Hey dgs49, Obama just called your bluff

[RayThom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TivVcfSBVSM

[Lord Jim]

Wow Ray....

I've listened to a lot of the Nixon tapes, but I'd never heard that one....

That's really....something....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Just because I don't have an irrational hatred of something doesn't mean I love it to irrationality either.

Of course it doesn't! That's my point! And just because people do not love the idea that "marriage" should extend to include same-sex couples doesn't automatically mean they have an irrational hatred of that group.

I would not call a person who supports homosexual marriage a "homophile" merely because I disagree with their opinion. In the same way, I do not accept the media-promulgated view that is so easily adopted on this board that every person who opposes homosexual marriage is a homophobe.

Moral judgements raise the same sort of difficulty for Naturalism as any other thoughts. We always assume in discussions about morality, as in all other discussions, that the other man's views are worthless if they can be fully accounted for by some non-moral and non-rational cuase. When two men differ about good and evil we soon hear this principle being brought into play. "He believes in the sanctity of property because he's a millionaire" - "He believes in Pacifism because he's a coward" - "He approves of capital punishment because he's a sadist." . . . No one (in real life) pays attention to any moral judgement which can be shown to spring from non-moral and non-rational causes.

C. S. Lewis - "Miracles"chapter 5

The charge of homophobia, which may be true in individual cases, is levelled as a valid generalisation at the entire class of nay-sayers in order to declare the person worthless and therefore dismiss his/her views as worthless regardless of content.

As to the rest of your message - utter nonsense without merit but this is not the place to discuss it I think

Meade

[rubato]

"... And just because people do not love the idea that "marriage" should extend to include same-sex couples doesn't automatically mean they have an irrational hatred of that group.
... "

Meade

Except when doing so deprives homosexuals of equal rights. Then it is irrational hatred.


yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

Nobody is forcing anybody to consecrate gay marriages; what is the huge objection to state sanctioned gay marriage?

[Crackpot]

Because like it or not Marriage is a spot where the line between church and state severely overlap. It will take alot of work to untangle and neither side has the desire (let alone will) to do so.

[Scooter]

Church does not overlap into civil marriage in the slightest. Some churches don't even recognize them as valid. Perhaps if churches are going to insert themselves in this debate, they should explain how, exactly and in concrete terms, they are affected in the slightest.

If anyone has a reason to complain, it is churches that do recognize same-sex marriage, because their ministers are prohibited by law from performing them in jurisdictions where they are not legal.

[Crackpot]

really? then why are religious ceremonies recognized by the state? and in most cases vice versa. "some don't" just doesn't cut it. there has been a long history of civil and religious marriage being interchangeable with a nod and a wink at the notion of "the separation of church and state" and no one even cared because for all intents and purposes the two were the same. Now we have a distinction that is arising and either way you cut it is promoting one at the expense of the other and things are getting messy.

IMHO the only way around it is to create a finite distinction between religious and civil marriage which quite frankly will create a lot of work for a semantic difference and will leave both sides feeling like they got reamed (the sure sign of a fair decision it seems) and in the end things will be qualitatively no different that they are now. (except that it will likely force Christians (I can't speak for other religions) to address the importance of an issue that by our own teachings only has bearing in the current existence because it will be meaningless in the hereafter.

[rubato]

really? then why are religious ceremonies recognized by the state? and in most cases vice versa. ... "

Like what? Baptism? Conversion? Circumcision? Titheing?

get off it.

yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

Religious wedding ceremonies are recognized by the state as valid moron.

[Guinevere]

What state recognizes religious marriage without a state marriage license?

[Crackpot]

What state recognizes any marriage without a ceremony?

[Scooter]

really? then why are religious ceremonies recognized by the state?

Religious marriages are recognized by the state. That is where civil marriage overlaps into relgious marriage. But religion plays no part in marriages that take place outside of any religious tradition, which is why I said that religious marriage does not overlap into civil marriage.

Now we have a distinction that is arising and either way you cut it is promoting one at the expense of the other and things are getting messy.

