 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/17/2008 10:19 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/18/2008 12:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Well...I brought this up because this is an important piece of news not necessarily to get into the merits pro or con. But let me ask you this (and this is question has to do not with whether homosexuals should be allowed to participate in the fullness of church life or whether we consider them to be a part of the family of God or not)--it has nothing to do with the appropriateness of their living together--this is purely a question of identity. Say you pray before a car race. Should that be considered a prayer meeting or a church meeting of some sort? Say you have two friends living together but are not sexually involved with each other. Should we call that a marriage? Is there not a material difference here in which no civil rights are being abridged? In other words, are those who are in relationships outside of what is identified as a marriage suffering from civil rights discrimination because they are not identified as a marriage?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/18/2008 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Nope. Here let me ask it like this. Say you have two friends who share a same home together but are not sexually active with each other. Say they want to declare their relationship a marriage. Should this be recognized as a marriage? Are their civil rights being abridged if society (the law) does not recognize this relationship as a marriage? Why or why not?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/18/2008 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | | | I don't think you are fully appreciating where I'm coming from on this, Sahid. I mean the full gravity of what it means for state involvement in our lives. The state does or should recognize your bowling team just as it does other non-governmental organizations such as, clubs, schools, businesses, churches, universities, etc. In recognizing these as what they are, it should recognize their specific rights. In doing this, government does justice to the diverse institutions of a complex differientiated society. I don't know why you would assume that I think it doesn't or shouldn't. That's not in my vocabulary man. It's just not. So if the state recognizes these with certain rights, then the state should recognize that a family is what it is with certain rights and a marriage is what it is with certain rights. So, the state (which recognizes these as what they are and that these originate outside of the political bond), should have an interest in what a marriage is for this reason, for one, but for two, the state should also be interested in marriage for purposes of public health, social wellbeing, thus it may support and regulate it.
So the question still remains.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 6/18/2008 7:46:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/19/2008 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: Why would a bowling team want legal recognition?
Brandon: No. What government should recognize is freedom of association--which in turn allows for clubs, and many other non-profit and non-governmental institutions and organizations. I'm not saying that your tiny little bowling team should necessarily have to go through red tape to be recognized for what it is. Freedom of association allows for the "space" for such organizations to exist. By government doing this it recognizes that these things (which originate outside of the political community [government]) exist which in turn does justice to them. The question pertains more so to political authorities being held accountable (by citizens) to protect their rights to speak, to worship and to pursue many different human activities.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/19/2008 8:56 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
Why would a bowling team want legal recognition? Why would a married couple want their marriage to be legal?
There's a number of reasons a married couple would want their marriage to be recognized as legal by a governing authority: insurance benefits, inheritance rights, executor of wills, adoption rights, child custody, etc.
doesn't play well with professional christians... Post Edited (Laika) : 6/19/2008 8:59:05 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 6/19/2008 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | |
Laika said...
Sahid said...
Why would a bowling team want legal recognition? Why would a married couple want their marriage to be legal?
There's a number of reasons a married couple would want their marriage to be recognized as legal by a governing authority: insurance benefits, inheritance rights, executor of wills, adoption rights, child custody, etc.
What’s wrong with free love without the legalities? No accountability or lifetime commitment, yeah hippies rule...or not.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/19/2008 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
L: There's a number of reasons a married couple would want their marriage to be recognized as legal by a governing authority: insurance benefits, inheritance rights, executor of wills, adoption rights, child custody, etc.
Z: Insurance I can see. The others are available outside of marriage. And insurance benefits from private companies are not under governmental control. Insurance companies routinely discriminate based on gender. Nothing would change unless actuaries found that legal gay marriages are correlated to medical consequences which are not also correlated to unrecognized gay marriage.
There have been some cases where one of the 'couple' were dying and the other one was not allowed to be present or not allowed to make 'end of life' decisions. That kind of stuff.
Let's look at some specific cases:
1. Adam and Steve: Adam dies, leaving no last will and testament. Who gets Adam's stuff? Not Steve.
2. Ronald and Duane: Ronald lies dying of cancer. Duane knows he would have wanted a DNR (do not resuscitate) but can no longer articulate this. Can Duane have a DNR put on Ronald? Nope.
