If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
Dawne Peterson wrote:
"Jangchub" wrote . The part I don't understand is, what the hell is it anyone's business if gay men and women want to marry? What is this crap about semantics, civil unions, marriage, legal contract, whatever anyone wants to call it. Do they love one another any less than any other couple? The state has an interest in who can marry, partly one of protection (you can't marry below a certain age) and partly its interest in property. The semantics are necessary because while some marriages are purely civil arrangements, others are marked by religious ceremonies. No religious institution can be compelled to provide a religious rite for those people who in the view of their faith are not able to receive it. Here in Canada, a gay couple of legal age can have a civil marriage ceremony. Whether or not they can have a religious ceremony depends on the faith group; one mainstream Protestant church marries gay couples, other faith groups are debating it, and some won't. It would be a much more sensible solution to move toward separating civil and religious marriage. Goodness knows a number of other countries have managed to make it work. There are US politicians who have proposed this as a solution, but they typically get shot down under the theory that the state is somehow undermining marriage if there's a clear demarcation between civil and religious marriage. Best wishes, Ericka |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
In article , Karen C in California
wrote: flitterbit wrote: I really don't understand why some people feel so threatened by gay people; the only difference between gays and heterosexuals is to whom they're sexually attracted. [snip] Personally, I've been propositioned by a couple of lesbians who think that because I'm divorced I should hate men. Did I cry on S's shoulder when my relationship broke up? Yeah. Did I find her sexually attractive while I was doing it? No. She just happened to be the nearest person when I got the news. I am 150% hetero; when I got married, it was Hallelujah, I never have to live with women again. "150% Hetero?" Is that really possible??? You know, as a criminalist, I hold a degree in psychology. I would aver that most of my most esteemed colleagues (as well as myself), that a quote from MacBeth applies he "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (Hyperbolic statements in "stressful" or controversial/confrontational situations often indicates "guilt" or fear.) Either that or you might be one of the only homophobic Dems in captivity. *throws peanuts* -- dark.angel |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
"Ericka" wrote in message ... Dawne Peterson wrote: "Jangchub" wrote . The part I don't understand is, what the hell is it anyone's business if gay men and women want to marry? What is this crap about semantics, civil unions, marriage, legal contract, whatever anyone wants to call it. Do they love one another any less than any other couple? The state has an interest in who can marry, partly one of protection (you can't marry below a certain age) and partly its interest in property. The semantics are necessary because while some marriages are purely civil arrangements, others are marked by religious ceremonies. No religious institution can be compelled to provide a religious rite for those people who in the view of their faith are not able to receive it. Here in Canada, a gay couple of legal age can have a civil marriage ceremony. Whether or not they can have a religious ceremony depends on the faith group; one mainstream Protestant church marries gay couples, other faith groups are debating it, and some won't. It would be a much more sensible solution to move toward separating civil and religious marriage. Goodness knows a number of other countries have managed to make it work. There are US politicians who have proposed this as a solution, but they typically get shot down under the theory that the state is somehow undermining marriage if there's a clear demarcation between civil and religious marriage. Best wishes, Ericka I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. How is a civil ceremony by a judge or a Justice of the Peace not separate from a religious one???? Lucille |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
On Nov 8, 9:33 am, Jangchub wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 20:27:43 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Nov 7, 2:47 pm, Karen C in California wrote: dark.angel wrote: It's people like YOU that make other people too afraid to pray in front of me once they find out I'm a Dem. Not me. I manage to be both a Dem and a Christian. However, I can't begin to count how many Reps have made statements in my presence to the effect of "all Jews/Buddhists/Muslims are going straight to hell because they're not Christians". Dems are more tolerant of other religions. Bull****. Pure unadulterated bull****, Karen. Elizabeth Elizabeth is on a "bull****" roll! LOL I don't recall you saying it so often; did I create a monster. Nah, I'm a potty-mouth from way back, I just try to keep it under control in polite company. But I've been feeling sorely provoked by Karen's typically sweeping generalizations and completely false "universal truths." Elizabeth |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
On Nov 8, 9:41 am, "Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote:
"Ericka" wrote in message ... Dawne Peterson wrote: "Jangchub" wrote . The part I don't understand is, what the hell is it anyone's business if gay men and women want to marry? What is this crap about semantics, civil unions, marriage, legal contract, whatever anyone wants to call it. Do they love one another any less than any other couple? The state has an interest in who can marry, partly one of protection (you can't marry below a certain age) and partly its interest in property. The semantics are necessary because while some marriages are purely civil arrangements, others are marked by religious ceremonies. No religious institution can be compelled to provide a religious rite for those people who in the view of their faith are not able to receive it. Here in Canada, a gay couple of legal age can have a civil marriage ceremony. Whether or not they can have a religious ceremony depends on the faith group; one mainstream Protestant church marries gay couples, other faith groups are debating it, and some won't. It would be a much more sensible solution to move toward separating civil and religious marriage. Goodness knows a number of other countries have managed to make it work. There are US politicians who have proposed this as a solution, but they typically get shot down under the theory that the state is somehow undermining marriage if there's a clear demarcation between civil and religious marriage. Best wishes, Ericka I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. How is a civil ceremony by a judge or a Justice of the Peace not separate from a religious one???? Other way around. DH and I were married by a Catholic priest whose religious authority also gave him the authority to marry us in the eyes of the state. In European countries if you want a religious ceremony that's fine, buy you still have to have a civil one. Elizabeth |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
wrote in message ... On Nov 8, 9:41 am, "Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote: "Ericka" wrote in message ... Dawne Peterson wrote: "Jangchub" wrote . The part I don't understand is, what the hell is it anyone's business if gay men and women want to marry? What is this crap about semantics, civil unions, marriage, legal contract, whatever anyone wants to call it. Do they love one another any less than any other couple? The state has an interest in who can marry, partly one of protection (you can't marry below a certain age) and partly its interest in property. The semantics are necessary because while some marriages are purely civil arrangements, others are marked by religious ceremonies. No religious institution can be compelled to provide a religious rite for those people who in the view of their faith are not able to receive it. Here in Canada, a gay couple of legal age can have a civil marriage ceremony. Whether or not they can have a religious ceremony depends on the faith group; one mainstream Protestant church marries gay couples, other faith groups are debating it, and some won't. It would be a much more sensible solution to move toward separating civil and religious marriage. Goodness knows a number of other countries have managed to make it work. There are US politicians who have proposed this as a solution, but they typically get shot down under the theory that the state is somehow undermining marriage if there's a clear demarcation between civil and religious marriage. Best wishes, Ericka I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. How is a civil ceremony by a judge or a Justice of the Peace not separate from a religious one???? Other way around. DH and I were married by a Catholic priest whose religious authority also gave him the authority to marry us in the eyes of the state. In European countries if you want a religious ceremony that's fine, buy you still have to have a civil one. Elizabeth Same here, but it was a Rabbi. What I was trying to say is you can get married in a civil ceremony and you don't need to have a religious ceremony. I have friends who simply went to the court house and got married before a judge. You can even get married in Nevada without any kind of waiting period, no blood tests, etc.. L |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
Lucille wrote:
wrote in message ... On Nov 8, 9:41 am, "Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote: "Ericka" wrote in message ... Dawne Peterson wrote: "Jangchub" wrote . The part I don't understand is, what the hell is it anyone's business if gay men and women want to marry? What is this crap about semantics, civil unions, marriage, legal contract, whatever anyone wants to call it. Do they love one another any less than any other couple? The state has an interest in who can marry, partly one of protection (you can't marry below a certain age) and partly its interest in property. The semantics are necessary because while some marriages are purely civil arrangements, others are marked by religious ceremonies. No religious institution can be compelled to provide a religious rite for those people who in the view of their faith are not able to receive it. Here in Canada, a gay couple of legal age can have a civil marriage ceremony. Whether or not they can have a religious ceremony depends on the faith group; one mainstream Protestant church marries gay couples, other faith groups are debating it, and some won't. It would be a much more sensible solution to move toward separating civil and religious marriage. Goodness knows a number of other countries have managed to make it work. There are US politicians who have proposed this as a solution, but they typically get shot down under the theory that the state is somehow undermining marriage if there's a clear demarcation between civil and religious marriage. Best wishes, Ericka I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. How is a civil ceremony by a judge or a Justice of the Peace not separate from a religious one???? Other way around. DH and I were married by a Catholic priest whose religious authority also gave him the authority to marry us in the eyes of the state. In European countries if you want a religious ceremony that's fine, buy you still have to have a civil one. Elizabeth Same here, but it was a Rabbi. What I was trying to say is you can get married in a civil ceremony and you don't need to have a religious ceremony. I have friends who simply went to the court house and got married before a judge. You can even get married in Nevada without any kind of waiting period, no blood tests, etc.. L Jim and I were married in the Courthouse down here in Florida. No blood tests either..we went in on a Friday and filled out the paperwork, and returned on Tuesday, with four of our closest friends, and did the dirty deed! "Marrying Mary" ( the Clerk who does marriages) had a little room all decorated, and it was fun. She included an American Indian poem, and one of the couples with us is jewish, so he brought along the glass in a napkin for Jim to stomp on. Then we all went out for lunch. Wow, over 13 years ago that was!. G |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
Jangchub wrote:
The part I don't understand is, what the hell is it anyone's business if gay men and women want to marry? Exactly. How exactly does it threaten YOUR marriage that Larry and Moe have married each other? Do these people think that they'll be forced to divorce each other and marry gay people? Live and let live. -- Karen C - California Editor/Proofreader www.IntlProofingConsortium.com Finished 10/7/08 - Sun Fun (Dimensions) WIP: Nativity from "Countdown to Christmas" book, Oriental Kimono (Janlynn), MLI The Teacher (gift to the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek) Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market CFSfacts -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf Newest research blog: http://cfs-facts.blogspot.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT - Dear Dad | Elly[_2_] | Quilting | 4 | February 9th 08 05:37 AM |
OT Dear all . . . | CATS | Quilting | 5 | September 13th 07 05:08 PM |
A little OT Finished something - but oh dear! | Cats | Quilting | 29 | January 30th 07 03:39 AM |
Oh Dear! | KJ | Quilting | 13 | January 31st 05 02:59 PM |
OT - Dear Mom | LN \(remove NOSPAM\) | Quilting | 8 | April 25th 04 02:10 AM |