Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Yeah, she refused to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple because jesus. The rest was grandstanding from right wing political organizations and her attorney.

Obviously you didn't read the part about how she has sold to people regardless of sexual orientation.

[unofan]

Obviously you didn't read the part about how she has sold to people regardless of sexual orientation.

It doesn't matter. Replace sexual orientation with race. If she refused to sell wedding flowers to an interracial couple while selling them to white couples, that's illegal even if she sells mothers day flowers to both black and white people.

Obeying the speed limit 99% of the time doesn't get me out of a ticket if caught during the 1% I speed.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Hmmm...I just thought that you could choose not to sell to someone. It happens in the bars!

Anyways, I'd rather see companies have the ability to choose if they don't want to sell to someone (ie, a company like chick fila). But then have strong consumer buying tools that allow for significant boycotts. Therefore, its totally within your limits to not sell to the gay guy. But then have a serious risk of a major boycott from gays and gay supporters. Freedom to act...freedom to be punished. Consumer protection in terms of bad products, etc is different.

[unofan]

Hmmm...I just thought that you could choose not to sell to someone. It happens in the bars.

You can, just not for certain reasons. If she said she was already booked that weekend, or having supply issues, or because they were broncos fans, she'd be fine. Frankly, even if she lied she'd be better off because good luck proving it's a lie.

By admitting it's because they're a gay couple, she shot herself in the foot. Too bad for her, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Hmmm...I just thought that you could choose not to sell to someone. It happens in the bars!

Anyways, I'd rather see companies have the ability to choose if they don't want to sell to someone (ie, a company like chick fila). But then have strong consumer buying tools that allow for significant boycotts. Therefore, its totally within your limits to not sell to the gay guy. But then have a serious risk of a major boycott from gays and gay supporters. Freedom to act...freedom to be punished. Consumer protection in terms of bad products, etc is different.

Plus, the market is much more wide open now thanks to the internet. It's not like they couldn't get the flowers shipped. After all, flowers are flowers.

[unofan]

Plus, the market is much more wide open now thanks to the internet. It's not like they couldn't get the flowers shipped. After all, flowers are flowers.

Spoken like someone who's never been thru a wedding.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Just like how doctors at hospitals sponsored by a church are required to give out contraceptives? Even that was thrown out. One key is that religious beliefs was cited in this case.

Not to completely derail the conversation, but individual doctors are allowed to opt out of participating in something that violates their beliefs but an institution like a church run hospital still needs to provide the standard of care, or provide referral to a doctor/institution that is willing to provide the standard of care. (Note, specific laws do vary by state)

Many procedures/drugs are against the church's teaching but are, at times, medically necessary (like forced abortion for ectopic pregnancy or oral contraception of polyovarian cysts). If a hospital were run by Jehovah's Witness (against blood transfusions) they would not be allowed to deny blood transfusions while operating or in emergency situations since it is a huge violation of the standard of care (and just ****ing stupid IMO).

Being an atheist, I find medical ethics to be much more straightforward than some of religious classmates. I start with a very simple rule, put the patient first. My beliefs do not come into play if I am doing what is best for the patient. Those with a religious view point often have to think about what is best for their "salvation" instead of putting the patient first.

For me, it also makes the whole marriage thing very straightforward. Society has defined and redefined marriage over the years. Two consenting adults are in love, they may have a family and wish to be married. We already have many (I have heard well into the thousands) of laws on the books regarding marriage. Unless we remove all of these laws, I see no reason why two men or two women cannot be married and have the same legal power as other citizens. I am perfectly fine with changing the "definition" of marriage one more time for the sake of equality. Throw a child into the mix and marriage is essential in order to ensure legal custody in the case of a tragedy.

[FreshFish]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

What intrigued me a great deal was the realization that one could view "marriage" from the perspective of systems theory, and that perspective also indicates that primarily two different models will serve to describe the multitude of cases, and in neither model does the gender of the participants matter.

One view you might call the "molecular" model: two individual "atoms" combine into a new singular entity, and something new that never existed before comes into being.

An exaggerated example might be a Palestinian and an Isreali get married, or an Indian and a Pakistani get married, etc.: the new couple couldn't really live comfortably with either individual's set of relatives, and so the couple strikes out to a new land where they can enjoy their life with each other and possibly have children (which would be new "atoms" creating a more complex "molecule").

Another view you might call the "clan" or "tribe" model: a person from one family and a person from another family join to create a new family. This new family has ties to kin from one or both individual's set(s) of relatives, their children and siblings' children know each other: you have a new and distinct nodal point embedded within a network of relationships between other nodal points (imagine each family is a node and the relationships among family members are lines of connection and you have a picture of this web).

Neither is "right" nor "wrong," both are adaptive to different settings and circumstances.

Generally speaking, the latter is more sacramental because sacraments by their very nature invoke a communal connection. The former is more "civic" in the sense that people migrate and come to live among others who initially are strangers, and rely upon laws and custom to help them get along with each other.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I kept saying, if you really oppose the homosexuals, there's no need to get all high and mighty, because patience is a virtue.

Once again, I'm right. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1315825

[leswp1]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

This thread is fascinating. Not multiquoting because it would take up pages but it made me think of a bunch of replies.

One thing I didn't see mentioned is the financial impact of declaring marriage is for all. It would be huge. I believe there are many who have religious beliefs that think this is wrong, but, I think there are enough people who look at the logistics and think it is better to keep things as is rather than deal with them. Makes me think of the mind boggling legal/financial adjustments people must have had to make when the slaves were suddenly freed.

People seem to have forgotten the history of marriage when they say 'Traditional' marriage should be preserved; viewing it as having to do with a religious union cementing a loving relationship and for some procreation in that union. Until fairly recent history marriage mostly a business transaction. Marriage was a tool to cement alliances, reward deeds, buy loyalty, increase or ensure financial success and produce heirs to further the dynasty. (Look at European history- they intermarried so often it is a wonder they could still function). Women did not have personal rights after marriage, lost all property and ceased to exsist as a separate entitiy. I am only 52 and remember a girl in my college class who left in the 2nd year to go home to her country to an arranged marriage with a husband she had met once. I also remember women fighting to be able to remove themselves from abusive marriages. It was cutting edge law to let them (and even more controvertial to hold the man accountable). The current argument to sustain the 'Traditional' Marriage ' isn't referring to the traditions across the years but to what people have decided the current definition should be.

Regardless of the morality of a same sex relationship, not allowing a marriage ignores the lack of legal protection afforded to the couple. Taking every legal precaution available is not enough. Most people in this country find it abhorent there are some places today where a woman marries and loses the rights to the property she brought into the marriage or the right to her children. The lack of marital rights for same sex people creates a similar scenario. 2 personal examples: My 2 aunties were together 50 yrs when one of them became ill. They had to get a lawyer to restructure things because the financial situation threatened the remaining auntie's ability to keep their house. They had to adjust ownership of things they had thought of as 'theirs' for years and after she passed the lawyer was still needed because of the complexity. If they were legally married the property would have been protected. When a friend who was in a relationship for yrs died, his family came into the house he and his partner shared, took his ashes away from his partner and the partner had no legal recourse.

On a religious note I struggle with the contradictions in the Bible about homosexuality. It seems that humans are more fixated on it than God was. Our Pastor once said that homosexuality is mentioned 8 times in the Bible but caring for the 'disadvantaged' (widows, children, poor) 238. Astonishing that those 8 times can generate such vitriol but the 238 can't make people be outraged we have kids who can't get food or care.

There are medical studies that show homosexual brain scans are different than heterosexual brain scans. We are all children of God. I find it hard to believe that God made a mistake. I don't think it is a mistake to let people commit to caring and loving for each other. I do think it is a mistake to not afford them the legal protection and have them held responsible for the legal obligations that come with marriage.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

This thread is fascinating. Not multiquoting because it would take up pages but it made me think of a bunch of replies.

One thing I didn't see mentioned is the financial impact of declaring marriage is for all. It would be huge. I believe there are many who have religious beliefs that think this is wrong, but, I think there are enough people who look at the logistics and think it is better to keep things as is rather than deal with them. Makes me think of the mind boggling legal/financial adjustments people must have had to make when the slaves were suddenly freed.

People seem to have forgotten the history of marriage when they say 'Traditional' marriage should be preserved; viewing it as having to do with a religious union cementing a loving relationship and for some procreation in that union. Until fairly recent history marriage mostly a business transaction. Marriage was a tool to cement alliances, reward deeds, buy loyalty, increase or ensure financial success and produce heirs to further the dynasty. (Look at European history- they intermarried so often it is a wonder they could still function). Women did not have personal rights after marriage, lost all property and ceased to exsist as a separate entitiy. I am only 52 and remember a girl in my college class who left in the 2nd year to go home to her country to an arranged marriage with a husband she had met once. I also remember women fighting to be able to remove themselves from abusive marriages. It was cutting edge law to let them (and even more controvertial to hold the man accountable). The current argument to sustain the 'Traditional' Marriage ' isn't referring to the traditions across the years but to what people have decided the current definition should be.

