Tulpa | 3,537 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 17 minutes ago, cartman said: So create a partnership contract then and equate it with whatever tax benefits married couples get. We had things like that, but that still opened the door to discrimination. People were claiming the civil unions by gay couples meant they "weren't really married" and thus denied benefits. That's what the recent Supreme Court decision was all about. Religious institutions don't have a monopoly on the concept of marriage anyway. Plenty of agnostic and atheist couples marry, and no one says shit about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln | 230 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 32 minutes ago, cartman said: So create a partnership contract then and equate it with whatever tax benefits married couples get. And if religious institutions don't want to sanction gay marriage then let them not do it. Separate but equal has been pretty thoroughly debunked at this point 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloves | 11,842 Administrator · Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 22 minutes ago, Tulpa said: Plenty of agnostic and atheist couples marry, and no one says shit about them. Can confirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Rothchild | 9,592 Editorials Team · Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 hour ago, m308gunner said: Which sounds like more false equivalency and mind reading without any nuance or real understanding of an opposing view point. Sounds like a defense cooked up over the last 20 years in order to rationalize it. A spade's a spade. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arch_8ngel | 1,597 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 hour ago, m308gunner said: Which sounds like more false equivalency and mind reading without any nuance or real understanding of an opposing view point. As a person of faith myself, who whole heatedly supports.gay marriage and thinks that fundamentalists and many others completely misinterpret how homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, I don't think most of them "hate" gay people, but I do think they misunderstand them deeply. My denomination is splitting this summer over the issue, so I am pretty familiar with both sides arguments within the church, beyond what views you might want to simply ascribe to non Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arch_8ngel | 1,597 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, m308gunner said: Double post on mobile Edited January 11, 2020 by arch_8ngel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartman | 195 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 31 minutes ago, Tulpa said: We had things like that, but that still opened the door to discrimination. People were claiming the civil unions by gay couples meant they "weren't really married" and thus denied benefits. That's what the recent Supreme Court decision was all about. Religious institutions don't have a monopoly on the concept of marriage anyway. Plenty of agnostic and atheist couples marry, and no one says shit about them. I see. But then the fight should be taken there i think. Also, isn't the secular marriage that's available basically the same as what i said? So why not just go there instead if it already exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,537 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, cartman said: I see. But then the fight should be taken there i think. Also, isn't the secular marriage that's available basically the same as what i said? So why not just go there instead if it already exists. We took the fight to the Supreme Court, and they basically said what Lincoln said, separation like that doesn't work. It just opens the door to more discrimination. Secular marriage is still marriage. But for some reason LBGTQ people are the ones that get flack for trying to call it marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartman | 195 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, Tulpa said: We took the fight to the Supreme Court, and they basically said what Lincoln said, separation like that doesn't work. It just opens the door to more discrimination. Secular marriage is still marriage. But for some reason LBGTQ people are the ones that get flack for trying to call it marriage. So what is the solution? Should a person be entitled to belong to a organization and enforce his lifestyle upon them that doesn't seem right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,537 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, cartman said: So what is the solution? Should a person be entitled to belong to a organization and enforce his lifestyle upon them that doesn't seem right to me. What organizations are you talking about? Churches? The main contention is whether states should recognize gay marriage so that gay couples may get the same benefits as straight couples. The Supreme Court said, yes, they should. So all US states must now recognize the marriages. Churches, per the first amendment, may or may not perform the ceremonies at their discretion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln | 230 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 12 minutes ago, cartman said: So what is the solution? Should a person be entitled to belong to a organization and enforce his lifestyle upon them that doesn't seem right to me. nobody should get to enforce their lifestyle on anyone else. hence everyone should be allowed to marry whoever they want, because it doesn't affect anyone else. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloves | 11,842 Administrator · Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 I feel like this has little to do with Trump being impeached. I know the current conversation happened kinda fluidly out of it, but perhaps it merits a separate thread so people can use this one to carry on the conversation if/when something new happens specifically relating to trump. We have no issue with these conversations happening as long as all parties are civil. Don't call each other idiots or whatever, you just believe in different things. Discuss, debate, argue, but don't fling mud or we'll have to step in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartman | 195 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Just now, Tulpa said: What organizations are you talking about? Churches? The main contention is whether states should recognize gay marriage so that gay couples may get the same benefits as straight couples. The Supreme Court said, yes, they should. So all US states must now recognize the marriages. Churches, per the first amendment, may or may not perform the ceremonies at their discretion. Mosques, churches, everything. Yes i do think they should. Just as christians can't own monopoly over a legitimate marriage while say muslims or hindus aren't included, so too should religious institution not hold monopoly over marriage vs atheists and gays. And if those latter groups don't coincide with the behaviour and stances of an interest group (wich they quite often obviously don't) then they should take their business and go fucking elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartman | 195 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, Lincoln said: nobody should get to enforce their lifestyle on anyone else. hence everyone should be allowed to marry whoever they want, because it doesn't affect anyone else. Yes but no congregation should have to sanction it and have those people take part in their institution either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,537 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 5 minutes ago, Gloves said: I feel like this has little to do with Trump being impeached. I know the current conversation happened kinda fluidly out of it, but perhaps it merits a separate thread so people can use this one to carry on the conversation if/when something new happens specifically relating to trump. We have no issue with these conversations happening as long as all parties are civil. Don't call each other idiots or whatever, you just believe in different things. Discuss, debate, argue, but don't fling mud or we'll have to step in. Can we rename this the Current Events/World Politics/whatever thread (with the blessing of the OP) and just use it as a clearing house? It's quite obvious a lot of discussions arise that are tangentially related to the impeachment, and then grow from there. 3 minutes ago, cartman said: Mosques, churches, everything. Yes i do think they should. Just as christians can't own monopoly over a legitimate marriage while say muslims or hindus aren't included, so too should religious institution not hold monopoly over marriage vs atheists and gays. And if those latter groups don't coincide with the behaviour and stances of an interest group (wich they quite often obviously don't) then they should take their business and go fucking elsewhere. Again, though, it's a state issue rather than a purely religious issue. The court case dealt with the state aspect. 2 minutes ago, cartman said: Yes but no congregation should have to sanction it and have those people take part in their institution either. They don't have to, per the first amendment's religious freedom clause. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln | 230 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 10 minutes ago, cartman said: Yes but no congregation should have to sanction it and have those people take part in their institution either. nobody says churches have to endorse gay marriage, but they get to deal with being called out as bigots if they're gonna pull that bullshit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartman | 195 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, Lincoln said: nobody says churches have to endorse gay marriage, but they get to deal with being called out as bigots if they're gonna pull that bullshit. Yes ofcourse they shouldn't have the right to deny someone having an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber | 54 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 1 hour ago, cartman said: Mosques, churches, everything. Yes i do think they should. Just as christians can't own monopoly over a legitimate marriage while say muslims or hindus aren't included, so too should religious institution not hold monopoly over marriage vs atheists and gays. And if those latter groups don't coincide with the behaviour and stances of an interest group (wich they quite often obviously don't) then they should take their business and go fucking elsewhere. 1 hour ago, cartman said: Yes but no congregation should have to sanction it and have those people take part in their institution either. I think you might be misunderstanding. In the US, marriage (or rather being married) is recognized as a legal status. A lot of legal documents like tax paperwork will require you to put your marital status. It's completely separate from religious connotations of marriage. You can be married in a church and you would get your marriage certificate from the local government. Or you could be married outside of the church and still get the legal marriage certificate. The government doesn't really care what church is doing the wedding or what the ceremony entails. It's just a legal contract as far as the government is concerned. Each religion has its own requirements for what marriage means and what constitutes it. For example, from what I remember during my catholic school studies, the Catholic Church doesn't recognize marriages not performed by the Catholic Church as legitimate, even if they are between a man and a woman, even if they were done in another Christian (but non-Catholic) church. If I got married at the court house I am legally married, but it's not a marriage recognized by the church. And as Tulpa said they have the right to do that (even if it is shitty and dumb). But the debate isn't should churches allow gay people to be married in their church. The debate is should churches/religions be allowed to dictate what people outside of the church are allowed to do with their lives. And given the first amendment is about separation of church and state.... the answer seems pretty clear. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 2 hours ago, Lincoln said: nobody says churches have to endorse gay marriage, but they get to deal with being called out as bigots if they're gonna pull that bullshit. Because as we all know the best way to engender a stable and thriving society is to demonize and slander a huge swath of it. If all I knew of you was this line, and all I had was the dictionary definition of "bigot", I'd have to say you are what you seem to hate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said: Sounds like a defense cooked up over the last 20 years in order to rationalize it. A spade's a spade. Look again. That spade used to be a heart. I think your presumption that you've accurately labeled those who do not agree with you has colored it black and turned it upside down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arch_8ngel | 1,597 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 So Iran admitted to the shoot-down after their fairly ridiculous/obvious attempts to cover up the evidence before investigators arrived. Pretty interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Rothchild | 9,592 Editorials Team · Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 22 minutes ago, m308gunner said: Look again. That spade used to be a heart. I think your presumption that you've accurately labeled those who do not agree with you has colored it black and turned it upside down. I think you "presume" we're fools. That your views on homosexuality have become the minority one in the last couple decades, and to compensate for the swing in sentiments, the goal posts are trying to be moved. Is it a coincidence that the two posters in opposition here are Christians? That Arch's congregation is taking the most radical step possible over it? No, I don't think so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 3 hours ago, arch_8ngel said: As a person of faith myself, who whole heatedly supports.gay marriage and thinks that fundamentalists and many others completely misinterpret how homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, I don't think most of them "hate" gay people, but I do think they misunderstand them deeply. My denomination is splitting this summer over the issue, so I am pretty familiar with both sides arguments within the church, beyond what views you might want to simply ascribe to non Christians. Well I was pretty clearly addressing Rothchild's assertion that anyone who thinks a certain way on the issue must REALLY believe what he stated in quotes. Ascribing views is all the rage these days. Wading into the waters of denominational interpretation of theological doctrines could get real deep real fast, never mind including the personal component. It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that the split you mentioned is happening. I must confess that I haven't been keeping track of too many of the larger denominations in detail since getting kicked out of church a few years ago... Totally not still jaded or bitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Reed Rothchild said: I think you "presume" we're fools. That your views on homosexuality have become the minority one in the last couple decades, and to compensate for the swing in sentiments, the goal posts are trying to be moved. Is it a coincidence that the two posters in opposition here are Christians? That Arch's congregation is taking the most radical step possible over it? No, I don't think so. Have I stated my views on homosexuality? Could you quote them for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 13 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said: So Iran admitted to the shoot-down after their fairly ridiculous/obvious attempts to cover up the evidence before investigators arrived. Pretty interesting. Right?!? *puts tinfoil hat back on* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts