Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP News)   "When it comes to same-sex marriages, it's time for all of us to lighten up." --Francis   (apnews.com) divider line
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

3726 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 21 Oct 2020 at 11:09 AM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



222 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-10-21 2:12:39 PM  

dletter: punkwrestler: dletter: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

There is certainly a case for this.  Government legalization of "marriage" is an archaic thing almost completely tied to religious institutions.  "Marriage licenses" should just be 100% replaced with "Civil union licenses" that have no bearing on being in a "romantic" or any other kind of personal relationship.  As long as both people are of legal age and not being forced into the union, the "why" shouldn't matter to get all of the legal benefits.  You can still get "married" in "your church", this doesn't replace that... you just would be getting a CU license from the govt. not a "marriage license"... but of course some people hate actually having a separation of church & state.

Not really all the laws in the country protect a married couple. Even gay people who were together before it was legal had their lives ripped apart, because even if they had powers of attorney and all the other legal paperwork, they often were barred from the hospital by the family and their possessions were stolen by the spouse that died family.

So yes marriage recognized by the state is necessary, unless of course you want to change all 11,000 federal laws that deal with marriage.

I don't know that "rip apart" as much as "rename" (all 'Marriages' are called 'Civil Unions' henseforth and forward), since the big "sticking point" seems to be around the term "marriage"... give that back to the "church".

Of course, doing that would then uncover that some just want to browbeat LGBTQ people, with "legal marriage" just being one way they have to do it.   Which is why they care to keep that specific wording legally.

But, it may be that you can't just "wave a magic wand" about changing one word to two in the laws.


Renaming an institution that has already been legally secular for many years (and never at any point unique to a single religion) to placate a specific religioun in the name of secularism is kind of a crazy way to take things though.

All it does is offer another way for them to control society, by declaring something "theirs", and forcing the law to change to adapt to a specific religions preferences. It seems like a pretty theocratic form of secularism.

All civil unions ever were were a way to say "well if we have to share we'd rather burn the whole thing down", and most people on the right weren't even willing to do that.
 
2020-10-21 2:14:47 PM  

HighOnCraic: whidbey: HighOnCraic: Oddly enough, civil unions were offered by progressives as a compromise position (similar to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), which was firmly rejected by conservatives who thought that even the compromise was going too far.

Where are you getting this?

Which "progressives" offered this compromise?

From memory, but given time, I could probably find citations.


I'd be interested.

Because progressives have fought for the real thing: same sex marriage, for well over 50 years or more.

"Civil Unions" is what the moderates wanted.
 
2020-10-21 2:17:33 PM  

madgonad: tekmo: Not marriages. Of course not.

The PR Pope here is advocating on behalf of OTHER governments to create laws that relegate gay people to separate-but-equal "civil unions."

He won't make these laws in the Vatican, of course. Even though it's entirely in his power. Nope.

And he also now claims he "stood up for" civil unions when he lived in Argentina.

Which is a lie.

He was a vocal opponent of marriage equality in Argentina, in pretty offensive terms. There are some who claim that he privately said he was okay with separate-but-equal.

That is not "standing up for X."

Francis is a fraud. Don't be suckered.

Dude, this is the Pope.

Baby steps.


Yeah, the Pope-head of one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world. The same pope who sanctioned moving pedophile priests and their enablers to new parishes to cover up their horrors. the same pope who heads an organization that collaborates with the Nazis. the same pope who is against birth control. the same pope who pushes his religion on fols in developing countries to shore up the loss of gullible parishoners inthe West.
Fark the pope. Fark religion.

God is just pretend. Cannot get over how grown-ass adults believe in a magical, invisible wizard that allows childhood cancers, watches rapes and tortures without lifting a finger to help, allows genocide (in fact, participated in it-see Noah) yet will let you burn in hell for masturbating.
 
2020-10-21 2:28:36 PM  

1funguy: dkulprit: Drank_the_40_water: Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop

CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...

Depends on your area, how large the local parish is, your social standing, and how well you know your bishop.

I know a lady whose husband was literally stealing from the church which got him kicked out and the bishop wouldn't allow annul her marriage...  so she got a divorce.... and he died right after the proceedings.