Regardless of the morality of a same sex relationship, not allowing a marriage ignores the lack of legal protection afforded to the couple. Taking every legal precaution available is not enough. Most people in this country find it abhorent there are some places today where a woman marries and loses the rights to the property she brought into the marriage or the right to her children. The lack of marital rights for same sex people creates a similar scenario. 2 personal examples: My 2 aunties were together 50 yrs when one of them became ill. They had to get a lawyer to restructure things because the financial situation threatened the remaining auntie's ability to keep their house. They had to adjust ownership of things they had thought of as 'theirs' for years and after she passed the lawyer was still needed because of the complexity. If they were legally married the property would have been protected. When a friend who was in a relationship for yrs died, his family came into the house he and his partner shared, took his ashes away from his partner and the partner had no legal recourse.

On a religious note I struggle with the contradictions in the Bible about homosexuality. It seems that humans are more fixated on it than God was. Our Pastor once said that homosexuality is mentioned 8 times in the Bible but caring for the 'disadvantaged' (widows, children, poor) 238. Astonishing that those 8 times can generate such vitriol but the 238 can't make people be outraged we have kids who can't get food or care.

There are medical studies that show homosexual brain scans are different than heterosexual brain scans. We are all children of God. I find it hard to believe that God made a mistake. I don't think it is a mistake to let people commit to caring and loving for each other. I do think it is a mistake to not afford them the legal protection and have them held responsible for the legal obligations that come with marriage.

....aaaaannnd, I think that just about wraps it up for today's textbook demonstration of the Beatitudes, folks. If there's a more "Christian" attitude that could be expressed about homosexuality, I'd love to see it.

Well believed and well stated, les!

[5mn_Major]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I kept saying, if you really oppose the homosexuals, there's no need to get all high and mighty, because patience is a virtue.

Once again, I'm right. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1315825

Correct you are. Being promiscus and gay are deadly. So is gun ownership.

Although not all gay, 15,529 people with AIDS died in 2010. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010. Both by the CDC. In fact in the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000.

A couple of deadly hobbies.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Correct you are. Being promiscus and gay are deadly. So is gun ownership.

Although not all gay, 15,529 people with AIDS died in 2010. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010. Both by the CDC. In fact in the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000.

A couple of deadly hobbies.

Yeesh buddy, I think you missed the general point, as sarcastically jested as it may be.

You have some neo-cons who believe that homosexuality is a sin and the people need to not reproduce and "go to hell", yes? Last I checked, reproduction is impossible. Yes, I know about adoption and foster care, but do they think it's actually truly their kids? Probably not, as they likely view the kids they adopt as slaves of their god who, by that process, are somehow magically saved. Since they can't naturally reproduce, why push the envelope with them? I say to the neo-cons, be patient and let the idea and that particular family branch "die out". If it really is an unnatural mark of their devil, let their devil take its course slowly. The link that I provided is a method of their devil taking what is truly his/hers. After all, don't they want heretics in the eyes of their god to suffer? As for the "victim children" who are "led down the wrong path", why not just see it as a test of temptation? After all, don't they believe that people are constantly tested by their devil?

[5mn_Major]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Yeesh buddy, I think you missed the general point, as sarcastically jested as it may be.

I don't always follow others points. Sometimes make some of my own.

You have some neo-cons who believe that homosexuality is a sin and the people need to not reproduce and "go to hell", yes? Last I checked, reproduction is impossible. Yes, I know about adoption and foster care, but do they think it's actually truly their kids? Probably not, as they likely view the kids they adopt as slaves of their god who, by that process, are somehow magically saved. Since they can't naturally reproduce, why push the envelope with them? I say to the neo-cons, be patient and let the idea and that particular family branch "die out". If it really is an unnatural mark of their devil, let their devil take its course slowly. The link that I provided is a method of their devil taking what is truly his/hers. After all, don't they want heretics in the eyes of their god to suffer? As for the "victim children" who are "led down the wrong path", why not just see it as a test of temptation? After all, don't they believe that people are constantly tested by their devil?

Interesting idea. I myself am Christian but not evangelical. Many evangelicals believe what you say (it wouldn't be the first time they were off the mark) as do other social conservatives. Homosexual behavior is just not a priority for me (as it wasn't for Jesus)...but along with other stated dangerous hobbies, it will 'cull the heard'. In the end though, I think your premise is off. I'd bet serious money that homosexuality will be as prevalent when mankind goes exitinct as it was 2000 yrs ago.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Not sure if this conversation is a Poe, or just napalm grade flaming stupidity.

I admit I am having trouble following what is "sarcastic," but I do find a good rule of thumb to determine if a statement is reasonable is to replace homosexuality with heterosexuality and see if it reads basically the same way.