A 'marriage' recognized by the prevailing government would allieviate both these cases.
Now if that government has something like a 'domestic partners agreement' that allieviates cases such as these and they still want a 'marriage', I can't see any point.... maybe that's your point.
doesn't play well with professional christians... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 6/19/2008 1:30 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
M: What’s wrong with free love without the legalities? No accountability or lifetime commitment, yeah hippies rule...or not.
Z: You think the legality of a marriage is correlated to accountability or lifetime commitment within that marriage. Really? Why?
Have you ever heard the term “deadbeat dad”?
The quintessential mindset of a madman is unveiled in the likes of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/19/2008 11:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Z, I’m merely addressing your point about how government recognizes non-governmental institutions and organizations such as bowling teams, Kiwanis, churches, etc. That the bill of rights was done sometime ago is neither here nor there to the argument. That there is a bill of rights that gives recognition and legal protection to non-government organizations IS the point. In order for government to protect your bowling team it develops a law that protects the freedom of association--which is in affect a recognition of your bowling team. Get it? That you admit that there is a law on the books for this (a bill of rights to associate freely) is simply an acknowledgement (a nod towards) of the fact that government protects these non-governmental institutions--that these things exist.
Your first question in your second response misses the point of what I’m saying. Injustice is done when one party oversteps their boundary and takes over the responsibilities that are rightfully that of another party. Injustice is done when the “space” (otherwise known as the public space or the public square) does not allow for each party to play their part. You keep associating legal recognition with groups actually asking for government’s permission to allow them to exist. And I’ve said that these things exist outside of the political bond. They DON’T ORIGINATE with government. Government does not decide on their existence. It doesn’t create them. They originate as gifts from God. As talents, as callings, as responsibilities. When you fulfill your human responsibilities you are RESPONDING TO God. Thus, to develop your talents or interests and to do so in a proper way is to pursue a calling from God. All government does is recognize those and protect them. Governments that deny people the right to exercise their gifts, callings, and responsibilities--governments that decide on the existence of these things i.e. your bowling team, is a government that has acted unjustly. So guess what? I don’t know what it means to ask, “Is injustice done to groups that are not legally recognized?”
Put aside the marriage question for a bit. Let’s get this down and then we can move to the marriage question. I think once this is understood the marriage question will ultimately fall into place.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/20/2008 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | | Z: Agreed. That is precisely my point. The law that protects the rights of gay couples is already on the books. It was on the books 200 years ago.
J: What words in the bill of rights forbids state regulation of sexual behavior? Sexual behavior has been regulated from the get-go in this country, and not one court decision has ever questioned that power from a constitutional perspective, to my knowledge. For example, there are statutory rape laws to this day against consensual sex which are drawn with an arbitrary age limit. I haven't heard any judges complaining about the unconstitutionality of those laws. And even if some have, I want to know what WORDS in the bill of rights they use to make that conclusion.
There are legal age restrictions and spousal quantity restrictions for marriage as well, irrespective of the constent of the parties affected. Nor do I know of any language in the bill of rights that would preclude the power of a state to regulate sexual behavior and marriage, thus. We can question the wisdom of such laws. But I don't see how we can question the sheer legal power of states to make such laws, constitutionally. From a purely legal perspective, these practices are fair game for state regulation, as problematic as that might be.
Z: After a while we win! We are now legally recognized not just as a "sport club" but as a "bowling team". The consequences of our victory? Well... there are no consequences...
J: Are there literally no consequential legal rights or liabilities for legally married people due to their legally married status? None? Seems to me Laika has already mentioned some.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 6/20/2008 6:09:11 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/21/2008 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry Z. I'll be back on this either tonight or tmw. Pretty busy.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/21/2008 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | | | You said "The law that protects the rights of gay couples is already on the books. It was on the books 200 years ago." WHAT law was on the book 200 years ago that protects what rights of gay people that has anything to do with gay people wanting to marry in California? And just how does getting married, as a gay couple, in California amount to MERELY wanting another label, AS OPPOSED TO changing their legal status with the liabilities that entails?