She is still diehard and still goes to mass, but isn't allowed to take communion.

shiat's wild.

If anyone did something like that to me it would make me question my willingness to be a part of what they believe in.

But there's a reason I'm agnostic.

She should be allowed communion. Catholics say a civil divorce does not end a marriage from the Catholic Church.
But he's dead. Which does end a catholic marriage.

So...
Saturday confession, Sunday communion.


Don't ask me.  She got remarried though, so that might be it.  He was definitely dead before she remarried.

She belongs to the Cincinnati diocese, she's not allowed to take communion.

Thats all I know, don't pretend to understand their whole wishy washy belief system.
 
2020-10-21 2:29:51 PM  

1funguy: dkulprit: Drank_the_40_water: Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop

CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...

Depends on your area, how large the local parish is, your social standing, and how well you know your bishop.

I know a lady whose husband was literally stealing from the church which got him kicked out and the bishop wouldn't allow annul her marriage...  so she got a divorce.... and he died right after the proceedings.

She is still diehard and still goes to mass, but isn't allowed to take communion.

shiat's wild.

If anyone did something like that to me it would make me question my willingness to be a part of what they believe in.

But there's a reason I'm agnostic.

She should be allowed communion. Catholics say a civil divorce does not end a marriage from the Catholic Church.
But he's dead. Which does end a catholic marriage.

So...
Saturday confession, Sunday communion.


Also her second marriage is not recognized by diocese either and the newer husband is also catholic and it is his first marriage.

He can take communion even though their marriage is not recognized.

Its farking stupid.
 
2020-10-21 2:29:53 PM  

nekom: [Fark user image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.


Ironically opposition to homosexuality came with the "corporate merger" of the Church and the Roman State.   Homosexuality was STIRCTLY forbidden by Roman law much like it was in Sparta.   Of Course, they didn't exactly define it the way we did.   Having sex with another man was not a homosexual act to them, hell in Sparta it was EXPECTED that you sleep with your trainees.  What was not allowed was EXCLUSIVELY homosexual relationships among men of equal status (aka free men)   They didn't give a fark about how and where you got your rocks off, but you were also expected to take a wife and make some kids to keep the Empire strong. So "marriage" was reserved for procreative purposes.  What you did with your willy in your spare time was your business
 
2020-10-21 2:31:30 PM  

Marshmallow Jones: I don't understand why any institution anywhere would prevent people from entering into a joyful union that turns into misery and resentment after a few years when you're sick of each other.

Gotta say though, funny how many of you want it both ways.   Fark religion and religious institutions, they're irrelevant, who cares.   Then it's farking religious institutions won't recognize gay marriage, I'm OUTRAGED.
Go get a civil union and who cares about it being recognized by a religious institution?  How many gay people are hardcore religious anyway?


Civil unions are recognized differently by law.

Thats the problem.

Marriage = becoming family and having the same rights as family.

Civil union does not have same protections or rights.
 
2020-10-21 2:35:38 PM  

tekmo: Marriage statutes allow the parties to choose the form of solemnization ceremony they prefer. Many people choose a religious ceremony, but a religious ceremony is not required.


No.   I want the religious service to be a separate thing.   The marriage or civil union or whatever is the legally recognized one.   If you get married in a church without going through the separate civil, secular marriage, it doesn't count as a marriage, for tax purposes, medical, etc.
 
2020-10-21 2:39:36 PM  

Theaetetus: tekmo: Dewey Fidalgo: Meh...I mean actually having to get legally "married", that is, the economic and other stuff sense, done at the courthouse or someplace like that.

And I am telling you -- this is already the case. That's why people have to obtain a marriage license from the state based on residency, age, consanguinity, and other requirements. The requirements must be met, the form has to be properly attested like any other contract, then properly filed with the state.

Marriage statutes allow the parties to choose the form of solemnization ceremony they prefer. Many people choose a religious ceremony, but a religious ceremony is not required.

It makes you wonder if Dewey has ever been married.


LOL, you need to read all the comments...

