What's with all the new red and pink avatars / profile pictures?

[HollyinNNV]

 

 

And I can see how someone who is pretty conventional and never wants to leave their home can think like that. Hobbits are good people too and they have no sense of adventure, for the most part. :laugh:

 

But DH and I enjoy traveling quite a lot. You're telling me you think it's a good idea that I road trip through the US and if I drive through Iowa, my marriage is cool but I could be considered legally single in Nebraska and WHOOPEE?!! So my kids would be legally considered legitimate here in Michigan but in Hawaii, they might be bastards?

 

That's a little kooky.

 

And in an economy like this one is, it's not as simple as, "Hey! I don't like Tennesse anymore. I'm selling my place and moving to Delaware." There are little things to consider like employment, home sales, extended family, etc.

 

I'm just stating my opinion. You are stating yours. Where did the hobbits come from? ;)

[Rivka]

Umm, I have a gay couple that lives two doors down. We swap cookies during Christmas, we talk over the fence, we share garden plants.

Calling people homophobes to validate your argument doesn't work.

Marriage was there before Christianity. Exactly. Which is why it should still remain between a man and a woman (as in evolution needs the natural sex act to procreate). Change the estate laws, change the tax codes, change all of the other laws, and marriage doesn't have to be redefined. Problem solved.

 

Great. Let's make a list of religious organizations that want gay marriage to be banned, but are working towards changing the status of marriage under law to ensure that the thousands of laws that privilege married people apply equally to committed gay couples.

 

...

 

Okay, then, let's make a list of individual people who oppose gay marriage on the basis of religious conviction but are actively working to reduce the benefits and privileges associated with legal marriage.

 

...

 

Well, maybe we could make a list of religious organizations who oppose gay marriage and also have opposed efforts to limit the civil rights of gay and lesbian people.

 

...

 

Did the Catholic church fight against Colorado's unconstitutional Amendment 2, which amended the state constitution to prevent LGBT people from seeking to pass anti-discrimination laws? Did Christian churches reject the successful fight, in Virginia, to prohibit private legal arrangements among LGBT couples that were designed to provide them with protections similar to marriage?

 

Nope. They didn't.

 

Justamouse, I have great personal respect for you, but I think your position here is disingenuous. Your proposal above would not be "problem solved" as far as the Catholic church is concerned. Your church does not support full civil, legal, and societal equality between straight and gay couples. Objection to same-sex marriage is based on the desire to enshrine in law the religious belief that same-sex relationships are different from and less than straight relationships. You said so yourself:

 

Would I die for them? Yes. Absolutely, I have no fear of death or dying to save someone. Christ died for me. That doesn't mean that the definition of the word marriage should be changed to allow their unions. They are not equal. They are different, they cannot, and will never be able to reproduce. So, by natural law, they are different.

 

So many people who don't want to be perceived as bigoted are resorting to the claim that "the government should just stay out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the churches." But if you're not willing to actually try to get the government out of the marriage business, that's a hollow claim. You got legally married. You benefit from the legal and social privileges of marriage. You're not rushing to get a civil divorce.

 

You're saying, "I shouldn't have these legal benefits, but I'm still going to take advantage of them and work to keep you from doing the same. But don't accuse me of having anything against you! I totally don't. In a perfect world, I wouldn't have these legal benefits any more than you do. Gosh, too bad we don't live in a perfect world, huh?"

 

That rationalization may make you more comfortable with your position, but don't expect it to be compelling to anyone else.

[jeninok]

I saw one that was a red > symbol. It was posted by a lesbian blogger who felt the HRC had more important issues than marriage.

 

 

That is also posted by those who disagree with the HRC stance on Transgender issues.

[Jennifer3141]

Let's hope we don't have to consider the sexual habits and proclivities of ducks as well. Some here might never recover.

 

Houston, we have a problem.

 

My ducks are gay.

 

I have 6 females and no males. Those girls go town on each other in every possible combination in any water container they can find. :laugh:

[suzybluecheese]

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson

 

Read more at http://www.brainyquo...KpKi5w43fkGv.99

[Jennifer3141]

I'm just stating my opinion. You are stating yours. Where did the hobbits come from? ;)

 

 

Hobbits are pretty conventional. They prefer staying at home and tending their own gardens for the most part. Your post made me think of them and smile. I have a strong feeling for that too.

 

But every once in awhile, I get a little Bilbo Baggins-y. And we need to travel.

 

The idea that the UNITED States of America would have 50 different laws for something as fundamental as one of my top personal identification labels strikes me as odd and factured.

 

But if you sat down with me and said, "Who are you?" in a coffee shop, I would likely say, somewhere in the beginning-ish of the conversation, "I'm married to Dr. X. Maybe you know him?"

 

I identify myself though him to some extent. He's my other half, my partner through this ramshackle life. :)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm sorry about the font/color, I can't figure out how to change it.

 

 

 

 

 

What about childless heterosexual couples? How does an infertile heterosexual marriage differ from a same-sex marriage?

 

 

 

One big difference is that the heterosexual couple enjoys sexual complementarity, and the fullness that brings into their relationship, even if they cannot have children. Though the situation of an infertile couple is very different, there is a disturbing parallel to same-sex marriage in the situation of couples who simply choose not to have children.

Such couples are still able to have sex, the fullest physical expression of love between husband and wife. But they are doing something that profoundly disturbs the nature of the sexual act. Sexuality has two.aspects: the procreative (bringing forth children) and the unitive (strengthening the union of the couple). Artificially separating the unitive from the procreative brings discord to a marriage, distorts the relationship between husband and wife, and ends up harming their unity as spouses.

Pope John Paul II explains this with what he calls the "language of the body." He observes that in the sexual act, man and woman implicitly give themselves totally to one another. That is what their bodies are saying, both symbolically and literally. Sexual expression, by its very nature, implies total gift of self to the other. The language of the body says, "I give myself to you completely, without reservation or condition."³⁰ But sometimes that statement is a lie. Sometimes one or both do not give themselves completely to the other but instead use the other selfishly, as a pleasure object. Treating the other as an object is divisive rather than unitive.

There are several ways men and women can reduce one another to the status of object. Sex between couples who are not married and therefore do not bring a total commitment to their union are, in the Holy Father's terminology, telling a lie with their bodies, because their bodies speak a language of total, unconditional, and permanent self-giving when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.³¹ In that sense, their sexual expression becomes a lie, because it misrepresents their relationship. Regardless of their feelings for each other, their sexual expression promises more than it objectively delivers.

Fornication and adultery are not the only ways couples can lie with their bodies. Married couples who are committed to exclusive, permanent, and unconditional love may also tell a lie with their bodies when they separate the procreative aspect of sex from the unitive through contraception. Here, the failure to give oneself fully is more subtle but nonetheless real. Deliberately frustrating the procreative.aspect of a sexual act creates a condition that makes self-giving only partial and reduces the spouse, in some degree, to a pleasure object used for selfish purposes.

This does not mean that sex can be truly self-giving only during fertile parts of a woman's cycle. The Church has never taught that couples must have as many children as possible. Rather, it means that interference with fertility both arises out of spousal selfishness and increases it. The Church approves natural family planning, in which couples abstain during fertile periods when they prayerfully have determined that there is a need to avoid pregnancy. In these cases the spouses are not separating the unitive and procreative.aspects of a sexual act; they are simply refraining from performing the act. Similarly, sex after menopause or when suffering from other forms of infertility do not divide the unitive from the procreative. The couple's act is still ordered toward procreation; it is simply that procreation will not occur.³²

 

 

 

 

Are you saying married people have to have children or it's not a full-fledged marriage?

 

 

 

No. The key to understanding this teaching is to realize that the deliberate separation of the unitive from the procreative.aspects of the sexual act makes sexual self-giving conditional, which is contrary to the unconditional requirement of successful marriage. Doing so reduces the spouse to the level of an object, whose body is manipulated artificially for selfish pleasure. Pope Paul VI predicted inHumanae Vitae, back in 1968, that contraception would produce marital discord.³³ Experience of the last thirty years shows that he was right: Studies show that the divorce rates of couples practicing natural family planning is less than 1 percent, far lower than couples using contraception, whose divorce rates run between 13 percent and 50 percent in numerous studies.³⁴

The procreative, life-giving.aspect of marital love necessarily implies that sex will be between a man and a woman. Sex between two men or two women is never life-giving, for it is biologically incapable of producing children or enhancing the health and well-being of the participants (see Part IV).

Thus, marital love must be exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and open to life. The absence of any of these qualities constitutes an abuse of human sexuality. It also affects society adversely, as we will now see.

Link.

 

 

Catholic doctrine doesn't dictate what constitutes equal rights under US law.

[justamouse]

 

Justamouse, I have great personal respect for you, but I think your position here is disingenuous. Your proposal above would not be "problem solved" as far as the Catholic church is concerned. Your church does not support full civil, legal, and societal equality between straight and gay couples. Objection to same-sex marriage is based on the desire to enshrine in law the religious belief that same-sex relationships are <i>different from</i> and <i>less than</i> straight relationships. You said so yourself:

 

 

 

I think we need some definition clarification.

 

Just because things are different, does not mean the people are owed less dignity. We see 'different' these days as less than, and that is not true when it comes to people. Which is why the churches stands for the unborn and fights against euthanasia.

 

It's is not the desire to enshrine a religious law, though, I can see why you might see it that way. It is to uphold a standing law that enables our societies to thrive and has sustained and grown them throughout the centuries.

[Jennifer3141]

 

I could totally be a hobbit.

 

 

Me too. I feel very hobbit-ish around this time every year. it's time to get my hands in the dirt. Now someone tell the 2 feet of snow that, please!

[elegantlion]

I do believe gay couples can enjoy sex, even if they cannot have children.

 

 

"One big difference is that the heterosexual couple enjoys sexual complementarity, and the fullness that brings into their relationship, even if they cannot have children"

[SKL]

 

The idea that the UNITED States of America would have 50 different laws for something as fundamental as one of my top personal identification labels strikes me as odd and factured.

 

 

But that's the way the USA is. Each state already has its own laws about almost everything you can imagine including marriage and divorce, crime and punishment, business, charity, even homeschooling. This is the way our country is organized. To take marriage out and make it a federal matter is / would be an anomaly.

[justasque]

I am not religious. Don't go to church. Here's my opinion in a nutshell. I think this should be an issue for each individual state to decide. The people in each state make the rule. Live in the state that has the rules you prefer.

 

 

This is what the Supreme Court is considering today. When it comes to heterosexual marriages, each state can make rules as to who can get married - age, relationship (cousins), etc. However, other states are required to recognize those marriages, even if the couple would have been barred from marriage in the other states.

 

When it comes to same-sex marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) says that the federal government *cannot* recognize legal same-sex marriages. It means things like a couple can be married when they file their state income taxes, but not when they file their federal taxes. (The fear when DOMA was passed was that if one state recognized same-sex marriages, then other states would be forced to recognize marriages from that state, even if they didn't want to.)

[justamouse]

Of course there is. But the other, more functional part of that - opposable thumbs - is not being used to justify oppression.

 

 

I'm trying to say it's more than opposable thumbs, you are trying to diminish us to only opposable thumbs.

[Violet Crown]

 

 

Wasn't there also this issue with a private bakery where the baker refused to bake a cake for a gay couple? Even if you want to label him as close-minded and ridiculous, that should still be his right as a baker owning his own shop, right?

 

That's not exactly the issue. As with some similar high-profile cases, the question is whether a person engaged in commercial activity is refusing to provide goods or services to persons because of their sexual orientation, in violation of a statute that makes sexual orientation a protected category, or whether the person is refusing to engage in expression with which they disagree, which refusal is protected by the first amendment. So in this example, if the baker had refused to make or sell a generic cake for a same-sex couple, even if it was for the purpose of an activity (e.g. same-sex wedding) which he found objectionable, that would undoubtedly not be permissible if there were a statute prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. But if he refused to create a personalized wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, a court might be willing to see that as expressive speech that he couldn't be coerced into.

 

An analogy: A white supremacist could refuse to print MLK t-shirts because he didn't want to express support for civil rights; but he could not refuse to print them because the persons wanting the shirts printed were black.

The only reason it was an issue was because the agencies were receiving government funds. It's not an issue for strictly private charities. And they shut down because they were afraid of being sued for discrimination; they were not forced to shut down.

 

I might be misremembering, but I thought in Boston it wasn't because they were receiving government funds, but because they had to be licensed by the state to operate an adoption agency and could not be licensed if they discriminated based on sexual orientation. But I'm too lazy to Google and am willing to be corrected on the facts.

 

So, before this thread gets shut down: When I'm elected Philosopher-King, this is how marriage will work. Any two adult persons may be married by anyone who wishes to unite them in wedlock, and the state will take no legal interest whatsoever. As soon as one of the persons gets pregnant, finalizes an adoption, or otherwise legally acquires custody or guardianship of a child, both adults immediately acquire all the tax breaks, etc. of marriage, and furthermore incur extreme legal and financial penalties for separation, abandonment, or divorce - unless abuse can be proved - until such time as there are no longer minor children in their care.

 

Some tweaking no doubt necessary. But it should make everyone equally (un)happy.

[justamouse]

 

I do think it is a desire to enshrine a religious law on your part, but that's fine with me. I respect you. I hope I'm not coming across as otherwise. I just don't agree with you on this.

 

 

The feeling is mutual. :001_smile:

[HollyinNNV]

 

 

Hobbits are pretty conventional. They prefer staying at home and tending their own gardens for the most part. Your post made me think of them and smile. I have a strong feeling for that too.

 

But every once in awhile, I get a little Bilbo Baggins-y. And we need to travel.

 

The idea that the UNITED States of America would have 50 different laws for something as fundamental as one of my top personal identification labels strikes me as odd and factured.

 

But if you sat down with me and said, "Who are you?" in a coffee shop, I would likely say, somewhere in the beginning-ish of the conversation, "I'm married to Dr. X. Maybe you know him?"

 

I identify myself though him to some extent. He's my other half, my partner through this ramshackle life. :)

 

 

I like your post. I felt the hobbits might have been some sort of middle earth mockery, but now I see your intent. :)

 

We would have a nice coffee shop conversation. I doubt we would ever talk about state vs federal rights. We would probably discuss this darn knee injury and how I have not been out of the house cuz I haven't been ambulatory since last Friday. Is your husband an orthopod by any chance? ;)

 

[Jennifer3141]

But that's the way the USA is. Each state already has its own laws about almost everything you can imagine including marriage and divorce, crime and punishment, business, charity, even homeschooling. This is the way our country is organized. To take marriage out and make it a federal matter is / would be an anomaly.

 

 

No, the USA is NOT like that in regards to heterosexual marriage. What state can I visit right now and not be considered legally married??

 

I have a legal marriage license in the state of Michigan. Exactly where could I go off to right now and not be considered married within the borders of the US and its territories?

 

Puerto Rico considered me married when dH and I went there.

 

I am legally married in Michigan. I cannot go to Los Vegas and get legally married to another man today. The second marriage would be illegal because bigamy is illegal in every state in the USA.

[DragonFaerie]

I am so very sad. You see, I had a hysterectomy some years ago. I have no ovaries, no uterus. I was hoping to maybe get married again some day. I enjoy being married, but alas, I don't have the required "parts." :crying:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

But that's the way the USA is. Each state already has its own laws about almost everything you can imagine including marriage and divorce, crime and punishment, business, charity, even homeschooling. This is the way our country is organized. To take marriage out and make it a federal matter is / would be an anomaly.

 

Marriage is both a federal and state matter.

Federal law provides access to benefits and rights based on marital status. States license marriages and apply similar rights/benefits.

 

States are bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution, which requires they respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." DOMA has prevented this from being applied to homosexual marriages, but if it is overturned, then the expectation is that while a state may choose not to sanction gay marriage, they may be forced to recognize it.

[Guest inoubliable]

I am so very sad. You see, I had a hysterectomy some years ago. I have no ovaries, no uterus. I was hoping to maybe get married again some day. I enjoy being married, but alas, I don't have the required "parts." :crying:

 

NO marriage for you!

NEXT!

[justamouse]

I do believe gay couples can enjoy sex, even if they cannot have children.

 

 

"One big difference is that the heterosexual couple enjoys sexual complementarity, and the fullness that brings into their relationship, even if they cannot have children"

 

No one said they didn't, you were asking about 80 yos that want to get married.

[Violet Crown]

I am so very sad. You see, I had a hysterectomy some years ago. I have no ovaries, no uterus. I was hoping to maybe get married again some day. I enjoy being married, but alas, I don't have the required "parts." :crying:

I hope you didn't read my post as saying I would object to your being married - I was only addressing public policy issues of marriage. It seems time for the state to stop caring about who marries whom, and confine its attention instead to the welfare of children.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I hope you didn't read my post as saying I would object to your being married - I was only addressing public policy issues of marriage. It seems time for the state to stop caring about who marries whom, and confine its attention instead to the welfare of children.

 

I believe she was referencing justamouse's poorly made argument that real marriage requires procreation.

[SKL]

No, the USA is NOT like that in regards to heterosexual marriage. What state can I visit right now and not be considered legally married??

 

I have a legal marriage license in the state of Michigan. Exactly where could I go off to right now and not be considered married within the borders of the US and its territories?

 

Puerto Rico considered me married when dH and I went there.

 

I am legally married in Michigan. i cannot go to Los Vegas and get legally married to another man today. The second marriage would be illegal because bigamy is illegal in every state in the USA.

 

Just because the state laws agree in certain respects does not mean they don't all have their own laws.

 

Actually marriage is not seen the same by all states. What about common-law marriage? And I'm sure the process for getting legally married differs from state to state. Waiting period after marriage license, for example. That's why people used to go to Vegas to elope.

 

There are certain acts that would be considered a crime in every state. However, every state has its own very detailed criminal law; they are not all the same. It's the same with marriage. You might not like how it is defined in some states, but that doesn't make it a federal issue.

 

When the US Constitution was agreed upon, there was no intent for the Federal government to meddle in intimate personal matters such as marrriage. The Federal government is supposed to be busy with matters of national security, international trade, that sort of thing.

[justasque]

...

States are bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution, which requires they respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." DOMA has prevented this from being applied to homosexual marriages, but if it is overturned, then the expectation is that while a state may choose not to sanction gay marriage, they may be forced to recognize it.

 

Yes - I'd be interested in hearing the arguments against Section 3 of DOMA - it seems pretty unconstitutional n the face of it, given the Full Faith and Credit clause, and given our history of country-wide recognition of any state-sanctioned marriage, regardless of any arguments for or against same-sex marriage per se.

[RoughCollie]

But if you sat down with me and said, "Who are you?" in a coffee shop, I would likely say, somewhere in the beginning-ish of the conversation, "I'm married to Dr. X. Maybe you know him?"

 

Here's a way people are different. If someone asked me who I am, I would not identify myself as a wife or mother of anyone right off the bat. I'd think they were asking about me, not my relationships, not my roles in life.

[Lady Florida.]

 

Or.... you stand up and say "that's ridiculous" and "you're a fool". Because standing up for something and calling stupid out on stupid can lead to progress. Or I guess during the Civil Rights movement, everyone who supported equal rights should have just stood down and let things keep on keeping on?

 

:iagree: Sometimes you have to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

[Free]

One big difference is that the heterosexual couple enjoys sexual complementarity, and the fullness that brings into their relationship, even if they cannot have children. Though the situation of an infertile couple is very different, there is a disturbing parallel to same-sex marriage in the situation of couples who simply choose not to have children.

Such couples are still able to have sex, the fullest physical expression of love between husband and wife. But they are doing something that profoundly disturbs the nature of the sexual act. Sexuality has two.aspects: the procreative (bringing forth children) and the unitive (strengthening the union of the couple). Artificially separating the unitive from the procreative brings discord to a marriage, distorts the relationship between husband and wife, and ends up harming their unity as spouses.

 

I am sorry, I still don't get it. What you posted are Catholic beliefs. I don't understand what this has to do with the laws of the land.

[Guest inoubliable]

:iagree: Sometimes you have to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

 

Thank you. :)

[DragonFaerie]

I hope you didn't read my post as saying I would object to your being married - I was only addressing public policy issues of marriage. It seems time for the state to stop caring about who marries whom, and confine its attention instead to the welfare of children.

 

I believe she was referencing justamouse's poorly made argument that real marriage requires procreation.

 

Right. It's all good, Violet. I wasn't responding to your post. :-)

[elegantlion]

 

No one said they didn't, you were asking about 80 yos that want to get married.

 

Well I do believe gay couples that want to marry desire a "fullness of relationship" too. If it's not about sex, if it's not about benefits, if it's not about pro-creation, can't it just be about having someone to love who cares what happened in your day? What about someone to hug you when you need it, hold your hand when you're down, cry with you at sad commercials, laugh with you, to create a intimacy that goes beyond health insurance, sex, or children.

 

I have a good relationship with my parents and my son. I can't have intimacy with them as a partner in life.

 

I think a lot of people just want to not feel so alone in this world, to come from work and have someone there that owns part of your heart. I wish that for all my friends, not just my straight ones.

[SKL]

 

Marriage is both a federal and state matter.

Federal law provides access to benefits and rights based on marital status. States license marriages and apply similar rights/benefits.

 

States are bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution, which requires they respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." DOMA has prevented this from being applied to homosexual marriages, but if it is overturned, then the expectation is that while a state may choose not to sanction gay marriage, they may be forced to recognize it.

 

1. And I think the underlined is discriminatory toward single people, but too bad for me.

 

2. I didn't say I thought DOMA was a good idea. The feds should stay out of it. Don't they have better things to do than fuss over who's sleeping with whom?

[justasque]

 

...It seems time for the state to stop caring about who marries whom, and confine its attention instead to the welfare of children.

 

I would argue that marriage is not just about people caring for their children, but also about people caring for *each other*. Marriage incurs social and legal obligations to care for one's spouse "in sickness and in health", which particularly applies when one spouse becomes disabled. I think this is an important aspect of marriage.

[Mom-ninja.]

Yes, each state would have to decide how to deal with other state's unions. I'd prefer 50 different laws. Then I just live in the state that I agree with.

 

So how would you feel if you vacationed somewhere in which your marriage was not valid? Really.

 

I was not married in the US. Does that mean my marriage is not valid here? It is just plain discrimination to pick and choose which marriages are valid and which are not.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Just because the state laws agree in certain respects does not mean they don't all have their own laws.

 

Actually marriage is not seen the same by all states. What about common-law marriage? And I'm sure the process for getting legally married differs from state to state. Waiting period after marriage license, for example. That's why people used to go to Vegas to elope.

 

There are certain acts that would be considered a crime in every state. However, every state has its own very detailed criminal law; they are not all the same. It's the same with marriage. You might not like how it is defined in some states, but that doesn't make it a federal issue.

 

When the US Constitution was agreed upon, there was no intent for the Federal government to meddle in intimate personal matters such as marrriage. The Federal government is supposed to be busy with matters of national security, international trade, that sort of thing.

 

States have their own laws. They also agree to recognize certain legal actions in other states - example: licenses to drive and marriage.

In addition, how the federal government recognizes marriage does matter in terms of taxation and other federal laws/benefits. Currently the federal government accepts any states definition of marriage UNLESS the marriage involves a homosexual couple. If DOMA is struck down, then marriage will no longer be a federal issue and will go back into the hands of the state. Of course, DOMA also allows states to ignore the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and if that is no longer possible, then states will end up recognizing gay marriages performed in other states.

[Jennifer3141]

 

Just because the state laws agree in certain respects does not mean they don't all have their own laws.

 

Actually marriage is not seen the same by all states. What about common-law marriage? And I'm sure the process for getting legally married differs from state to state. Waiting period after marriage license, for example. That's why people used to go to Vegas to elope.

 

There are certain acts that would be considered a crime in every state. However, every state has its own very detailed criminal law; they are not all the same. It's the same with marriage. You might not like how it is defined in some states, but that doesn't make it a federal issue.

 

When the US Constitution was agreed upon, there was no intent for the Federal government to meddle in intimate personal matters such as marrriage. The Federal government is supposed to be busy with matters of national security, international trade, that sort of thing.

 

 

But the fact remains that I am LEGALLY MARRIED in all 50 states. If you are heterosexual and you get married in Alaska, Alabama actually considers you legally married and so do all the other 49 states.

 

Common law marriage is not the same as a legal marriage certificate in many states. But we aren't actually discussing common law marriage or cats who can make toast or neurosurgeons (And neurosurgeons aren't even the real rock stars of medicine anyway, IMO. Give me a great cardiothoracic surgeon anyday.).

[8circles]

Catholic doctrine doesn't dictate what constitutes equal rights under US law.

 

I think this is point that keeps getting ignored. Keep saying it.

[I.Dup.]

:iagree: Sometimes you have to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

 

There's a way to do that without being hurtful and ugly though. I do not see how justamouse, in simply sharing her opinion (as controversial as it may be) was being hurtful or ugly. But to point out a person and call them stupid, bigoted, irrational, foolish, and on and on (I can't even keep track of all of the names and labels used against justamouse and any other religious person in this thread) just for sharing their opinion is not only immature but it discounts the person doing the name calling because it makes them out to seem like they have so little control over their emotions that they cannot participate in a rational, civil conversation without completely losing it on people that don't agree. Conversations like these have power, they can help people think through things in new and different ways, but name calling and venting hatred and anger on someone doesn't help in that regard.

[Mom-ninja.]

Justamouse, sorry but your reason and explanation about marriage, sex, and procreation are based on religious beliefs. Beliefs you are not entitled to force on others.

[justamouse]

I am sorry, I still don't get it. What you posted are Catholic beliefs. I don't understand what this has to do with the laws of the land.

 

 

Because the redefinition would open the door to limiting religious liberty on the basis of discrimination, which is what this argument is all about.

 

I actually don't want to leave it to the states because that would cause a serious division eventually, "Well I'm from OK, and you're from ME, and that means you believe..." and the union is fractured.

 

Allow them the legal benefits of spouse, and all it entails. I've never said I didn't think that. Leave the word marriage alone.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

There's a way to do that without being hurtful and ugly though. I do not see how justamouse, in simply sharing her opinion (as controversial as it may be) was being hurtful or ugly. But to point out a person and call them stupid, bigoted, irrational, foolish, and on and on (I can't even keep track of all of the names and labels used against justamouse and any other religious person in this thread) just for sharing their opinion is not only immature but it discounts the person doing the name calling because it makes them out to seem like they have so little control over their emotions that they cannot participate in a rational, civil conversation without completely losing it on people that don't agree. Conversations like these have power, they can help people think through things in new and different ways, but name calling and venting hatred and anger on someone doesn't help in that regard.

 

 

To be fair, people tend to react poorly when the only argument someone gives is not only disjointed an illogical, but also requires that everyone else accept and live by the religious beliefs of a certain religion.

[Jennifer3141]

Here's a way people are different. If someone asked me who I am, I would not identify myself as a wife or mother of anyone right off the bat. I'd think they were asking about me, not my relationships, not my roles in life.

 

 

Yep. We are all different and I have good friends who are fiercely independent who would answer like you and I have good friends who would answer like me.

 

I'm not saying, "I'm Dr. X's wife!" would be my FIRST indentifyer. Honestly, right now it would probably be, "homeschooling mom." That label would probably be first. Because that label is where I mostly live right now. In 10 years, that will be different.

 

But wife would be up there somewhere if only because I cannot think of one major event of my life in the past 16-17 years that hasn't involved him.

[RoughCollie]

 

When the US Constitution was agreed upon, there was no intent for the Federal government to meddle in intimate personal matters such as marrriage. The Federal government is supposed to be busy with matters of national security, international trade, that sort of thing.

 

 

The US Constitution is a living document. There is no more intimate personal matter than abortion. Yet Roe v. Wade was decided and it applies to every political subdivision that is subject to the US Constitution.