How is it at the expense of one or the other? Civil marriage does not suffer because some religions refuse to recognize some or all of them. Religious marriage does not suffer because people are able to be married civilly who would not be able to marry within the religion.

Unless there is some unspoken assumption here that religious bodies will be forced to perform marriages that are not seen as valid in their faith (which will NEVER happen), then there is absolutely no confiict in legalizing civil marriages that some religions refuse to recognize. (However, as I already stated, the converse is not true, and has not been for quite some time, and yet no one was banging the drum about religious freedom then.)

IMHO the only way around it is to create a finite distinction between religious and civil marriage which quite frankly will create a lot of work for a semantic difference and will leave both sides feeling like they got reamed

I have long said that marriage should be handled the way it has been for decades in most of Europe and South America: the civil ceremony is what legally marries you, and the religious ceremony is something that people do if they want one, but that has no legal validity. People could choose to enter either or both, as they please. But that will not stop religion from sticking its nose into the purely secular business of civil marriage, just as it doesn't on any other issue where religion plays no role.

[BoSoxGal]

Most couples choose to have some type of ceremony; beyond a marriage license I'm not aware of a specific ceremony requirement in any of the jurisdictions where I have gained familiarity with the domestic relations law.

Anybody else?

[Crackpot]

Mine required a ceremony civil or religious didn't matter but a witnessed ceremony within a certain timeframe was required. From what I've heard those requirements are not uncommon elsewhere.

[Crackpot]

Now we have a distinction that is arising and either way you cut it is promoting one at the expense of the other and things are getting messy.

How is it at the expense of one or the other? Civil marriage does not suffer because some religions refuse to recognize some or all of them. Religious marriage does not suffer because people are able to be married civilly who would not be able to marry within the religion.

Religious marriage will suffer (broadly) because the two are no longer interchangeable putting them in the awkward position of having to verify them. Contrary to popular belief many churches don't want to interfere with their congregants personal lives. And many (myself included) would bristle at the idea that their marriage wasn't valid because it didn't occur under the umbrella of a particular religion.

[Lord Jim]

Some interesting numbers on the North Carolina vote:

GOP Primary:

Mitt Romney 634,902 65.7%
Ron Paul 107,109 11.1%
Newt Gingrich 73,867 7.6%
Other 151,023 15.6%

Democratic Primary:

Barack Obama (i)755,934 79%
No Preference 199,104 21%


Amendment 1:

Yes 1,303,952 61.05%
No 831,788 38.95%

So it looks like just from eye balling it, that roughly the same number of people voted in both the the Demo and GOP primaries, (a little under a million a piece) While the number of people voting in the gay marriage amendment referendum was over 2.1 million....more than the total vote of both primaries combined....

That strongly suggests that it couldn't have been the GOP primary that brought out the anti-gay marriage vote....

In fact, it suggests that it was the turnout of people who wanted to vote on the amendment, (pro or con) that drove the turnout for the primaries, rather than the other way around...

That being the case, this indicates that if there had been no primaries at all, on either side, and only the vote on the Amendment, the results would likely not have been significantly different.

In retrospect I guess this isn't really all that surprising since there was no competitive primary race to draw voters to the polls on either side.

[BoSoxGal]

Yes, but the ceremony can be as perfunctory as the couple desires, with just a JP presiding and a clerk as witness. If two people want to marry but don't want any bullshit religious language or love, honor, cherish - there's no requirement for any of that.

It's a contract requiring a license granted by the state. That's all.

[Scooter]

Religious marriage will suffer (broadly) because the two are no longer interchangeable putting them in the awkward position of having to verify them.

That makes no sense. If a religion doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, or some other type of marriage, then a same-sex couple or whoever who come asking for a marriage ceremony will be shown the door. What "checking up" would be required?

And many (myself included) would bristle at the idea that their marriage wasn't valid because it didn't occur under the umbrella of a particular religion.

Again, you are making no sense. Marriages don't need to be performed under the umbrella of any religion to be valid at present, how would that possibly change?

[Crackpot]

but a contract that has historically allowed a religious authority to fulfill. THe stat could (and probably should) have kept the two separate as to avoid any cross pollination between the two entities.