Oh here, replying to you, by he way.

Yes.   I think all marriages should be "civil" unions, then if you want to get married in a church, you can have a "Blessing of Civil Marriage".   Which we did.   Went to the county clerk, got civil marriaged, then later had an Episcopalian "Blessing", which for all intents and purposes was just like a wedding (which made my grandmother very, very happy...she got to see her oldest grandchild finally walk down the aisle, in a "wedding" dress, though not white.)

I was raised feral Catholic, but as my husband to be was divorced...we went to his Episcopalian roots, which was fine, got my bells and smells and a female priest to boot!
 
2020-10-21 2:40:27 PM  
Whether or not this makes sense give the history of the Catholic Church is one thing.

The fact that this is going to throw off the uber Conservative Catholics, though, is extremely important.  Its a chink in the connection between Catholics and Evangelicals, along with his recent statement on capital punishment, which he said is never really acceptable.

Conservative Catholics have a choice...they accuse liberals of being cafeteria catholics...well, how about it now?  Be careful what you wish for.
 
2020-10-21 2:55:32 PM  
A truly excellent discussion of religion and gay marriage by Mary Anne Case of the University of Chicago:

Mary Anne Case on State Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages
Youtube -vEda_-ClYM
 
2020-10-21 2:57:55 PM  

OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.


When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.
 
2020-10-21 2:58:41 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: No.   I want the religious service to be a separate thing.


Pay attention: IT IS ALREADY A SEPARATE THING. The state genuinely doesn't give a shiat what sort of solemnization ceremony you indulge in. Religious, non-religious, anti-religious. It. Doesn't. Matter.

If you want a secular solemnization ceremony with a judge as the officiant and the paperwork filed on the spot, you can reserve a spot at the courthouse. If you want a religious solemnization ceremony with your family's Catholic priest as the officiant, you can ask your church for that. If you want an Elvis impersonator to officiate at a theme park, you can have that too if the park agrees.

What is important is that the couple meets the legal criteria to qualify for the license, that the license is filled out correctly, and that the rest of the contractual paperwork is correctly filled out by the officiant and timely filed with the state.

Suppose I sell you my farm and insist that, as part of the deal, we sign the sales contract at the farm during a family bonfire and cookout. Is the deal any less legally valid because someone says grace over dinner? No. Is the sales contract any less valid if it's witnessed by my personal witch doctor? No (unless the witch doctor lacks "contractual capacity.")

>The marriage or civil union or whatever is the legally recognized one.

In the US, all valid, legal marriages are civil marriages. 100%. Most but not all civil marriages are solemnized with a religious ceremony. This is a popular, but not mandatory choice.

>If you get married in a church without going through the separate civil, secular marriage, it doesn't count as a marriage, for tax purposes, medical, etc.

Again, this is already the case.

See e.g. the FLDS' polygamous marriages. Warren Jeffs can claim he has 20 wives, but legally he can only have one spouse, assuming the proper paperwork was filed with the state.
 
2020-10-21 3:00:41 PM  

whidbey: HighOnCraic: Oddly enough, civil unions were offered by progressives as a compromise position (similar to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), which was firmly rejected by conservatives who thought that even the compromise was going too far.

Where are you getting this?

Which "progressives" offered this compromise?


Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.
 
2020-10-21 3:12:04 PM  

Herr Morgenstern: nekom: [Fark user image image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.

That's the thing I'll never understand about old testament Christians. The whole point of Jesus was to form a new covenant with God, a sort of contract renegotiation that rendered the previous covenant null and void. You either accept that the old testament is no longer an authority in Christian religion, or you accept that you're not really a Christian.


That view was proposed and rejected in the year 325
 
2020-10-21 3:12:58 PM  

severedtoe: fiddlehead: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

I wonder if Catholic small business owners who refuse to serve gay couples also refuse to serve people getting remarried.

not a problem unless they eat meat on Friday.


What they do behind closed doors shouldn't be anybody's business.
 
2020-10-21 3:14:15 PM  

12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.


who cares what someone says?
 
