religion mainly serves to tell you who you can't marry. "Oh she's not Jewish, you can't marry her!"
I personally believe in God, although most people wouldn't consider me religious because I don't go to church. (Organized religion sucks IMO, since there's no way millions of ppl can believe exactly the same thing.) I also believe that marriage isn't particularly sacred. If marriage was sacred, that means wife-beaters are sacred, and I can't abide the thought of that. And what about people of different religions who marry and coexist peacefully regardless of what their churches say? I think in a lot of cases, religion mainly serves to tell you who you can't marry. "Oh she's not Jewish, you can't marry her!"
I myself have a gay relative, and I believe gay marrige should be legal. I myself am not a religious person, and never have been. I see religion as a way of people coping with the bigger picture, something to believe in for reassurance, as the science theory is a bit too big to comprehend really.
If our religions were as true and righteous as they are made out to be, surely they would respect a persons feelings and emotions. What kind of religion would strike someone down for standing for what they believe?
I think you are right about religion serving to tell us who we can and cant marry. To be honest, I think it is wrong for a religion to dictate who we can become partners with.
Wouldent we have such a more peaceful world without religion? No beliefs to conflict about.
Just my 2pence worth.
If our religions were as true and righteous as they are made out to be, surely they would respect a persons feelings and emotions. What kind of religion would strike someone down for standing for what they believe?
I think you are right about religion serving to tell us who we can and cant marry. To be honest, I think it is wrong for a religion to dictate who we can become partners with.
Wouldent we have such a more peaceful world without religion? No beliefs to conflict about.
Just my 2pence worth.
Everyone believes in something, whether they call it science, religion, spirituality, etc. And it's fairly natural for those with similar beliefs to form groups. I would argue that this is human nature. The problems come when one group decides it's superior to all of the others. *shrugs*
Examples? Here's one that most people don't think about: skepticism, or the religion of scientists who don't understand logic, and claim that lack of proof of A's existence implies that A does not exist, absolutely and conclusively. (i.e. no physical specimens of bigfoot, so bigfoot can't exist) If we applied this same "logic" to, say, a murder investigation, lack of evidence would indicate that the murderer did not exist.
The correct, logical conclusion for a lack of evidence is "it is unlikely that A exists." (or in the case of a murder scene, "it is unlikely that we will find the murderer.") Anything stronger is either based on assumptions or is an out and out opinion.
And science in itself constitutes an incomplete belief system, because it can only make statements based on testable hypotheses. If there is no way to test a hypothesis (God's favorite color is orange; the universe started on a Wednesday evening) then science has nothing to say about it. A religion may have a great deal to say about it, based on experience, dogma, tradition... When science goes beyond what is testable, it stops being science and becomes what I call the religion of skepticism.
Pretty as it may be to think that "no religion" would make the world a better place, science has been responsible for some nasty stuff as well. Example: Residents near atomic bomb tests were not informed of any possible danger and our military monitored them for years to see what effect the radiation would have.
Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting, but there's no such thing as an easy solution for worldwide conflict. And generally people whose goal is to make everyone happy wind up creating more misery than there was before.
Examples? Here's one that most people don't think about: skepticism, or the religion of scientists who don't understand logic, and claim that lack of proof of A's existence implies that A does not exist, absolutely and conclusively. (i.e. no physical specimens of bigfoot, so bigfoot can't exist) If we applied this same "logic" to, say, a murder investigation, lack of evidence would indicate that the murderer did not exist.
The correct, logical conclusion for a lack of evidence is "it is unlikely that A exists." (or in the case of a murder scene, "it is unlikely that we will find the murderer.") Anything stronger is either based on assumptions or is an out and out opinion.
And science in itself constitutes an incomplete belief system, because it can only make statements based on testable hypotheses. If there is no way to test a hypothesis (God's favorite color is orange; the universe started on a Wednesday evening) then science has nothing to say about it. A religion may have a great deal to say about it, based on experience, dogma, tradition... When science goes beyond what is testable, it stops being science and becomes what I call the religion of skepticism.
