RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override"

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override"

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News >> RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override"

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/16/2009 3:16:38 PM

TheHungryTiger

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Marriage is nothing but a civil contract between people. No different than a business endeavor. You're basically creating an "Inc." when you get married. The church is nothing but pomp, circumstance, and yammering on out of some book. (No offense to the believers of any faith, but let's be honest, that's all it is).

Totally agree! However, I hope you can help me out with something ....

What word should I use for the 'pomp, circumstance, and yammering on out of some book'? I cant exactly use the term 'marriage ceremony' since as you point out, marriage is civil and not religious. Same goes for trying to use the terms 'civil mariage' and 'religious mariage'. The first term is redundant cance both 'civial' and 'mariage' are both legal terms. And the second term is contridicatary since 'religious' isnt civial but 'mariage' is.

I have been hunting for a word tro use for several years now, and the closest I can come up with is to take a cue from SouthPark and use the word 'marklar'. However, that only works for about 5 seconds before I say 'I dont think gay people have the right to marklar' and then I have fallen back into the whole 'You support 'seperate but equal' and that makes your a hatemonger and a homophobe' atacks that I was hoping to avoid in the first place.

I can use 'mariage' to talk about the legal term that holds no religious signifince, but what can I use to talk about the rteligious term that holds no legal signifinace? If there is a word for it, I would realy like to know.

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to BKSir)

Post #: 21

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/17/2009 10:12:36 AM

princessalyssum

Posts: 5
Joined: 1/31/2008
Status: offline

I am stoked! I am still trying to make sence of somethings here!!
So America has Seperation of Church and State..Right?
So since marriage is primaraly Christian and Catholic tradition Right?
WTF????
If the government makes up rules and cannot follow them, they should be fined?
Kinda like how we all pay taxes and all the money goes to their collegues?? Nice bonus? and to harmless criminals?
whoa whoa whoa
If they don't follow their own fucking rules I am not following theirs!!!!
I dont fucking care if you are black, white, pink whatever..Gay, kinky I have had enough ughhhh
If you don't want to follow the rules of American then fuck you!!!!
I believe in open mindedness!!
everyone is held accountable for their own faults no one is invincible!!!

sorry for all the ranting

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

Post #: 22

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/18/2009 10:04:13 AM

Imakemensquirm

Posts: 59
Joined: 12/28/2006
Status: offline

I think if you were to do a bit more research, you would find that your statement here is incorrect. The state had no involvement in marriage until the 16 hundreds and you have to take into consideration that ecclesiastical counts dealt with many things that civil counts might deal with today. In most countries, it wasn't until the late 17 hundreds or early 18 hundreds that a purely civil union was recognized as a marriage by the state.

(in reply to BoiJen)

Post #: 23

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/20/2009 8:59:18 AM

thetammyjo

Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Actually the term marriage is based not in religious history, rather legal history. The churches took on the term when Judao-Christian religious orders started influencing legal sanctions. But to hell with actual history.

Actually the "Church" took it on as legal systems decayed with the decline of the Roman Empire in the Western world and the Church was looked to as a unifying factor.

As far as I know, no one requires a religious ceremony but religious ceremonies need state recognition in order to be considered legally binding. Thus your priest or minister will say "by the power invested in me by " X religious group "and the state of" Y "I now pronounce you husband and wife" or whatever terms you use. Without state authority you are not legally married.

_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to BoiJen)

Post #: 24

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/21/2009 9:36:55 PM

DreamGoddess666

Posts: 88
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Imakemensquirm

All these countries that you list, legalized same sex civil unions. Please check your facts

You need to check YOUR facts, because you are plain and simply WRONG. Those countries legalized same-sex MARRIAGE. Other European countries have same-sex civil unions.

(in reply to Imakemensquirm)

Post #: 25

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/21/2009 11:52:09 PM

Arpig

Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline

quote:

All these countries that you list, legalized same sex civil unions. Please check your facts

Yes, please check your facts...
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=same+sex+marriage+canada+legal&meta=&aq=0&oq=same+sex+marriage+canada

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran

(in reply to Imakemensquirm)

Post #: 26

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/24/2009 2:44:46 PM

WestBaySlave

Posts: 501
Joined: 9/24/2008
Status: offline

Even if the idea that marriage can only be performed by churches is accepted, there are churches that perform gay marriage, and thus gay marriage exists in all modern countries that have legalized it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

Just in anticipation, if your answer is anything other than 'civil unions have less rights than marriages' then go ahead and give your answer and I will listen. But just in case that is your answer, would you have an objection in using one term over the other if they both cared exactly equal legal weight?

Yes, I would, actually. Language carries an important cultural meaning even when the legal meaning is identical. Even if they were legally equivalent, calling the same thing "marriage" for heterosexuals and "civil unions" for homosexuals puts a symbolic cordon sanitaire between the two relationships and denies homosexual relationships true equality. In my opinion, civil unions are no more a solution to the gay marriage issue today than they would have been to the miscegenation issue in the '60s. Words have power.

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

Post #: 27

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/24/2009 11:31:54 PM

Vendaval

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

Very well stated, West Bay Slave.

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to WestBaySlave)

Post #: 28

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/26/2009 8:06:34 PM

TheHungryTiger

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Yes, I would, actually.

If I can expand on that question then ......

A guy and girl I know are living together. Now both of them are big into the whole 'oppose the patriarchy' mindset. They believe that all of western society is just male oppression of the female. Both of them belief that marriage is just something outdated and no longer useful that is being pushed by the dominate culture. ..... Basically, radical feminists.

So they are oposed to mariage, but they do want equality as a couple. Filing join income taxes. Inhertiance. Medical insurance coverage. Etc. Etc.

Should they be forced againt their will to get married? If mariage is the lone single one and only way to be 'equal' then should we throw their indvidual choice out the window in order to gain that equality?

(Side note: Please see Alternatives to Marriage Project at http://www.unmarried.org/ for issues of concern to people who do not want mariage.)

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to WestBaySlave)

Post #: 29

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/27/2009 12:12:44 PM

thetammyjo

Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline

If they don't want to get married, they can go through all the legal paperwork to try and mimic some protections but they can't get them all.

But that's a choice they can legally make as het couple which gay and lesbian couples cannot legally make.

It used to be that mixed racial het couples couldn't make that choice either and slowly things changed. Things may indeed change in this regard too but for me it should be a matter of choice to marry or not.

Or if go by what the Iowa Supreme Court said -- if you want to limit marriage then limit it in logical fashion, including all sorts of categories of people who should not be allowed to get married and don't focus on the biological sex of the two who want to get married.

_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

Post #: 30

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/27/2009 1:48:25 PM

WestBaySlave

Posts: 501
Joined: 9/24/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

So they are oposed to mariage, but they do want equality as a couple. Filing join income taxes. Inhertiance. Medical insurance coverage. Etc. Etc.

Should they be forced againt their will to get married? If mariage is the lone single one and only way to be 'equal' then should we throw their indvidual choice out the window in order to gain that equality?

I really don't see how this relates to the gay marriage issue. Gay marriage is about extending some of the rights that exist for heterosexual couples to homosexual couples - legalizing it does not force anyone to get married, nor does it nullify someones preexisting marriage.

I don't doubt there are many issues left undealt with when it comes to where the law and people's relationships meet, including cases such as your friends and others; for example people in polyamorous relationships. All legalizing gay marriage does is grant the freedom to marry whichever gender you choose. It does not resolve all social and legal issues surrounding marriage itself.

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

Post #: 31

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/27/2009 4:10:19 PM

TheHungryTiger

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

Er .... ok, now you have switched back to the 'its a legal issue' talking point again ..... in your last post you made it out to sound that the legal issues were beside the point and that linguistics were the major issue.

Maybe if I come at this from a different angel ..... if you had to pick one or the other, would you rather have the same legal standing but different semantics? Or have identical semantics but inconsistent legal standing?

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to WestBaySlave)

Post #: 32

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/27/2009 4:16:45 PM

TheHungryTiger

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

But that's a choice they can legally make as het couple which gay and lesbian couples cannot legally make.

The Vermont law dosent change that. The wording of the law is quite clear that it refers only to civil marriage and not all mariage.

If thats your viewpoint, shouldent we be trashing and badmouting the new vermont law as a step backwards for gay rights? It cheepens and lessens the standing of gay people by only giving them the cheeper infirior form of mariage. Straight couples get both civial and religious mariage but gay couples are left with a lesser set of rights by only having access to civial mariage.

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to thetammyjo)

Post #: 33

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/27/2009 4:21:37 PM

camille65

Posts: 5746
Joined: 7/11/2007
From: Austin Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

Marriage is nothing but a civil contract between people. No different than a business endeavor. You're basically creating an "Inc." when you get married. The church is nothing but pomp, circumstance, and yammering on out of some book. (No offense to the believers of any faith, but let's be honest, that's all it is).

Totally agree! However, I hope you can help me out with something ....

What word should I use for the 'pomp, circumstance, and yammering on out of some book'? I cant exactly use the term 'marriage ceremony' since as you point out, marriage is civil and not religious. Same goes for trying to use the terms 'civil mariage' and 'religious mariage'. The first term is redundant cance both 'civial' and 'mariage' are both legal terms. And the second term is contridicatary since 'religious' isnt civial but 'mariage' is.

I have been hunting for a word tro use for several years now, and the closest I can come up with is to take a cue from SouthPark and use the word 'marklar'. However, that only works for about 5 seconds before I say 'I dont think gay people have the right to marklar' and then I have fallen back into the whole 'You support 'seperate but equal' and that makes your a hatemonger and a homophobe' atacks that I was hoping to avoid in the first place.

I can use 'mariage' to talk about the legal term that holds no religious signifince, but what can I use to talk about the rteligious term that holds no legal signifinace? If there is a word for it, I would realy like to know.

I like 'joining', as in my sister and her wife legally joined together last Thanksgiving in Canada.

_____________________________

~Love your life! (It is the only one you'll get).

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

Post #: 34

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/27/2009 4:34:24 PM

TheHungryTiger

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I like 'joining', as in my sister and her wife legally joined together last Thanksgiving in Canada.

A good a term as any, and certainly better than my attempt at using the term 'marklar' .....

Question is, however, if I were to start using the term 'joining' am I got to get labeled a hatemonger and a homophobe for thinking that gays have to settle for a lesser right of 'joining' instead of having access to 'marriage'?

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to camille65)

Post #: 35

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/27/2009 6:27:26 PM

WestBaySlave

Posts: 501
Joined: 9/24/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

Er .... ok, now you have switched back to the 'its a legal issue' talking point again ..... in your last post you made it out to sound that the legal issues were beside the point and that linguistics were the major issue.

Nope - the legal issues are very, very important. You asked if civil unions and marriage meant the exact same thing from a legal standpoint, whether I'd still have an argument with a difference in nomenclature. I would, because it's important to have equality on a number of levels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger
Maybe if I come at this from a different angel ..... if you had to pick one or the other, would you rather have the same legal standing but different semantics? Or have identical semantics but inconsistent legal standing?

Same legal standing. It's not equality, but it's far better than a legal nullity with a nice name.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

But that's a choice they can legally make as het couple which gay and lesbian couples cannot legally make.
The Vermont law dosent change that. The wording of the law is quite clear that it refers only to civil marriage and not all mariage.

If thats your viewpoint, shouldent we be trashing and badmouting the new vermont law as a step backwards for gay rights? It cheepens and lessens the standing of gay people by only giving them the cheeper infirior form of mariage. Straight couples get both civial and religious mariage but gay couples are left with a lesser set of rights by only having access to civial mariage.

Something is most definitely better than nothing, and I hardly see how no possibility of marriage is better for gay rights than just civil marriage. But, as I said earlier in this thread, there are churches that marry gay and lesbian couples, so both civil and religious marriage is possible in those states that have legalized it.

As for churches choosing who they will and won't marry, that happens anyway, to gays and straights alike. The catholic church doesn't recognize divorce, for example, so if you're straight as can be and want to be married to spouse number two by your priest, too bad. Can't happen.

< Message edited by WestBaySlave -- 5/27/2009 6:28:05 PM >

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

Post #: 36

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/27/2009 6:49:11 PM

TheHungryTiger

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I would, because it's important to have equality on a number of levels.

On a number of levels yes, but on ALL levels I dont agree.

Religious marriage and civil marriage are different things. I don't agree at all that those things should be 'equal' and I get rather fucking sick and tired of getting accused of being a homophobe and told 'We tried seperate but equal before and that didnt work you hatemonger' whenever I try and defend myself in views.

Equality is a fickle thing. If the seperation of church and state gets destroyed in the process, I would rather have inequality. For the life of me I cant understand the cultlike fanatacism behind 'we MUST use only one word to describe both situations'.

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to WestBaySlave)

Post #: 37

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/27/2009 7:06:19 PM

TheHungryTiger

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Same legal standing. It's not equality, but it's far better than a legal nullity with a nice name.

Ya know, in the spirit of finding common ground rather than focusing on our differences, I should point out that I agree with you here.

The previous law that Vermont passed was something I was really happy with. Same legal standing. What happened after that is where we disagree, with me thinking that using one word for two different issues is just blurring the separation of church and state, and you thinking that using one word for two difrent issues is a step closer to equality. But hopefuly we can at least come together in agreeing that its the legal issues that are the most important and that semantics are a minor issue in comparison.

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to WestBaySlave)

Post #: 38

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/27/2009 8:06:52 PM

WestBaySlave

Posts: 501
Joined: 9/24/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

The previous law that Vermont passed was something I was really happy with. Same legal standing. What happened after that is where we disagree, with me thinking that using one word for two different issues is just blurring the separation of church and state, and you thinking that using one word for two difrent issues is a step closer to equality. But hopefuly we can at least come together in agreeing that its the legal issues that are the most important and that semantics are a minor issue in comparison.

I do not see how gay marriage interferes with the separation of church and state. There are many churches with definitions of marriage that already differ with the legal definition e.g. the Catholic example I used in my previous post. Allowing gay marriage no more interferes with churches' rights than denying gay marriage. After all, why should the state deny the right of a church to marry whoever they want?

Personally, I'd be quite happy for religious and legal marriage to be entirely separate entities. That way churches could marry anyone or no-one and it wouldn't matter, as the only marriage with legal weight would be under the jurisdiction of the state.

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

Post #: 39

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/27/2009 8:53:34 PM

TheHungryTiger

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

Gay marriage dosent interfere in the separation of church and state, but this pointless bickering over semantics does. By rejecting the word 'civial union' and insisting that only one word be used in both cases, there is no longer any way to distinguish the leageal issues from the religious issues. It becomes only one issue. Now rejection of the term 'civial union' due to it holding less legal standing might have been a valid argument in some other cases, but when the term 'civial union' is rejectyed even when it carries the same legal weight (as it did in the previous vermont law) I cant seer any reason why gay activists to reject it other than just maliciousness.

I also would be quite happy for religious and legal marriage to be entirely separate entities. But the biggest obstical to that is not the bible thumpin jesus freaks. It is rather the militant gay activists who point fingers and screasm 'seperate but equal dosent work' every time that anyone attempts to seperate the two.

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to WestBaySlave)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News >> RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override"

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.227