|
Post by akbar on Mar 29, 2022 14:17:16 GMT -5
JUST IN: Several Republicans say they are “upset” that Madison Cawthorn said his Republican colleagues have invited him to cocaine orgies. One Republican said people are now asking who is partaking in orgies. Kevin McCarthy plans to talk with Cawthorn about it, per politico. The answer is "definitely not Madison Cawthorn because he's the type of person who'd narc on the cocaine orgies which is why he never gets invited to them (also he'd be no fun at a cocaine orgy anyway)" So he is butthurt?
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Mar 29, 2022 14:17:52 GMT -5
Despite the Democrats deficiencies... Would you agree that Americans should be able to choose who they marry regardless of race, ethnicity, and gender? Gender? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Kinda obvious. Trashing a holy institution is lame Who says? Not what the law states.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 29, 2022 15:10:46 GMT -5
Despite the Democrats deficiencies... Would you agree that Americans should be able to choose who they marry regardless of race, ethnicity, and gender? Gender? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Kinda obvious. Trashing a holy institution is lame Marriage is a contractual relationship transferring a woman as property from her father to her new husband. Sheesh. Understand the institution you're defending.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Mar 29, 2022 16:16:40 GMT -5
Gender? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Kinda obvious. Trashing a holy institution is lame Marriage is a contractual relationship transferring a woman as property from her father to her new husband. Sheesh. Understand the institution you're defending. since when? the dark ages?
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Mar 29, 2022 17:04:50 GMT -5
Despite the Democrats deficiencies... Would you agree that Americans should be able to choose who they marry regardless of race, ethnicity, and gender? Gender? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Kinda obvious. Trashing a holy institution is lame That the government has any say whatsoever in "a holy institution" is what "is lame". Why not leave marriage up to the two people involved and let them adhere to the rules and guidelines of whatever religion they choose as they see fit. Where is the interest of the government to get involved in any way?
|
|
|
Post by valleyvolley1 on Mar 29, 2022 18:03:19 GMT -5
Gender? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Kinda obvious. Trashing a holy institution is lame Marriage is a contractual relationship transferring a woman as property from her father to her new husband. Sheesh. Understand the institution you're defending. Stop with the idiotic leftist crap
|
|
|
Post by valleyvolley1 on Mar 29, 2022 18:10:59 GMT -5
Gender? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Kinda obvious. Trashing a holy institution is lame That the government has any say whatsoever in "a holy institution" is what "is lame". Why not leave marriage up to the two people involved and let them adhere to the rules and guidelines of whatever religion they choose as they see fit. Where is the interest of the government to get involved in any way? No marriage is a religious agreement between a man and a woman. Tye trick is the government should really no5 be involved. If ga6s or other want to play like they are normal call it something else... maybe niblick or Massie. Tgose words lost their meaning
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 29, 2022 18:28:20 GMT -5
Marriage is a contractual relationship transferring a woman as property from her father to her new husband. Sheesh. Understand the institution you're defending. Stop with the idiotic leftist crap You mean facts?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 29, 2022 18:28:30 GMT -5
That the government has any say whatsoever in "a holy institution" is what "is lame". Why not leave marriage up to the two people involved and let them adhere to the rules and guidelines of whatever religion they choose as they see fit. Where is the interest of the government to get involved in any way? No marriage is a religious agreement between a man and a woman. Tye trick is the government should really no5 be involved. If ga6s or other want to play like they are normal call it something else... maybe niblick or Massie. Tgose words lost their meaning My favorite religious marriage was Job's. God kills his wife and all of his kids, but it's OK because he just gets a replacement wife!