2020-10-21 3:14:16 PM  
"I am SICK and TIRED of hearing that allowing same-sex marriage is a wonderful thing! For the past thirty years, that is all that my wife and I have ever had! Every week, EXACTLY the SAME sex!"

///I'm here till Thursday, try the veal
 
2020-10-21 3:14:23 PM  

tekmo: Dewey Fidalgo: No.   I want the religious service to be a separate thing.

Pay attention: IT IS ALREADY A SEPARATE THING. The state genuinely doesn't give a shiat what sort of solemnization ceremony you indulge in. Religious, non-religious, anti-religious. It. Doesn't. Matter.

If you want a secular solemnization ceremony with a judge as the officiant and the paperwork filed on the spot, you can reserve a spot at the courthouse. If you want a religious solemnization ceremony with your family's Catholic priest as the officiant, you can ask your church for that. If you want an Elvis impersonator to officiate at a theme park, you can have that too if the park agrees.

What is important is that the couple meets the legal criteria to qualify for the license, that the license is filled out correctly, and that the rest of the contractual paperwork is correctly filled out by the officiant and timely filed with the state.

Suppose I sell you my farm and insist that, as part of the deal, we sign the sales contract at the farm during a family bonfire and cookout. Is the deal any less legally valid because someone says grace over dinner? No. Is the sales contract any less valid if it's witnessed by my personal witch doctor? No (unless the witch doctor lacks "contractual capacity.")

>The marriage or civil union or whatever is the legally recognized one.

In the US, all valid, legal marriages are civil marriages. 100%. Most but not all civil marriages are solemnized with a religious ceremony. This is a popular, but not mandatory choice.

>If you get married in a church without going through the separate civil, secular marriage, it doesn't count as a marriage, for tax purposes, medical, etc.

Again, this is already the case.

See e.g. the FLDS' polygamous marriages. Warren Jeffs can claim he has 20 wives, but legally he can only have one spouse, assuming the proper paperwork was filed with the state.


You still aren't hearing what I am saying.   A church wedding would not a legal marriage, in my perfect world.   You want to be legally married, get yourself down to the courthouse.   Then you can have all the bells and whistles or riverbank nude ceremonies you want.  "By the powers vested in me by the state" would be absent.

This also goes for people like my husband, of the Universal Light Church...he used to joke "By the powers vested in me by the state and the internet".   He stopped when some friends asked him to "officiate" at their wedding, but when it came time to sign the paperwork (which is why he got the damn thing in the first place),they told him they hadn't bothered with that.  It pissed him off and he hasn't done one since.

Also went to the nude riverbank ceremony (also ULC), which later involved the happy couple "consumating" in a patch of poison oak....oh, the 70s.
 
2020-10-21 3:18:08 PM  

zepillin: 12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?


You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?
 
2020-10-21 3:18:59 PM  

12349876: Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.


You have badly misunderstood the subject matter and its history.

SCOVT held that the state constitution required that same-sex couples have equal access to the constellation of rights, benefits, and obligations that flow from marriage. They instructed the legislature that this could be accomplished by either (a) providing same-sex couples with access to existing marriage laws, or (b) by carving out some novel separate-but-equal "civil unions" scheme.

Howard Dean, far from being "progressive," insisted on the latter. He'd already promised the Vermont legislature he'd veto any bill that used the word "marriage" in conjunction with same-sex couples.

Dean, many years later, admitted that his "casual homophobia" was informing his decision-making on this matter.

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/174651​2​33/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-g​ay-marriage-movement
 
2020-10-21 3:33:29 PM  

Magorn: nekom: [Fark user image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.

Ironically opposition to homosexuality came with the "corporate merger" of the Church and the Roman State.   Homosexuality was STIRCTLY forbidden by Roman law much like it was in Sparta.   Of Course, they didn't exactly define it the way we did.   Having sex with another man was not a homosexual act to them, hell in Sparta it was EXPECTED that you sleep with your trainees.  What was not allowed was EXCLUSIVELY homosexual relationships among men of equal status (aka free men)   They didn't give a fark about how and where you got your rocks off, but you were also expected to take a wife and make some kids to keep the Empire strong. So "marriage" was reserved for procreative purposes.  What you did with your willy in your spare time was your business


Also, Roman notions of sexuality revolved very much around 'penetrator' vs. 'penetratee'. It was ok for men to be the penetrator, but unmanly to be the penetratee, and visa versa for women. It was a dominant/submissive dichotomy. But slaves and male youth were by definition subordinate, so it was therefore ok. In short, we can't map Roman sexuality directly onto ours one-to-one.
 
2020-10-21 3:33:46 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: You still aren't hearing what I am saying. A church wedding would not a legal marriage, in my perfect world.   You want to be legally married, get yourself down to the courthouse.   Then you can have all the bells and whistles or riverbank nude ceremonies you want.  "By the powers vested in me by the state" would be absent.


No I understand your argument. You're not understanding that the reason why this isn't the case is because it's farking stupid. Other contracts aren't required to be signed under the watchful gaze of a judge, so why should this one contract be treated so uniquely?

It shoudn't.

>This also goes for people like my husband [who] stopped when some friends asked him to "officiate" at their wedding, but when it came time to sign the paperwork...they told him they hadn't bothered with that.  It pissed him off and he hasn't done one since.

CSB, but so what? If people want to have nonbinding commitment ceremonies officiated by internet-certified BS ministers, I'm pretty sure nobody besides you and your husband gives a shiat.

>Also went to the nude riverbank ceremony (also ULC), which later involved the happy couple "consumating" in a patch of poison oak....oh, the 70s.

Again, why do you imagine that anyone besides you gives a shiat about any of this? Being a nudist is no more an impediment to marital capacity than being gay.

Just because you disapprove of the way certain people choose to live doesn't mean they shouldn't be married.
 
2020-10-21 3:39:50 PM  

tekmo: Dewey Fidalgo: You still aren't hearing what I am saying. A church wedding would not a legal marriage, in my perfect world.   You want to be legally married, get yourself down to the courthouse.   Then you can have all the bells and whistles or riverbank nude ceremonies you want.  "By the powers vested in me by the state" would be absent.

No I understand your argument. You're not understanding that the reason why this isn't the case is because it's farking stupid. Other contracts aren't required to be signed under the watchful gaze of a judge, so why should this one contract be treated so uniquely?

It shoudn't.

>This also goes for people like my husband [who] stopped when some friends asked him to "officiate" at their wedding, but when it came time to sign the paperwork...they told him they hadn't bothered with that.  It pissed him off and he hasn't done one since.

CSB, but so what? If people want to have nonbinding commitment ceremonies officiated by internet-certified BS ministers, I'm pretty sure nobody besides you and your husband gives a shiat.

>Also went to the nude riverbank ceremony (also ULC), which later involved the happy couple "consumating" in a patch of poison oak....oh, the 70s.

Again, why do you imagine that anyone besides you gives a shiat about any of this? Being a nudist is no more an impediment to marital capacity than being gay.

Just because you disapprove of the way certain people choose to live doesn't mean they shouldn't be married.


Fine...are the other contracts required to be filed at the county clerk's office to be valid, because the marriage "contract" is. You don't file it, the marriage isn't legally valid.  But I don't care.   Get religion out of legal marriage, that is my point.

But I am done with you.   Seriously, you have issues.
 
2020-10-21 3:40:28 PM  

12349876: zepillin: 12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?

You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?


civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine
 
2020-10-21 3:42:18 PM  
Also if you shouldn't have visitors you shouldn't have visitors

and Health Care needs to be not tied to employment
 
2020-10-21 3:47:44 PM  
And why should your dearest friend in the world not be able to visit you in the hospital but the woman that you're sticking with because of the kids otherwise you wouldn't be with her should be able to see you it's just dumb
 
2020-10-21 3:59:01 PM  
Jeez.  Lighten up Francises.
 
2020-10-21 4:04:27 PM  

tekmo: 12349876: Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.

You have badly misunderstood the subject matter and its history.

SCOVT held that the state constitution required that same-sex couples have equal access to the constellation of rights, benefits, and obligations that flow from marriage. They instructed the legislature that this could be accomplished by either (a) providing same-sex couples with access to existing marriage laws, or (b) by carving out some novel separate-but-equal "civil unions" scheme.

Howard Dean, far from being "progressive," insisted on the latter. He'd already promised the Vermont legislature he'd veto any bill that used the word "marriage" in conjunction with same-sex couples.

Dean, many years later, admitted that his "casual homophobia" was informing his decision-making on this matter.

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/1746512​33/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-g​ay-marriage-movement


I chuckled when they called Dean a progressive.

But I didn't bother responding because even the staunchest Corporate Democrat is a progressive radical liberal to the right.  Even good ole neo liberal democrats are radical leftists in their eyes.

When actual progressive leftists dislike neo liberals.
 
2020-10-21 4:10:08 PM  

BoothbyTCD: Roman notions of sexuality revolved very much around 'penetrator' vs. 'penetratee'....But slaves and male youth were by definition subordinate, so it was therefore ok.


Well, that's not entirely accurate.

It was absolutely a violation of Roman law and social norms for any man to use a citizen's child for sex. That sort of pedophilia was viewed about as dimly by them as it is currently viewed by us. For most of the history of Republican and Imperial Rome, nobody really cared about same-sex relationships between grownups, beyond it providing a basis for giving someone a bit of shiat, which was a popular Roman pastime.

For example, one feature of a Late Republic triumph was the victorious soldiers singing raunchy ditties as they paraded through the city. During one of Caesar's triumphs, his legions sang a song about him being a giant man-whore. The lyrics called him "every woman's husband, and every man's wife."

This was Caesar these soldiers were singing about! Basically to his face! Romans found the implication far more hilarious than scandalous. Sure, there was always some old conservative moral scold like Cato to tut-tut! this sort of thing, but it would be wrong to believe that Cato represented the general morals of his time. He certainly did not, and he'd be the first to say so.

There was one famous case during the Late Republic where a general was actually prosecuted for engaging in a sexual relationship with a subordinate, but the complaint was founded on the fact the general was coercing the sex from a younger aristocrat. So essentially, it really should be understood as a rape case, rather than evidence there was some consistently fierce and broad Roman social opprobrium toward homosexuality.

Which is not to say there were never pulses of anti-gay "family values" moralism in ancient Rome. There certainly were. But they were the exception rather than the norm.
 
2020-10-21 4:13:20 PM  

zepillin: 12349876: zepillin: 12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?

You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?

civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine


And thats the exactly the farking point.  If my wife is hospital I can go be by her side without question.  But in a civil union a person would have to go gather paperwork, present paperwork, have paperwork scrutinized, etc.

Yes because those things are handy at all times and have never been fought in court.

In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of people they are different.  If civil unions had exact same rights as marriage, sure, we're good.  But they don't, instead your arguing that people should accept lesser rights because that's what people are offering.

Let's change this up a bit, would you feel the same way about this if let's say instead of a gay couple, it was an interracial couple instead?  Not even gay, but a black female and a white male or white male and black female.

Would you be saying they should accept a civil union because some people don't think their relationship is right?

Because that is exactly the case that got the religious right riled up (and eventually got them turned on roe v wade but thats another story).

If you think it's wrong that an interracial but straight couple would be denied the same rights as married couples but think a civil union is ok for gay people you need to do some soul searching and realize you're a hypocrite.
 
2020-10-21 4:16:32 PM  
It's over. Cons lost. Get over it.
 
2020-10-21 4:21:25 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: Fine...are the other contracts required to be filed at the county clerk's office to be valid,


Some other contracts are indeed required to be filed with various departments, yes. Contracts of the sale of deeded property, articles of incorporation, that sort of thing. It's generally limited to agreements that are likely to be disputed which implicate substantial rights and property.

>Get religion out of legal marriage, that is my point.

How many different ways do you need to have it explained to you that religion is already NOT a component of a valid legal civil marriage?

No state has a requirement that any aspect of a valid civil marriage be religious in nature. The required solemnization ceremony, may at the option of the parties, have a religious character.

May, BUT NOT MUST.

>But I am done with you.   Seriously, you have issues.

Perhaps I do, but you are being profoundly dense, ridiculously argumentative, and not nearly as charming as you imagine.
 
2020-10-21 4:24:11 PM  

whidbey: Drank_the_40_water: whidbey: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

Gay atheists get married too, though.  "Civil Union" is akin to "separate but equal."

Not in the eyes of the church (unless those rules changed since I was a kid)... It doesn't count unless a priest signed off on it.

The point is marriage is not "reserved" for Catholics.   That's a flat out bigoted statement right there.


I'm just saying that the Pope likely doesn't view my atheist wedding as a "marriage" but instead a "civil union" like gay marriages or Pagan marriages. He likely sees a true "marriage" as one between Catholics and perhaps between people of the same Abrahamic religion, that's it.

/Fortunately, he doesn't get to make the rules.
 
2020-10-21 4:26:34 PM  

tekmo: 12349876: Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.

You have badly misunderstood the subject matter and its history.

SCOVT held that the state constitution required that same-sex couples have equal access to the constellation of rights, benefits, and obligations that flow from marriage. They instructed the legislature that this could be accomplished by either (a) providing same-sex couples with access to existing marriage laws, or (b) by carving out some novel separate-but-equal "civil unions" scheme.

Howard Dean, far from being "progressive," insisted on the latter. He'd already promised the Vermont legislature he'd veto any bill that used the word "marriage" in conjunction with same-sex couples.

Dean, many years later, admitted that his "casual homophobia" was informing his decision-making on this matter.

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/1746512​33/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-g​ay-marriage-movement


So you're saying Howard Dean wasn't a progressive?  He was too liberal in the 2004 primary.

And the Civil Union decision was the moment that the right wing went all in for the state constitutional amendment bans many of which included civil unions.
 
2020-10-21 4:27:17 PM  

zepillin: civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine


So you're arguing on behalf of couples creating binding, enforceable civil contracts that invest each other with reciprocal obligations?

This already exists and it's called "marriage."

/facepalm
 
2020-10-21 4:30:14 PM  

12349876: So you're saying Howard Dean wasn't a progressive?


In the sense that Howard Dean chose to align with the conservatives in this matter due to what he later admitted was guided by his own bigotry, he was very much not being a progressive.
 
2020-10-21 4:32:25 PM  

dkulprit: zepillin: 12349876: zepillin: 12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?

You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?

civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine

And thats the exactly the farking point.  If my wife is hospital I can go be by her side without question.  But in a civil union a person would have to go gather paperwork, present paperwork, have paperwork scrutinized, etc.

Yes because those things are handy at all times and have never been fought in court.

In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of people they are different.  If civil unions had exact same rights as marriage, sure, we're good.  But they don't, instead your arguing that people should accept lesser rights because that's what people are offering.

Let's change this up a bit, would you feel the same way about this if let's say instead of a gay couple, it was an interracial couple instead?  Not even gay, but a black female and a white male or white male and black female.

Would you be saying they should accept a civil union because some people don't think their relationship is right?

Because that is exactly the case that got the religious right riled up (and eventually got them turned on roe v wade but thats another story).

If you think it's wrong that an interracial but straight couple would be denied the same rights as married couples but think a civil union is ok for gay people you need to do some soul searching and realize you're a hypocrite.


What are you going on about
 
2020-10-21 4:34:22 PM  

tekmo: 12349876: So you're saying Howard Dean wasn't a progressive?

In the sense that Howard Dean chose to align with the conservatives in this matter due to what he later admitted was guided by his own bigotry, he was very much not being a progressive.


Dean was very liberal for the time overall and attempted to compromise with civil unions and the conservatives still went on a bat shiat crazy spree banning civil unions in many states.
 
2020-10-21 4:44:19 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 4:44:31 PM  

tekmo: 12349876: So you're saying Howard Dean wasn't a progressive?

In the sense that Howard Dean chose to align with the conservatives in this matter due to what he later admitted was guided by his own bigotry, he was very much not being a progressive.


Dean's decision was only a few years after many Democrats supported Defense of Marriage Act and many Democrats back then agreed with Dean's decision.

Positions can change in their level of conservative/progressive over time.
 
2020-10-21 4:46:11 PM  

OldJames: There's nothing wrong with it being a contract...But it shouldn't provide extra benefits to citizens that do that....You want to share assets, go to a lawyer. You want bonus social security, no.


Societies have always preferred to encourage couples and families to take care of each other rather than to render every individual society's burden.

Fortunately for your grandma, our government and people much smarter and kinder than you ensured that marriage provided your grandma access to her husband's retirement benefits after he died.

Do you imagine it somehow makes more sense to leave grandma destitute in her widowhood? You'd prefer she become your or your family's personal burden, rather than to simply allow her access to the retirement benefits she helped her husband earn?

That's cold, James. Even for a libertarian.
 
2020-10-21 4:46:14 PM  
I'm saying if you want to have a visitor and you're allowed to have a visitor You should be you should be able to have anyone come visit that you want to come visit

I'm saying if you're allowed to add household members to your insurance you should be able to add any household member to your insurance

That's what I'm saying
 
2020-10-21 4:52:28 PM  
And if two people want to file jointly so they can end up paying more taxes that if they Filed as single they Should be able to

Not sure if that's still a thing or not
 
2020-10-21 4:52:43 PM  
Government can affect equality in civil matters, but God forbid they try to meddle in the affairs of religion, which apparently have carte blanche to meddle in government.
 
2020-10-21 4:58:25 PM  

12349876: Dean was very liberal for the time overall and attempted to compromise with civil unions


You plainly did not bother to read the source I provided you as you persist in being wrong.

SCOVT gave Vermont's government two choices: equal marriage OR civil unions. Progressives in the legislature wanted equal marriage, conservatives were angry and wanted gays to get nothing. But since "nothing" wasn't an available option available, they grudgingly chose civil unions.

Howard Dean -- notwithstanding his position on any other goddam issue under the sun -- took the same position as the legislature's conservatives, which is not a thing that progressives typically do, especially regarding the civil rights of harmless minorities. Right?

Howard Dean did not "offer civil unions" as if he was making some sort of "progressive compromise." Indeed, Dean didn't offer a compromise at all. To the contrary, he promised he'd veto marriage even if that was the will of the Legislature.

This is how things actually happened. You're misremembering or something. You don't have to read my source. Go read an article from any reputable source.
 
2020-10-21 4:59:48 PM  

12349876: Dean's decision was only a few years after many Democrats supported Defense of Marriage Act and many Democrats back then agreed with Dean's decision.


Honey, it wasn't the progressive wing of the Democratic party that supported DOMA.
 
2020-10-21 5:36:50 PM  

zepillin: dkulprit: zepillin: 12349876: zepillin: 12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?

You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?

civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine

And thats the exactly the farking point.  If my wife is hospital I can go be by her side without question.  But in a civil union a person would have to go gather paperwork, present paperwork, have paperwork scrutinized, etc.

Yes because those things are handy at all times and have never been fought in court.

In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of people they are different.  If civil unions had exact same rights as marriage, sure, we're good.  But they don't, instead your arguing that people should accept lesser rights because that's what people are offering.

Let's change this up a bit, would you feel the same way about this if let's say instead of a gay couple, it was an interracial couple instead?  Not even gay, but a black female and a white male or white male and black female.

Would you be saying they should accept a civil union because some people don't think their relationship is right?

Because that is exactly the case that got the religious right riled up (and eventually got them turned on roe v wade but thats another story).

If you think it's wrong that an interracial but straight couple would be denied the same rights as married couples but think a civil union is ok for gay people you need to do some soul searching and realize you're a hypocrite.

What are you going on about


You said gay people should accept less rights because "who cares what others think."

I gave you a hypothetical (that used to be true) and asked if you think it is ok.

Pretty straight forward here.
 
2020-10-21 5:55:07 PM  
Well pretty straightforward for a twisted mind just make sure it up what the f*** I'm done
 
2020-10-21 5:55:35 PM  
Just make sheet it up what the f***
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.