Bert and Ernie agenda

[HYHYBT]

This is exactly what I was trying to avoid by using "bless" for extralegal arrangements...

(and I *really* wish PepprElf would answer)

[jackfaire]

Ah. I see what's happened. That part of my statement that you quoted was speaking of legal marriages, not spiritual marriages.

Likewise, in a debate, if you're going to choose to use a non-standard definition of a term, you should explain that fact or use a more appropriate term.

^-.-^

I did not intend to mislead in any way.

Nor am I talking about spiritual marriage.

I am talking about Church Marriage.

Also what I originally quoted of yours about polygamy was not about legal marriage it was from a statement that you made saying the Government will not interfere in how or what a church does except in the cases of human sacrifices which true the government will not let churches murder people.

But saying that the Government will not let churches perform polygamy means your stating that a church would be violating the law if they performed a marriage ceremony for someone already married or seeking to marry more than one person.

That was the impression I got. I do apologize if what you really meant was that the government will not grant legal rights to polygamous marriages.

I was under the impression since you tied them to sacrifices that you were saying the Government would prevent the action itself and not merely deny rights to the married couples.

[Andara Bledin]

Ah. I see what's happened. That part of my statement that you quoted was speaking of legal marriages, not spiritual marriages.

Spiritually speaking, my boyfriend and I have been "married" for several years, now. A lot of people we know think we actually are. However, I don't tell people that we are married because I know that unless I tell them that I'm using a non-standard definition, then I'm lying. Knowing that another person will be using a definition other than the one you mean when you say something for the purpose of misleading them is lying, regardless of the technical veracity of your statements. And, whatever else I may be, I make a point of not being a liar.

Likewise, in a debate, if you're going to choose to use a non-standard definition of a term, you should explain that fact or use a more appropriate term.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

Oh. So you're just throwing out irrelevant data that has no bearing on the conversation at hand. Got it.

^-.-^

How is it irrelevant? The discussion has steered into the arena of a statement that legalizing same sex marriages would force churches to conduct same sex marriages

I was pointing out that churches may conduct any marriage they wish and that the Government can in no way deny them that right. The only thing that the Government can do is deny rights to marriages considered invalid by law and grant rights to those marriages it considers valid.

The fact that churches can and do conduct marriages that currently would not qualify for marriage laws invalidates the statement that they could or would force churches to conduct marriages the law feels are valid.

To me any data supporting that seems pretty relevant.

Unless I am wrong and we are discussing the rings of Saturn.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh. So you're just throwing out irrelevant data that has no bearing on the conversation at hand. Got it.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

Polygamy is specifically a marriage situation with more than 2 individuals, aka multiple marriages. I think you're confusing it with polyamory.

^-.-^

Nope I am not. When my ex-wife and I were married we did so in August of 2000.

We went before a justice of the peace in January 2001.

You can get married without bringing the law into it just as you can get married without bringing the church into it.

Our first wedding was a religious ceremony because we did not feel the need to involve the government in our decision. We did not change our position on that until the Army refused to extend insurance to my then wife without a legal marriage. So while on leave we went to a justice of the peace.

Marriage the religious ceremony is about a couple's beliefs and what they wish to declare in the eyes of the God they believe in. Secular marriage is about acquiring a set of rights that have been laid out under the heading of marriage.

Had I not joined the Army my secular divorce, still working on that, would not be an issue as our marriage would have remained only a spiritual one as we wished.

To me the whole debate is ridiculous on those grounds. She was my wife from the day I said I do. Regardless of what the law says because what I call my significant other is entirely up to me.

When it comes to legal forms that is a different matter.

My point being you can be married to a lot of different people if you don't bring the government into it.

[Andara Bledin]

Actually the government doesn't do anything about polygamy. Multiple marriages yes but they don't have any laws against people dating or living with more than one person as long as they don't try to legally marry more than one person.

Polygamy is specifically a marriage situation with more than 2 individuals, aka multiple marriages. I think you're confusing it with polyamory.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

Churches can and do decide on their own who they will marry (so long as the marriage is legal)

Actually the marriage wouldn't even have to be legal. If a church wanted to it could perform a wedding ceremony for a man and his dog. They couldn't conduct a legal ceremony in that it couldn't involve the government. No marriage license would be issued for such a marriage but a church could conduct it.