 

As individuals, we may disagree on how the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. In reality, we can't do much about it. I've read plenty of the opinions of the US Supreme Court . I don't agree with the reasoning and/or the basis of some of their decisions, even though sometimes I like the result. But until the composition of the Court changes and/or they decide to revisit an issue, it stands.

[I.Dup.]

 

To be fair, people tend to react poorly when the only argument someone gives is not only disjointed an illogical, but also requires that everyone else accept and live by the religious beliefs of a certain religion.

 

 

Understood. But we as adults should have self control where we don't completely lose it because someone else makes a poor argument. We can rise above that and talk out our position without going nuclear on someone we don't agree with. That's the kind of thing that happens in middle school- ganging up against someone, calling them names, etc. I would hope we would be far beyond that.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Because the redefinition would open the door to limiting religious liberty on the basis of discrimination, which is what this argument is all about.

 

Nope. That argument has been thrashed more soundly than the proverbial beaten, dead horse. Churches still have the right to practice their beliefs. They do not have the right to use public money to do so.

[SKL]

 

There is no more intimate personal matter than abortion. Yet Roe v. Wade was decided and it applies to every political subdivision that is subject to the US Constitution.

 

 

 

And this was wrong too IMO, for the same reason.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Understood. But we as adults should have self control where we don't completely lose it because someone else makes a poor argument. We can rise above that and talk out our position without going nuclear on someone we don't agree with. That's the kind of thing that happens in middle school- ganging up against someone, calling them names, etc. I would hope we would be far beyond that.

 

 

I haven't seen anyone calling justamouse names. I have seen (and used) descriptors for the arguments she has tried to present in this thread, but to me that is fair game.

[justamouse]

Well I do believe gay couples that want to marry desire a "fullness of relationship" too. If it's not about sex, if it's not about benefits, if it's not about pro-creation, can't it just be about having someone to love who cares what happened in your day? What about someone to hug you when you need it, hold your hand when you're down, cry with you at sad commercials, laugh with you, to create a intimacy that goes beyond health insurance, sex, or children.

 

I have a good relationship with my parents and my son. I can't have intimacy with them as a partner in life.

 

I think a lot of people just want to not feel so alone in this world, to come from work and have someone there that owns part of your heart. I wish that for all my friends, not just my straight ones.

 

 

There are many people who live with unmet dreams and desires in this world. Even to use a priest as an example, who takes a vow of chastity, to reduce him to only his sexual desires is saying he is only the SUM of his sexual desires, and we know that sexual desires do not make the whole of a person. To say that he never has the want and desire for a wife and children of his own is further diminishing the vow he's taken and the sacrifice he made willingly.

 

Love is not only sex. Love is also sacrifice. True love rises above personal needs, as every parent knows.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

There are many people who live with unmet dreams and desires in this world. Even to use a priest as an example, who takes a vow of chastity, to reduce him to only his sexual desires is saying he is only the SUM of his sexual desires, and we know that sexual desires do to make the whole of a person. To say that he never has the want and desire for a wife and children of his own is further diminishing the vow he's taken and the sacrifice he made willingly.

 

Love is not only sex. Love is also sacrifice.

 

 

A priest CHOOSES to take that vow. Voluntarily. Willingly (as you said).

You are arguing that others should be FORCED to do so. How you cannot see the difference between the two stuns me.

[RoughCollie]

Yep. We are all different and I have good friends who are fiercely independent who would answer like you and I have good friends who would answer like me.

 

 

 

Well, I wouldn't identify myself as being fiercly independent, but right now, with my children being the ages they are, I am interested in who I am apart from them, when I have time to mull it over. That said, I've never been one to talk much about my children or DH with friends or acquaintances IRL. Unless someone is a long-term and very close friend, my method before telling anyone anything is to ask myself if I would mind if it appears on the front page of the newspaper. If I would mind, I keep my mouth shut. If I wouldn't mind, I ask myself if I feel like discussing the issue and its ramifications with someone. For instance, if someone tells me that studying history is a waste of time, I will disagree, but I will not discuss it. It's like casting pearls before the swine in my experience -- it's a complete waste of my time.

 

If I were still homeschooling, I'd identify myself as a homeschooler right off the bat. It's a full-time job and it certainly was a large part of my identity.