Pretty as it may be to think that "no religion" would make the world a better place, science has been responsible for some nasty stuff as well. Example: Residents near atomic bomb tests were not informed of any possible danger and our military monitored them for years to see what effect the radiation would have.
Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting, but there's no such thing as an easy solution for worldwide conflict. And generally people whose goal is to make everyone happy wind up creating more misery than there was before.
I like the way you put it, Ulrike. Some scientists can hold a sort of materialist dogma.
I consider myself spiritual, but I'm not the least bit religious. I study from any source available to find out about reincarnation, life after death, dreams, and the nature of reality. I dont care if it's the Bhagavad Gita or Kaku's Hyperspace- if it's got good information and clarifies a bit of the big picture, then I'm interested.
I consider myself spiritual, but I'm not the least bit religious. I study from any source available to find out about reincarnation, life after death, dreams, and the nature of reality. I dont care if it's the Bhagavad Gita or Kaku's Hyperspace- if it's got good information and clarifies a bit of the big picture, then I'm interested.
I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm Pagan but not one of the more religious ones. Most branches of Paganism allow for a lot of variations, as long as you don't hurt anybody.
Whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up, I think of two gay guys who are friends of mine. They've been together about 15 years, I think. One is Pagan but occasionally goes to Catholic Mass and still says the Rosary with his grandmother.
They (the two guys) had some sort of ceremony years ago, don't know what they called it. They bicker sometimes like any couple, but they love each other. I don't think anybody should go around passing laws attempting to weaken their relationship or keep them from providing for each other's needs. (You don't even know them!)
As for children: for a while they took care of the one guy's nieces and nephews because the *straight* parents weren't in any shape to do so.
Whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up, I think of two gay guys who are friends of mine. They've been together about 15 years, I think. One is Pagan but occasionally goes to Catholic Mass and still says the Rosary with his grandmother.
They (the two guys) had some sort of ceremony years ago, don't know what they called it. They bicker sometimes like any couple, but they love each other. I don't think anybody should go around passing laws attempting to weaken their relationship or keep them from providing for each other's needs. (You don't even know them!)
As for children: for a while they took care of the one guy's nieces and nephews because the *straight* parents weren't in any shape to do so.
I am a Christian (Nondenom Protestant, for those who care) and I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage.
I can't speak for all religious people, but I reconcile it like this: Jesus said to love one another. He said "Judge not lest ye be judged." He said that those who have no sin should throw the first stone. I realize that these statements in themselves are not an endorsement of gay marriage, but I think that if two people truly love each other they should be allowed to marry and I should keep my nose out of it. If it's such a huge sin then God will sort it out later. It's not up to me.
This is not to say that I think churches should be forced to marry gay couples if they don't believe in it. Gay couples will be able to find gay-friendly churches to have their weddings in (check San Francisco). Churches are allowed to turn away het couples that they don't approve of, so they shouldn't be forced to marry gays. But gays should be able to get their marriages recognized by the state.
As far as gay couples making a mockery of marriage, I figure heterosexual couples have been making a mockery of marriage for years (look at FOX reality shows) and it's about time we gave gays a crack at it.
I can't speak for all religious people, but I reconcile it like this: Jesus said to love one another. He said "Judge not lest ye be judged." He said that those who have no sin should throw the first stone. I realize that these statements in themselves are not an endorsement of gay marriage, but I think that if two people truly love each other they should be allowed to marry and I should keep my nose out of it. If it's such a huge sin then God will sort it out later. It's not up to me.
This is not to say that I think churches should be forced to marry gay couples if they don't believe in it. Gay couples will be able to find gay-friendly churches to have their weddings in (check San Francisco). Churches are allowed to turn away het couples that they don't approve of, so they shouldn't be forced to marry gays. But gays should be able to get their marriages recognized by the state.
As far as gay couples making a mockery of marriage, I figure heterosexual couples have been making a mockery of marriage for years (look at FOX reality shows) and it's about time we gave gays a crack at it.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar