APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

WinterBorn said:
I think there are plenty of people who are responsible in their lives and have a moral code much like yours or mine, and they still don't violate that code on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
then we will have to disagree....I expect everyone does, whether they admit it or not.....
 
christiefan915 said:
Gays do not have the same privileges as anyone else. They have no legal rights of inheritance and in some instances can be banned from visiting a hospitalized partner who's in intensive care. Gays can't always be on a partner's employee health plan, nor can they claim against a pension.
Click to expand...
So they should file the proper power of attorney papers and get those rights, all through existing, simple legal channels. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Which are?
Click to expand...

Bereavement leave or sick leave to care for a partner.
Benefits from annuities, penion plans and/or social security.
Spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home.
Veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans.
Joint filing of tax returns.
Joint filing of customs claims when traveling.
Wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children.
Crime victims' recovery benefits.
Loss of consortium tort benefits.
Domestic violence protection orders.
Judicial protections and evidentiary immunity.


And there are more, but these are what I could remember.
 
Southern Man said:
So now marriage licensing is a racial issue? :palm:
Click to expand...
What part of "was" do you have difficulty with?

This may be why you think stuff like, "The government has always protected my religious views of marriage!" and other nonsense.

The total lack of understanding of past v. present could definitely tell us why you are incapable of understanding the relative newness of this particular "tradition" of government. Centuries and centuries passed with nary a government license, then in the mid 1800s, just after the war, suddenly licensing appeared.

Now it is held on to as a source of cash and to reinforce religious dogma of the majority. It isn't hard to understand what I mean so I figure you either pretend or you really do have some total lack of understanding of time.
 
Southern Man said:
The government shouldn't control private employer's policies. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I list 11 benefits in response to your question. And you comment on one of them?

Ok, lets have the gov't not control private employer's policies, and we let each company set its own policies for gays and straights.
 
Yurt said:
and yet you want it to control private marriages :pke:
Click to expand...
And religious ceremonies. Because those churches aren't "real Christian" churches. I can see an argument about that (whether the churches "really" follow the teaching), but the reality is people have the right to believe in the religion in any fashion whatsoever, that objection has already been covered upon ratification of the first amendment.
 
Damocles said:
What part of "was" do you have difficulty with?

This may be why you think stuff like, "The government has always protected my religious views of marriage!" and other nonsense.

The total lack of understanding of past v. present could definitely tell us why you are incapable of understanding the relative newness of this particular "tradition" of government. Centuries and centuries passed with nary a government license, then in the mid 1800s, just after the war, suddenly licensing appeared.

Now it is held on to as a source of cash and to reinforce religious dogma of the majority. It isn't hard to understand what I mean so I figure you either pretend or you really do have some total lack of understanding of time.
Click to expand...

A requirement for banns of marriage was introduced to England and Wales by the Church in 1215. This required a public announcement of a forthcoming marriage, in the couple's parish church, for three Sundays prior to the wedding and gave an opportunity for any objections to the marriage to be voiced (for example, that one of the parties was already married), but a failure to call banns did not affect the validity of the marriage.

Marriage licences were introduced in the fourteenth century, to allow the usual notice period under banns to be waived, on payment of a fee and accompanied by a sworn declaration, that there was no canonical impediment to the marriage. Licences were usually granted by an archbishop, bishop or archdeacon. There could be a number of reasons for a couple to obtain a licence: they might wish to marry quickly (and avoid the three weeks' delay by the calling of banns); they might wish to marry in a parish away from their home parish; or, because a licence required payment, they might choose to obtain one as a status symbol.

There were two kinds of marriage licences that could be issued: the usual was known as a common licence and named one or two parishes where the wedding could take place, within the jurisdiction of the person who issued the licence. The other was the special licence, which could only be granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury or his officials and allowed the marriage to take place in any church.

=================================


So in short, Dumo... you are just plain WRONG!
 
Dixie said:
A requirement for banns of marriage was introduced to England and Wales by the Church in 1215. This required a public announcement of a forthcoming marriage, in the couple's parish church, for three Sundays prior to the wedding and gave an opportunity for any objections to the marriage to be voiced (for example, that one of the parties was already married), but a failure to call banns did not affect the validity of the marriage.

