And oh. I did not know that nj haha. I assumed all the gays were happy in the UK and was just saying to my friend earlier how I'll probably have to go over to your side of the rainbow to take one of them.
Prop 8 Oral Arguments
-
TangoVictor
- Posts: 562
- Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:07 am
- Location: USA
I wasn't implying anything from it (like that religion wasn't dying in Europe) I just thought the article was interesting...
And oh. I did not know that nj haha. I assumed all the gays were happy in the UK and was just saying to my friend earlier how I'll probably have to go over to your side of the rainbow to take one of them.
And oh. I did not know that nj haha. I assumed all the gays were happy in the UK and was just saying to my friend earlier how I'll probably have to go over to your side of the rainbow to take one of them.
Dome wrote:QUOTE (Dome @ Dec 12 2012, 05:09 AM) I thought Tango was a 35 y/o Virginian tobacco farmer before I found out he's the same age as my sister. =P
"You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not" -John Lennonblake420 wrote:QUOTE (blake420 @ Feb 16 2013, 04:42 AM) bah, you can't just take the asl and like it? fine you are demoted to TangoVictor's personal concubine.
Ok. I thought it was more... well, bizarreTangoVictor wrote:QUOTE (TangoVictor @ Apr 19 2013, 12:48 PM) I wasn't implying anything from it (like that religion wasn't dying in Europe) I just thought the article was interesting...
Apologies for misunderstanding what you meant.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
So here is a summation of events
marriage, depending how you squint at it, went from a legal concept to a religious concept hundreds and hundreds of years ago. (aka as pwning MrC)
For hundreds and hundreds of years marriage has been viewed by society as a religious event
All governments of those participating in this debate offer a secular ceremony to signify the legal joining of a man and woman.
religion is ebbing and flowing depending on the society the participants
This is strictly a legal question not a morale one
point one - yawn whoopee and at one point the Chippewa's where the eight foot golden gods of the region I live in. Now they can own casinos, and use gill netting when fishing
point two - yes but times are always changing and there has been a secular version for at least as long as a religious one
point three - yes yes you are unique just like everyone else... the ceremony is icing on the cake over here anyway (to the best of my knowledge)
point four - so? It really has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Or are the rights of Sami any less valid then Finnish-phones?
point five - Yes on the surface but there is the sticky wicket of religious rights to consider now that we have dispensed with the idea that religious institutions don't have rights too
So it comes down to this in the land of High Powered Rifles, NFL, and Single Family Dwellings:
Do you allow religious institutions to discriminate who they allow to participate in their ceremony? Yes I think you have to do it no matter what you do from a legal sense.
That is how things are set up here and why the Westboro jack offs can operate
Should religious institutions be able to perform a legally binding ceremony? No given the supposed strict separation of church and state here
I'm not sure the ceremony itself has any legal significance today anyway only the marriage license
Should we allow a legally binding union between people of the same sex? How can you not do so.
The law is blind boys and girls time to end the codified prejudices.
Who gets to use the word marriage and when is it applied?
That's all that is left imho and I encourage you to use the word as your beliefs, morals, and personal bias directs you to do so. I'd like to throw the religious institutions a bone and let them keep "marriage" for basically nostalgic reasons
No no $#@! off MrChaos you're wrong on ppoints 1-1,000,000!!!!!
Your views and beliefs are yours *points to his sig* most likely your mind is made up (too (now)). How you choose to exercise them is yours as long as you don't break any laws or act an utter douche nozzle while doing it.
See it isn't even all that hard now is it? Time to get on to the next big topic. Over or under on the toilet paper roll
How your *insert appropriate government* handles this one is you and your *insert appropriate government*'s business
marriage, depending how you squint at it, went from a legal concept to a religious concept hundreds and hundreds of years ago. (aka as pwning MrC)
For hundreds and hundreds of years marriage has been viewed by society as a religious event
All governments of those participating in this debate offer a secular ceremony to signify the legal joining of a man and woman.
religion is ebbing and flowing depending on the society the participants
This is strictly a legal question not a morale one
point one - yawn whoopee and at one point the Chippewa's where the eight foot golden gods of the region I live in. Now they can own casinos, and use gill netting when fishing
point two - yes but times are always changing and there has been a secular version for at least as long as a religious one
point three - yes yes you are unique just like everyone else... the ceremony is icing on the cake over here anyway (to the best of my knowledge)
point four - so? It really has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Or are the rights of Sami any less valid then Finnish-phones?
point five - Yes on the surface but there is the sticky wicket of religious rights to consider now that we have dispensed with the idea that religious institutions don't have rights too
So it comes down to this in the land of High Powered Rifles, NFL, and Single Family Dwellings:
Do you allow religious institutions to discriminate who they allow to participate in their ceremony? Yes I think you have to do it no matter what you do from a legal sense.