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 29, 2022 18:37:10 GMT -5
Gender? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Kinda obvious. Trashing a holy institution is lame That the government has any say whatsoever in "a holy institution" is what "is lame". Why not leave marriage up to the two people involved and let them adhere to the rules and guidelines of whatever religion they choose as they see fit. Where is the interest of the government to get involved in any way? Because marriage is not a creation of religion. Marriage (or at least, socially acknowledged pair-bonding) certainly predates religion. And it's definitely not "owned" by any religion. Consider that people of every known religion get married. Also people of no religion get married. Religion tries to co-opt and control marriage, but marriage is bigger than religion. It also is embedded deeply into our secular laws. From your birth (who has parental authority over you) to your death (who inherits your sh*t when you die), we privilege marriage above almost any other human relationship. Who gets automatic first priority on you under the law? Your parents? Your kids? Your neighbors? Nope. It's your spouse. So no, we don't just "leave marriage up to religion" any more than we leave criminal law up to religion.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Mar 29, 2022 18:42:42 GMT -5
We were married by a judge, not in a church...does that mean I'm technically single? Can you say "Hall Pass!!"
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Mar 29, 2022 19:14:35 GMT -5
That the government has any say whatsoever in "a holy institution" is what "is lame". Why not leave marriage up to the two people involved and let them adhere to the rules and guidelines of whatever religion they choose as they see fit. Where is the interest of the government to get involved in any way? Because marriage is not a creation of religion. Marriage (or at least, socially acknowledged pair-bonding) certainly predates religion. And it's definitely not "owned" by any religion. Consider that people of every known religion get married. Also people of no religion get married. Religion tries to co-opt and control marriage, but marriage is bigger than religion. It also is embedded deeply into our secular laws. From your birth (who has parental authority over you) to your death (who inherits your sh*t when you die), we privilege marriage above almost any other human relationship. Who gets automatic first priority on you under the law? Your parents? Your kids? Your neighbors? Nope. It's your spouse. So no, we don't just "leave marriage up to religion" any more than we leave criminal law up to religion. I very specifically referenced the "holy institution" of marriage referenced by the poster as their justification for marriage being one man and one woman. Claiming marriage is the same as earliest pair-bonding and then asserting that it predates religion, is conjecture out of whole cloth. You are down a very nebulous path of the origin of belief, religion and organized religion, and exactly at what point is the modern concept of marriage formalized. There are theories but no certainty. That also hardly matters, since what we are talking about here is the modern sense of marriage in modern religions of the last few thousand years at least, not cave men in Grotte de Lascaux 20,000 years ago. My last sentence was rhetorical and I originally answered it myself but then decided it would be more interesting if I left that question hanging and got others to respond, and I deleted it. I appreciate your response. I absolutely believe that government does and should have an interest in what, for want of a better term, I will call civil unions, for many of the reasons you listed. For raising kids and for inheritance. I also believe very strongly in the American concept of separation of church and state. Just as you said no one religion "owns" marriage, I don't think the government should recognize the religious aspect of marriage but only the legal aspects of a civil union. You are free to get married in front of your god at your church, but the government should only care that legally you have joined for the purpose of children and inheritance. Your whole "inherits sh*t when you die" argument for marriage is already in tatters, since there are so many unmarried hetero and same sex couples having kids and governments are already making up laws to cover those situations.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 29, 2022 19:23:13 GMT -5
Because marriage is not a creation of religion. Marriage (or at least, socially acknowledged pair-bonding) certainly predates religion. And it's definitely not "owned" by any religion. Consider that people of every known religion get married. Also people of no religion get married. Religion tries to co-opt and control marriage, but marriage is bigger than religion. It also is embedded deeply into our secular laws. From your birth (who has parental authority over you) to your death (who inherits your sh*t when you die), we privilege marriage above almost any other human relationship. Who gets automatic first priority on you under the law? Your parents? Your kids? Your neighbors? Nope. It's your spouse. So no, we don't just "leave marriage up to religion" any more than we leave criminal law up to religion. I very specifically referenced the "holy institution" of marriage referenced by the poster as their justification for marriage being one man and one woman. Claiming marriage is the same as earliest pair-bonding and then asserting that it predates religion, is conjecture out of whole cloth. You are down a very nebulous path of the origin of belief, religion and organized religion, and exactly at what point is the modern concept of marriage formalized. There are theories but no certainty. That also hardly matters, since what we are talking about here is the modern sense of marriage in modern religions of the last few thousand years at least, not cave men in Grotte de Lascaux 20,000 years ago. My last sentence was rhetorical and I originally answered it myself but then decided it would be more interesting if I left that question hanging and got others to respond, and I deleted it. I appreciate your response. I absolutely believe that government does and should have an interest in what, for want of a better term, I will call civil unions, for many of the reasons you listed. For raising kids and for inheritance. I also believe very strongly in the American concept of separation of church and state. Just as you said no one religion "owns" marriage, I don't think the government should recognize the religious aspect of marriage but only the legal aspects of a civil union. You are free to get married in front of your god at your church, but the government should only care that legally you have joined for the purpose of children and inheritance. Your whole "inherits sh*t when you die" argument for marriage is already in tatters, since there are so many unmarried hetero and same sex couples having kids and governments are already making up laws to cover those situations. No, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the law, and in the US, marriage under the law is not a religious matter. For convenience, the law typically allows religious marriages to also count as legal marriages, but they are actually two separate things. I do not accept that religious people get to claim marriage as their own intellectual property just because they want to set the rules about what is and is not a marriage.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Mar 29, 2022 20:08:57 GMT -5
I very specifically referenced the "holy institution" of marriage referenced by the poster as their justification for marriage being one man and one woman. Claiming marriage is the same as earliest pair-bonding and then asserting that it predates religion, is conjecture out of whole cloth. You are down a very nebulous path of the origin of belief, religion and organized religion, and exactly at what point is the modern concept of marriage formalized. There are theories but no certainty. That also hardly matters, since what we are talking about here is the modern sense of marriage in modern religions of the last few thousand years at least, not cave men in Grotte de Lascaux 20,000 years ago. My last sentence was rhetorical and I originally answered it myself but then decided it would be more interesting if I left that question hanging and got others to respond, and I deleted it. I appreciate your response. I absolutely believe that government does and should have an interest in what, for want of a better term, I will call civil unions, for many of the reasons you listed. For raising kids and for inheritance. I also believe very strongly in the American concept of separation of church and state. Just as you said no one religion "owns" marriage, I don't think the government should recognize the religious aspect of marriage but only the legal aspects of a civil union. You are free to get married in front of your god at your church, but the government should only care that legally you have joined for the purpose of children and inheritance. Your whole "inherits sh*t when you die" argument for marriage is already in tatters, since there are so many unmarried hetero and same sex couples having kids and governments are already making up laws to cover those situations. No, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the law, and in the US, marriage under the law is not a religious matter. For convenience, the law typically allows religious marriages to also count as legal marriages, but they are actually two separate things. I do not accept that religious people get to claim marriage as their own intellectual property just because they want to set the rules about what is and is not a marriage. You don't actually disagree, you are just being obtuse and playing semantics because you want a word to mean what you want it to mean and not what somebody else wants it to mean. I don't care what you call it. One is religious and one is not. Remember the original context for my post. Someone said; "Gender? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Kinda obvious. Trashing a holy institution is lame".
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 29, 2022 20:19:29 GMT -5
No, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the law, and in the US, marriage under the law is not a religious matter. For convenience, the law typically allows religious marriages to also count as legal marriages, but they are actually two separate things. I do not accept that religious people get to claim marriage as their own intellectual property just because they want to set the rules about what is and is not a marriage. You don't actually disagree, you are just being obtuse and playing semantics because you want a word to mean what you want it to mean and not what somebody else wants it to mean. I don't care what you call it. One is religious and one is not. Remember the original context for my post. Someone said; "Gender? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Kinda obvious. Trashing a holy institution is lame". WTF, dude. Now you are telling me what I really believe? Marriage is 100% not the intellectual property of religion. It is a human institution that religions have co-opted and attempted to assert control over (just like so many other things). That is very much what I really believe. And I explicitly rejected (and reject) the attempt to claim marriage in the name of religion, including in the post you referenced. The entire thread is about legal marriage in the US (and originally specifically about the legal status of interracial marriages).
|
|