It seems you are saying that marriage for gay couples in California will MERELY change their label and nothing else. Otherwise, I have no idea what the point of your bowling team analogy is. See the following sequence for why I am confused.
Z: We take legal action. We demand to be legally classified as a "bowling team". (All the while we are still playing in our league and we already have all the benefits afforded to a legally recognized "bowling team".) After a while we win! We are now legally recognized not just as a "sport club" but as a "bowling team". The consequences of our victory? Well... there are no consequences...
Some guy on an internet discussion board brings up this fact - that the entire battle was a meaningless semantic waste of time, since we already enjoyed all the benefits of a legally recognized "bowling team".
...
And the guy wonders how anyone got the idea that this had anything to do with the matter at hand. Who cares what the benefits are or whether the government should protect them? The fact is the government DOES protected them, so an argument over terminology is a waste of time.
J: Are there literally no consequential legal rights or liabilities for legally married people due to their legally married status?
Z: No. I would never say something like that
Post Edited (Similtude) : 6/21/2008 11:14:20 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/21/2008 1:50 PM (GMT -6) | | I'll respond to the rest anyway.
J: You said "The law that protects the rights of gay couples is already on the books. It was on the books 200 years ago." WHAT law was on the book 200 years ago that protects what rights of gay people that has anything to do with gay people wanting to marry in California?
Z: Brandon, not I, brought up the entirely unrelated matter of free association. He spoke of the government protecting this right. I responded by saying that a new legal definition of marriage does not grant or protect this right since it is sufficiently granted and protected by the First Amendment. While making this argument I repeatedly expressed that it is entirely immaterial to the issue at hand which has nothing to do with the right to free association.
J: And just how does getting married, as a gay couple, in California amount to MERELY wanting another label, AS OPPOSED TO changing their legal status with the liabilities that entails?
Z: You tell me. What can a Californian heterosexual married couple do that a Californian gay couple cannot do? They can share possessions, adopt, have a wedding ceremony, live together... what IS the difference? Maybe there is something I've overlooked. But the only difference I'm aware of is the word 'marriage'. The referents are legally identical already.
J: It seems you are saying that marriage for gay couples in California will MERELY change their label and nothing else. Otherwise, I have no idea what the point of your bowling team analogy is. See the following sequence for why I am confused.
Z: Why be confused? I've repeatedly said precisely that. If I wrote it, assume that it expresses my own thoughts. If words wont do the trick, what should I do? Interpretive dance? Jeff, it's obviously not you, because it seems there is no one on this board who speaks my language. It's my own problem; if anyone has some advice, I'm all ears. Laika, you seem to have understood what I'm saying. How would you write it so that it's understandable?
J: Are there literally no consequential legal rights or liabilities for legally married people due to their legally married status?
Z: No. I would never say something like that.
Z: What I WOULD say is that "there are literally no consequential legal rights or liabilities for legally married people due to there legal married status" that are not also available to gay couples. Your original question has NOTHING to do with what is currently happening in California. They are not arguing over what the consequences of marriage should be (or if such consequences exist?!?!). They are arguing over whether gay couples can be legally married. Of course there are consequences to being married. "I would never say" anything to the contrary. But that has zero relevance to the story Brandon posted. Those consequences are not EXCLUSIVE to married couples. Unmarried (and even gay) couples have access to them as well.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 6/21/2008 1:56:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/21/2008 4:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | There still are SOME differences in rights and liabilities for legally married people even in state law. Additionally, I think one of the ultimate goals is to get federal social security. So it's not like they're pushing for MERELY a change of label as your analogy suggested.
Even the ones that want a label change want it for what ELSE that gets them. Cause not only will that get them more acceptance in the future, but it will probably also facilitate the speed with which they will get laws, like Canada, where speech against them can be considered hate speech. Then they can get penalities against people who speak against them. So the push is for real change, not just label change.
Sorry I was confused. But it seemed like you were being adamant that there would be NO change at all.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:32 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|