That is how things are set up here and why the Westboro jack offs can operate
Should religious institutions be able to perform a legally binding ceremony? No given the supposed strict separation of church and state here
I'm not sure the ceremony itself has any legal significance today anyway only the marriage license
Should we allow a legally binding union between people of the same sex? How can you not do so.
The law is blind boys and girls time to end the codified prejudices.
Who gets to use the word marriage and when is it applied?
That's all that is left imho and I encourage you to use the word as your beliefs, morals, and personal bias directs you to do so. I'd like to throw the religious institutions a bone and let them keep "marriage" for basically nostalgic reasons
No no $#@! off MrChaos you're wrong on ppoints 1-1,000,000!!!!!
Your views and beliefs are yours *points to his sig* most likely your mind is made up (too (now)). How you choose to exercise them is yours as long as you don't break any laws or act an utter douche nozzle while doing it.
See it isn't even all that hard now is it? Time to get on to the next big topic. Over or under on the toilet paper roll
How your *insert appropriate government* handles this one is you and your *insert appropriate government*'s business
Last edited by MrChaos on Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ssssh
This is how I see things in the land of bowler hats, cheeky cockneys and drizzle:
Do you allow religious institutions to discriminate who they allow to participate in their ceremony? Yes I think you have to do it no matter what you do from a legal sense. The law shouldn't impinge on religious institutions in any direction.
Should religious institutions be able to perform a legally binding ceremony? As long as there's a secular alternative, sure, why not? I'd also push for all legitimate religions to be treated equally in this regard so that the Muslims, Hindus, Druids and Jedis can all have there own ceremonies that count.
Should we allow a legally binding union between people of the same sex? How can you not do so.
The law is blind boys and girls time to end the codified prejudices.
Who gets to use the word marriage and when is it applied?
People who are legally married get to use the term and it has legal status. What that entails is up to the government but inheritance and so on seem fairly obvious to me.
Good set of headings MrC
Do you allow religious institutions to discriminate who they allow to participate in their ceremony? Yes I think you have to do it no matter what you do from a legal sense. The law shouldn't impinge on religious institutions in any direction.
Should religious institutions be able to perform a legally binding ceremony? As long as there's a secular alternative, sure, why not? I'd also push for all legitimate religions to be treated equally in this regard so that the Muslims, Hindus, Druids and Jedis can all have there own ceremonies that count.
Should we allow a legally binding union between people of the same sex? How can you not do so.
The law is blind boys and girls time to end the codified prejudices.
Who gets to use the word marriage and when is it applied?
People who are legally married get to use the term and it has legal status. What that entails is up to the government but inheritance and so on seem fairly obvious to me.
Good set of headings MrC
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
and 
+1Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Apr 19 2013, 02:37 PM) Should we allow a legally binding union between people of the same sex? How can you not do so.
The law is blind boys and girls time to end the codified prejudices.
Who gets to use the word marriage and when is it applied?
People who are legally married get to use the term and it has legal status. What that entails is up to the government but inheritance and so on seem fairly obvious to me.
spot on
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
-
Duckwarrior
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: la Grande-Bretagne
Why are you picking on me? What did I do?Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Apr 19 2013, 12:37 PM) This is how I see things in the land of bowler hats, cheeky cockneys and drizzle:
Is it because I is a C1?
(If I could work out how to open Paint in Win 8 that quote would have been below a picyure of Ali G in a bowler hat. As it is you will have to use your fancy A/B imagination sir)
Last edited by Duckwarrior on Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy.
You don't need to be gay to hold that view, just look at Masta.Vortrog wrote:QUOTE (Vortrog @ Apr 20 2013, 02:28 PM) I heard a funny thing on radio last week. I was a gay man responding to why gay marriage is a bad idea. He said that why would we want to conform to a dead ideology. He seconded it that by allowing it would make for some real interesting episodes of divorce court.
Some people have no nterest in marriage. It's those who do who are the effected party here.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept