bushwacked Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Is it a legal marriage in the eyes of the state, and do you get the same rights as those who are married in a church? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Is it a legal marriage in the eyes of the state, and do you get the same rights as those who are married in a church? On the off chance that you truly are not just playing dumb and are in fact ignorant on this matter, then yes, it is recognized by the state. There are essentially two components to a marriage, only one of which is required to be recognized by the state. I am oversimplifying here, but: The required part is getting the license, etc. through the state and having a justice of the peace or other certified person make the marriage legal. As others have called it, basically a contract. This is what allows people to file taxes jointly, purchase community property and go through messy divorces. Then you have the church component, which, from a legal standpoint, is nothing more than a show for those that are of a religious nature so that they are married in the "eyes of God". They are basically two separate things that happen to be called the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Is it a legal marriage in the eyes of the state, and do you get the same rights as those who are married in a church? Yes, of course. The church thing is just for people who feel they want to get married in a church. Marriages are often conducted by non-religious officials. They have to be, otherwise the state would be guilty of forcing people to marry in church, another violation of the separation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Looks like where spain went off to? Jeff's one tough customer, guy is playin neked twister with that bad shoulder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Look people. The only reason gays have had a hard time getting married in this country is for one simple reason: Money. If you recognize gay marriage, then all of a sudden partners who survive their spouses are eligible for their partner's social security benefits. And then all of a sudden, the social security system is DONE. Today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 On the off chance that you truly are not just playing dumb and are in fact ignorant on this matter, then yes, it is recognized by the state. There are essentially two components to a marriage, only one of which is required to be recognized by the state. I am oversimplifying here, but: The required part is getting the license, etc. through the state and having a justice of the peace or other certified person make the marriage legal. As others have called it, basically a contract. This is what allows people to file taxes jointly, purchase community property and go through messy divorces. Then you have the church component, which, from a legal standpoint, is nothing more than a show for those that are of a religious nature so that they are married in the "eyes of God". They are basically two separate things that happen to be called the same thing. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry to disappoint everyone, but I don't know everything. And I've never been married or thought much about it. Hence my ignorance on the actual process of getting married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fingfootball Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Hey if they want to suffer like everybody else, let them get married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Hey if they want to suffer like everybody else, let them get married. Misery loves company! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Misery loves company! Why he got divorced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 whatever happened to a slippery orgy I assumed "electrical panel" had to be code for something. I'll call you for sure now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I assumed "electrical panel" had to be code for something. I'll call you for sure now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Vote noHomosexuality is wrong. What is the most important, most basic desire a species has? It has to procreat to continue. In humans it takes a Male and Female to do that. So at the root of Nature homosexuality is WRONG, it does not help a species procreate. What if it could be shown that a child with homosexual Aunts or Uncles had a statistically better chance of survival or excelling in life due to them, childless as there are in your presumption, being available to care, nuture, protect, and devote resources to the child? Would that change your position? Maybe it is a survival strategy for gene lines rather than individuals. If I understand correctly there are examples in nature where the individual sublimates for the group as a group survival strategy. (This is not my field so I could be wrong) I know many homosexuals who have procreated. Some, many even, by natural means. What does that do for your position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Are you being serious? I'm not trying to be a dick, but have you lived outside a shell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Man, I tried so hard to stay away from this thread but it's pretty damn simple: 1) Religious right need to stop trying to force their beliefs on people. It's un-christian to be so judgemental. 2) Gays need to get over it, as long as they can get get the same rights with a civil union that they can get with marriage. Who gives a crap what the government calls it? Just call them all civil unions, straight or gay, and be done with it. 3) Just like abortion, it is nothing but a demagogue issue to rally the troops, while neglecting issues that actually affect all of us. The debate is pointless. Sorry to ruin the fun, but Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Man, I tried so hard to stay away from this thread but it's pretty damn simple: 1) Religious right need to stop trying to force their beliefs on people. It's un-christian to be so judgemental. 2) Gays need to get over it, as long as they can get get the same rights with a civil union that they can get with marriage. Who gives a crap what the government calls it? Just call them all civil unions, straight or gay, and be done with it. 3) Just like abortion, it is nothing but a demagogue issue to rally the troops, while neglecting issues that actually affect all of us. The debate is pointless. Sorry to ruin the fun, but The crux of the issue here is (2); I agree - I didn't feel the need to get married in a church, and my gubment marriage is regarded exactly the same as any other by everyone. The problem is that the "pro-family" side of the debate generally doesn't even want to allow civil unions to pass. I really think that you're onto the correct answer, which is "what? gays want to get married? Look we can't force a religion to recognize it, but the state will. Here ya go, call it whatever you want. Now, if you'll excuse me, we have REAL problems...." However, that easy, quick, common-sense solution to the issue meets a TON of opposition from the religious right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Man, I tried so hard to stay away from this thread but it's pretty damn simple: 1) Religious right need to stop trying to force their beliefs on people. It's un-christian to be so judgemental. 2) Gays need to get over it, as long as they can get get the same rights with a civil union that they can get with marriage. Who gives a crap what the government calls it? Just call them all civil unions, straight or gay, and be done with it. 3) Just like abortion, it is nothing but a demagogue issue to rally the troops, while neglecting issues that actually affect all of us. The debate is pointless. Sorry to ruin the fun, but agreed on all parts. I have been saying for a while now that we need to get rid of all federal and state benefits connected to marriage and instead connect them to civil unions. somebody made a good point earlier about social security though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 26, 2011 Author Share Posted September 26, 2011 (edited) Man, I tried so hard to stay away from this thread but it's pretty damn simple: 1) Religious right need to stop trying to force their beliefs on people. It's un-christian to be so judgemental. 2) Gays need to get over it, as long as they can get get the same rights with a civil union that they can get with marriage. Who gives a crap what the government calls it? Just call them all civil unions, straight or gay, and be done with it. 3) Just like abortion, it is nothing but a demagogue issue to rally the troops, while neglecting issues that actually affect all of us. The debate is pointless. Sorry to ruin the fun, but I think the issue with 2) is that it's another example of "separate but equal" and that is basically asking someone to be cool with a state-endorsed policy that defines them as less than than someone else. Which, btw, is why it would be best if the gov't just got out of the marriage business and all legal unions were just that. But, while the state recognizing civil unions for gays but not marriage would be a step in the right direction, it's still rather insulting and also depends on the state adopting the bible's definition of marriage. And, again, that's not even what is on the table, because those who are fighting for this amendment are fighting to have the state not recognize any civil unions at all. Gay marriage is already illegal, this amendment aims to extend the degree to which gays are to have their rights denied and to make it harder for the situation to be changed in the future. So, I guess I'm not going to ask Gay's to "get over it" no more than I'm going to see them fighting this as "trying to get the last word" or not "letting the other side be". Essentially, they're being chight on and I fully endorse and expect them to fight this thing tooth and nail. Further, anyone who gives two poops about freedom and rights should not tolerate this either. (This last part is obviously not aimed at you DoG...) One doesn't have to like it, and neither they nor their church needs to endorse it. However, if anyone supports legislation such as this, their actions are those of a pathetic excuse for a person and a bad American to boot. It's really that simple. And if the god that person allegedly prays to is a good and just one, he/she/it should frown upon this behavior. ETA: I also don't think it's fair to compare it to the abortion debate. That's a debate where both sides actually have merit. If you truly believe that life begins at conception, than it is murder, plain and simple. So, fighting against abortion, to you, is fighting against murder. To that person, you simply can't make the "live and let live" argument, because, to them, you are talking about murder. In the case of gay marriage, you are truly talking about a victimless "crime". You are talking about consenting adults choosing to love each other. And the argument that hurts anyone else is thin and pathetic. Edited September 26, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 26, 2011 Author Share Posted September 26, 2011 (edited) Look people. The only reason gays have had a hard time getting married in this country is for one simple reason: Money. If you recognize gay marriage, then all of a sudden partners who survive their spouses are eligible for their partner's social security benefits. And then all of a sudden, the social security system is DONE. Today. First off, social security is on the ropes and is doomed regardless. Anyone under the age of 50 who is expecting anything more than beer money from this thing when they retire is in for a rather unfortunate surprise. This may be the last straw, but that's a rather thin argument because, the change would be small and, if that's enough to end it all, then it's beyond saving to begin with. Secondly, your theory implies a great conspiracy on a Federal level that seeds religious fervor on the local/state level in order to deny rights to a certain demographic in order to save an institution that is maligned by plenty and largely ignored by most others. I don't think I'm buying. Regardless. Let's say it's true. Let's say this is all about saving social security and, in fact, would actually save it. So? How 'bout we also double the tax on Mormons? They're sort of a fringe group, but I'd bet it would add up to a decent little sum of money that could go some way to balance the budget. It would be at least as effective as the amount of money we'd save in social security by denying gay people their partner's benefit when that person dies. Edited September 26, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I at one time was adamantly against gay marriage/civl unions, whatever the hell you want to call it. Now, well, I can't think of too many good reasons to be against it. I do still have issues with gay couples being able to adopt/raise children, but do also see how under certain circumstances that a gay couple may be better parents than some others out there... So, I guess I'm conflicted. Which means let 'em have at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Are you being serious? I'm not trying to be a dick, but have you lived outside a shell? Dick. ... It was stupid question, I know... Let it pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 First off, social security is on the ropes and is doomed regardless. Anyone under the age of 50 who is expecting anything more than beer money from this thing when they retire is in for a rather unfortunate surprise. This may be the last straw, but that's a rather thin argument because, the change would be small and, if that's enough to end it all, then it's beyond saving to begin with. SS is perfectly sustainable if the political will is there and the addition of the survivors of gays would be a virtual irrelevance in the greater picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 26, 2011 Author Share Posted September 26, 2011 SS is perfectly sustainable if the political will is there and the addition of the survivors of gays would be a virtual irrelevance in the greater picture. Perhaps I went too far by saying it's completely doomed as it is. I guess my point should have simply been, if gay survivors is enough to kill it, then it must be beyond saving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Perhaps I went too far by saying it's completely doomed as it is. I guess my point should have simply been, if gay survivors is enough to kill it, then it must be beyond saving. I can certainly agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 You should know the difference between tradition and slavory. yeah, slavory is just so unsavory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Slavery is to tradition, as a man/woman only marriage is to the past. Did I do that right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.