Marriage licences were introduced in the fourteenth century, to allow the usual notice period under banns to be waived, on payment of a fee and accompanied by a sworn declaration, that there was no canonical impediment to the marriage. Licences were usually granted by an archbishop, bishop or archdeacon. There could be a number of reasons for a couple to obtain a licence: they might wish to marry quickly (and avoid the three weeks' delay by the calling of banns); they might wish to marry in a parish away from their home parish; or, because a licence required payment, they might choose to obtain one as a status symbol.

There were two kinds of marriage licences that could be issued: the usual was known as a common licence and named one or two parishes where the wedding could take place, within the jurisdiction of the person who issued the licence. The other was the special licence, which could only be granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury or his officials and allowed the marriage to take place in any church.

=================================


So in short, Dumo... you are just plain WRONG!
Click to expand...
You do understand the difference between the church and the government, yes? You do understand it is my argument to allow it to be the religious (read: Church) ceremony it is, right?

I know you do, even though you pretend to be totally incapable.

Again, this is a relatively new thing for GOVERNMENT to be messing around in, especially in the US, and it was first introduced to enforce interracial marriage laws, now used to reinforce and keep safe the religious dogma of the majority.

Please read again... the only person "wrong" here is the one that couldn't see the difference between the church and the government.
 
Dixie said:
Not when we are talking about 14th century, Europe, no... can you explain the difference to me?
Click to expand...
I can, Archbishops were NOT the KING.

There is a difference between government doing what it shouldn't (meddling in religion), and what you posted. It has been my argument that this is a RELIGIOUS thing, not a GOVERNMENT thing and that it is new, especially in the US for the government to attempt to regulate religious ceremonies in this manner.

It is also my argument that the government should not be allowed to mess around in religious sacrament in this fashion.
 
Again, this is a relatively new thing for GOVERNMENT to be messing around in, especially in the US, and it was first introduced to enforce interracial marriage laws.
Click to expand...

Nope sorry Dumo, you didn't establish that as a fact, you CLAIMED it based on the fact it appeared (you claim) in the mid-1800's. Truth is, records of marriage licensing exist from the 1600's colonial period.
 
Dixie said:
Nope sorry Dumo, you didn't establish that as a fact, you CLAIMED it based on the fact it appeared (you claim) in the mid-1800's. Truth is, records of marriage licensing exist from the 1600's colonial period.
Click to expand...
Again, not government licensing. You keep conveniently (for you) "forgetting" the difference, especially here, between the church and the government.

You are now reaching into the arena of stupid. Government licensing of this religious ceremony began when people wanted to use government power to "protect" the "sanctity" of the religious "institution"....
 
Damocles said:
I can, Archbishops were NOT the KING.

There is a difference between government doing what it shouldn't (meddling in religion), and what you posted. It has been my argument that this is a RELIGIOUS thing, not a GOVERNMENT thing and that it is new, especially in the US for the government to attempt to regulate religious ceremonies in this manner.
Click to expand...

It's not new. It has been going on since 1215, I just posted that information. And archbishops certainly did serve at the behest of the king. Church and government were intertwined, inseparable, which is precisely WHY we came to America in the first place. You know this, why you want to pretend otherwise, is a mystery to me... unless you just think people are stupid and assume you are smart.
 
I'll also note one more thing, Dix. Only one of us has lowered themselves to the ad hominem, that would be the one pretending that religious licenses are the same thing as government licenses....
 
Dixie said:
It's not new. It has been going on since 1215, I just posted that information. And archbishops certainly did serve at the behest of the king. Church and government were intertwined, inseparable, which is precisely WHY we came to America in the first place. You know this, why you want to pretend otherwise, is a mystery to me... unless you just think people are stupid and assume you are smart.
Click to expand...
Again.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT especially here in the US it is new.

Your posts have simply reinforced the idea that it is a RELIGIOUS, and not a GOVERNMENT thing "traditionally" as SM was arguing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top