[HYHYBT]

My mother belongs to a church that says people of the same sex should be able to marry, and by not supporting that, you are approving of the government to tell her church what to believe.

I thought your mom was a Mormon. Has she converted, or am I remembering that wrongly?

So, if you make marriage a legal right that cannot be infringed upon by anyone else... then technically any church that says "we will not conduct this marriage" will be in violation of the law and would face legal issues.

however, at the same time... this IS a religious belief as well. So you would in fact have the government punishing religious groups for following their own beliefs. So in effect, the first amendment would be broken by the fact that the government would be interfering with what a church believes in.

This is simply and completely false. The right to equal protection/due process applies to the government; in this case, it means the government has no business granting marriage licenses to straight couples while denying them to gay couples unless there is a highly compelling reason (and there isn't.) Churches can and do decide on their own who they will marry (so long as the marriage is legal) or bless (anyone and anything they like.) They do it all the time. The government cannot grant marriage licenses to Christians but not to Buddhists or atheists, but churches are free to limit who they marry to those who are members, and many do. The same with divorcees. So the original "how" becomes more specific: how would the government's not discriminating based on sex push anything on churches when its not discriminating based on religion, former marital status, or whatever else they wish do not?

and of course i forgot... not supporting something means you're trying your damnnest to stop it and there must be something wrong with you... or so that's what i seem to be getting from this... that i must be a bad person because i don't see things the way others do.

am i right? not supporting the agenda means i'm a hater right?

No, but it would be nice if, rather than jumping to the claim that you're being called a hater (even though by some of the posts since that one it appears you're right about at least a few people), you'd address what appears to be a flaw in your reasoning. So far, you have not done so except to throw out race as being cultural rather than religious. (Which doesn't matter, as churches remain free to discriminate in who they marry based on whatever they wish.)

[jackfaire]

polygamy no matter what a religion says

Actually the government doesn't do anything about polygamy. Multiple marriages yes but they don't have any laws against people dating or living with more than one person as long as they don't try to legally marry more than one person.

[Mikkel]

I agree it would be better to use the same word. It's probably a political compromise, when it isn't called marriage, the religious won't vote against.
Perhaps after the autumn elections we will have another government in power.

There is a bit of background on Wikipedia.

[Andara Bledin]

In Denmark, as in many other countries, we have a civil right to be in a "registered partnership" which give all the legal rights as a traditional marriage. Inheritance and so on.

If it "has all the legal rights" then why not just call it a marriage and make it the same rather than make it separate, and thus, still able to be made not the same?

As long as same-gender couples are denied the right to have their "legal partnership" be a legal marriage in name and legal standing, there is still discrimination going on. Only in this case it becomes the quiet, insidious form of discrimination that so many refuse to believe even exists.

^-.-^

[Mikkel]

In Denmark, as in many other countries, we have a civil right to be in a "registered partnership" which give all the legal rights as a traditional marriage. Inheritance and so on.

A few churches chose to bless the partnership, others will only bless heterosexual marriages. It's up to the church and for instance in the Danish Peoples Church , the "official" church, it's the individual priest's decision.

To get back to Bert and Ernie. I can't see it matters more than Harry/Draco 'shippers. The makers of the series has spoken.

[Ladeeda]

Tax status has nothing to do with their beliefs, so long as a church remains non-profit.

Churches that actively donate to politicians or political movements should definitely lose their status.

And frankly, I've never seen a church that made enough to cover expenses use the extra for actual "godly" or charitable uses. And they are still tax exempt.

Pepper, you don't like gay marriage. Yes, you're a hater. It's not a matter of... whatever half-baked reasons you have for being against a civil right. The point is it IS a civil right people are being denied.

There is no logical, secular reason for anyone to be against gay marriage. Only religious based nonsense, and religion has no place in lawmaking. If it doesn't apply to atheists, it should not affect legal policy.

I have no use for the Bible except to steady a wobbly table. Why should your religious views apply to me?

[PepperElf]

But your other one still remains invalid and unsupported. Separation of church and state means the state will keep out of churchly matters (up to a certain point - they won't allow things such as human sacrifice and polygamy no matter what a religion says) and only stick there nose in when it goes beyond a purely churchly situation.

Ah... i see. when it goes beyond "churchy". that's why no one tried petitioning to have churches removed from tax-free status because of non-support. no one would ever try punishing a church like that after all. nope. no chance whatsoever of coming down on a church with the government over something like this.