- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jars of Clay frontman earns ire for position on gay marriage
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:42 pm to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:42 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The term "marriage" has been "redefined" - as you call it - virtually since its inception. Unless you propose going back to a system where marriages are arranged by parents or legal guardians and mixing of neither race nor religion is allowed - I'd suggest you abandon the appeal to "traditional" marriage. Heck some cultures even require you go through a third party "match maker" but I wouldn't want you to blow your mind apart by the idea that marriage is actually defined differently by different people.
I know a couple with an "open" marriage. They even bring their lovers home to spend time with the family. That's completely legal - and bears no resemblance to "traditional marriage".
This is interesting, but irrelevant. Marriage has had a legal definition for quite some time. There is now a movement to change that definition to something that has been, at best, a fringe definition of marriage. Now we're seeking to change the definition, because simply granting the term's equal in rights and privileges wouldn't be sufficient?
And why is that? The legal recognition would be identical. Government treatment would be identical. It would be a semantical difference.
Ah, the answer is that the semantic difference is alleged to reduce the value of same sex unions in society at large. There is no tangible difference, but there is a difference in terms of social acceptance. Hence, we can't just grant the rights, we have to change the existing marriage (applicable previously only to heterosexual couples) definition.
2
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:55 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Marriage has had a legal definition for quite some time.
Actually the legal definition of marriage has changed radically over the past 100 years.
Wives now own property in a marriage on equal footing with their husbands.
Divorce is now allowed in most places without even having cause - that's quite a radical change - and in all places violations of the contract are treated equally with regard to which party commits it.
Wives and husbands now have virtually equal custodial rights to their children (with the exception that some states prefer the mother in early childhood)
Inter-racial and inter-religious marriage is
allowed.
Marriage has actually been re-defined quite a bit since the birth of our nation. Mostly in the way of women's rights - but also in the way of racial and religious liberty.
But I know you don't care. Belief based hatred is impossible to counter with facts.
quote:
Hence, we can't just grant the rights, we have to change the existing marriage (applicable previously only to heterosexual couples) definition.
You're actually completely free to remain in whatever marriage you are in right now with no change in terms whatsoever - and heterosexuals will continue to have the exact same marriage rights as they have before. The only reason you would seek to deprive homosexuals of that same liberty is through belief based hatred.
This post was edited on 7/14/14 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 7/14/14 at 4:18 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
There is no tangible difference, but there is a difference in terms of social acceptance. Hence, we can't just grant the rights, we have to change the existing marriage (applicable previously only to heterosexual couples) definition.
Which is why the government should have never been involved in the first place. Your "marriage" is performed at the church of your choice and is between you, your spouse, and your deity. It offers you no protections or benefits with regards to the law of the state or country. It's simply a religious rite- such as communion or (in some cultures) circumcision. If religion is of no importance to you, then you can totally bypass it.
On the other hand, your civil union contract is between you, your spouse, and your government. This is the legal part that states your co-mingling of households, tax status, power of attorney, yadda yadda yadda. It has nothing to do with religion or morality. If you want to enter into this contract with your same sex SIBLING as a simple and efficient means to ensure that your assets don't end up in the hands of your greedy and irresponsible baby mama, then so be it. It doesn't require or even suggest that the two parties involved are boinking each other.
But all useless "shoulda-coulda-woulda" at this point, quite frankly. It probably made pretty good sense to combine the two in the past, despite the problems we see now. Not that there will ever be separation of "marriage" and "civil union" but if it DID somehow happen: yes- the fringe on both sides would STILL find something to bitch about, because... well... that's just what they do.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News