www.ditl.org

Actually Graham that's what's being offered, by a sizable number of Republicans even, in the US. Already you have to get a marriage licence and such that operates on a seperate procedure from the religious part of the marriage. However it's still called "married" whether you get the court version or not. The push with Civil Unions is simply that it isn't called "marriage" for the gays.

The only part of your proposal that seems a bit ridiculous is the pastors having to perform civil unions for anybody. Now I could see requiring that of a court clerc or something. And it works that way for medical stuff. But I've got a government issued drivers licence, it means I could drive somebody around, doesn't mean I have to.

Actually on re-reading I suppose there is the legal troubles with polygamy, incest and inbreeding. Though I don't know that even Kendell would approve of some guy taking his daughter as his fifth wife. There are medical reasons for barring some of this stuff.

sunnyside wrote:
Actually on re-reading I suppose there is the legal troubles with polygamy, incest and inbreeding. Though I don't know that even Kendell would approve of some guy taking his daughter as his fifth wife. There are medical reasons for barring some of this stuff.

Yeah that's pushing the bounds of even my standards. That said if polygamy wasn't commonly linked with rape, abuse, incest and pedophillia I would be ok with it. I want my children to be happy and if she's happy with a healthy polygamist marriage than go nuts, though I'm not sure where she'd find such a thing. Polygamy is very rare here, perhaps due to our lack of Mormans.

I don't know if it'd be so prevalent today. But historically polygamy tends to result in a large number of men with no women to marry. Triditionally war is used to balance this out.

Though they're going to have a similar problem in China and India with all the infanticide of female babies.

Though I suppose in theory polygamy could acheive some balance and then it might not be so bad. (i.e. some women would have to have multiple husbands)

But we stray. The point being that civil unions are being offered, and I think will almost certainly come to pass, either that or marriage.

sunnyside wrote:
But we stray. The point being that civil unions are being offered, and I think will almost certainly come to pass, either that or marriage.

As has been pointed out, civil unions and marriage are identical. I have a civil union (we weren't married in a church or by a priest) and I have exactly the same rights as my in-laws who were married in a church. As Graham has pointed out, the only reason why certain groups are making a stink about it is because they want to impose their morality on others. Seeing as their under the illusion that 'marriage" is an excusively xtian institution, it seems that many of them aren't big history buffs.

I was married by a Byzantine Catholic priest and a Reformed Jewish rabbi, and they were recognized officially as being able to provide a mrriage legally - but we still had to document the cermeony and get a civil license. If religions oppose a gay marriage, why go through that part at all - just get the civil marriage... and call it a marriage. Differnetiating the terminology is just an excuse for "separate but equal" fallacy holders.

Cpl Kendall wrote: As has been pointed out, civil unions and marriage are identical. I have a civil union (we weren't married in a church or by a priest) and I have exactly the same rights as my in-laws who were married in a church. As Graham has pointed out, the only reason why certain groups are making a stink about it is because they want to impose their morality on others. Seeing as their under the illusion that 'marriage" is an excusively xtian institution, it seems that many of them aren't big history buffs.

They are identical except one is a "civil union" and one is a "marriage" a difference entirely of vowels and consenants, but it makes it a lot easier for a wide range of people to accept.

On a country issue. Do they already call them "civil unions" over in the UK? I mean if you go to the courthouse do you "get a civil union" or do you "get married".

sunnyside wrote:Actually Graham that's what's being offered, by a sizable number of Republicans even, in the US. Already you have to get a marriage licence and such that operates on a seperate procedure from the religious part of the marriage. However it's still called "married" whether you get the court version or not. The push with Civil Unions is simply that it isn't called "marriage" for the gays.

The only part of your proposal that seems a bit ridiculous is the pastors having to perform civil unions for anybody. Now I could see requiring that of a court clerc or something. And it works that way for medical stuff. But I've got a government issued drivers licence, it means I could drive somebody around, doesn't mean I have to.

I was under the impression that some states are proposing legislation to outlaw civil unions or anything "marriage-like".

And it still doesn't go as far as I suggested since I would have civil unions for other groups too - family, polygamy, whatever.

As for your complaint, in the system I proposed if you get a license to perform civil unions then you are a government employee, acting on the government's behalf. Refusing to perform the service on religious grounds would be no different from becoming a teacher in a state school and then trying to refuse to teach anybody except christians.

Though I don't know that even Kendell would approve of some guy taking his daughter as his fifth wife. There are medical reasons for barring some of this stuff.

As far as incest is concerned, I regard the medical thing as an excuse rather than a reason. It really doesn't stand up if you think about it.

sunnyside wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote: As has been pointed out, civil unions and marriage are identical. I have a civil union (we weren't married in a church or by a priest) and I have exactly the same rights as my in-laws who were married in a church. As Graham has pointed out, the only reason why certain groups are making a stink about it is because they want to impose their morality on others. Seeing as their under the illusion that 'marriage" is an excusively xtian institution, it seems that many of them aren't big history buffs.

They are identical except one is a "civil union" and one is a "marriage" a difference entirely of vowels and consenants, but it makes it a lot easier for a wide range of people to accept.

On a country issue. Do they already call them "civil unions" over in the UK? I mean if you go to the courthouse do you "get a civil union" or do you "get married".

Civil partnership. At least that was what my uncle's union to Gary was.

i think the idea of marriage in the government recognising sense should be run...by the government. No one else. Then the Religion can choose whether they recognise it and allow the RELIGIOUS marriage.

GrahamKennedy wrote:
As far as incest is concerned, I regard the medical thing as an excuse rather than a reason. It really doesn't stand up if you think about it.

Yeah, the results of incest don't show up until several generations of inbreeding have passed.

sunnyside wrote: They are identical except one is a "civil union" and one is a "marriage" a difference entirely of vowels and consenants, but it makes it a lot easier for a wide range of people to accept.

F*ck'em, if they want to stand in the way of progress than they can get run over by it. Marriage existed before christians got their hands on it and it will be around after their faith dies, lets not give them any more power over our lives than is required.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:
As far as incest is concerned, I regard the medical thing as an excuse rather than a reason. It really doesn't stand up if you think about it.

Yeah, the results of incest don't show up until several generations of inbreeding have passed.

And the fact that people don't really care about babies inheriting bad genes anyway. As evidenced by the fact that it's perfectly legal for people with any number of genetic conditions to marry and have children together.

GrahamKennedy wrote:
And the fact that people don't really care about babies inheriting bad genes anyway. As evidenced by the fact that it's perfectly legal for people with any number of genetic conditions to marry and have children together.

Exactly.

I believe the cahnces of having some sort of deformed baby either physically or mentally is 2%. Inbreeding with first degree family only bumps that up to 4%.

Teaos wrote:I believe the cahnces of having some sort of deformed baby either physically or mentally is 2%. Inbreeding with first degree family only bumps that up to 4%.

Off topic really but the chances got up as you repeat the process.

The not denying it to other people is due to the reluctance to deny someone the right to marry or have kids at all.

However that father and daughter are able to marry just about anybody else.

Also I'm betting in practice most cases of incest involve some F@#%ed up stuff to boot.

I suppose they don't apply that reluctance to gays because they feel if the gays just need to decide to be straight and get married and have kids like other people. I dunno. Does a significant part of the population still believe everybody is bisexual or straight?

sunnyside wrote:What, so I'm a bad Christian if I'm not beating some gays with a tire iron or something? Or at least legislating against them? And at least the Christians aren't just killing gays outright like some other countries out there.

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this in terms of Christian bashing. Because a lot of you rather like it and its trendy in the US and UK at the moment.

So lets try this for an example. Lets say that there was some BS law regarding pork producers and I started a thread about it. Then partway through we start going on like:

Person1: F*&$ THE JEWS!

Person2: Bastards always using their power to mess with people not doing dancing from their strings.

Person3: They and their sky fairy are just stupid.

Now, Mikey is a pretty reasonaly guy. For all I know he enjoys some pork chops now and then, or at least wouldn't support a ridiculous law even if it might shave a little off the cost of foods he does enjoy.

But how do you think the above would make him feel in regard to this issue? Do you think that will make him more likely to support Person1-3s cause?

Now granted this is just a web forum and you aren't trying to change someones position. But the crap in this thread leaks out all too often and I have to imagine it sets people who would otherwise be willing to live and let live against the cause.

Alright first off Sunny--- one of the things you folks on the let's say conservative side of things tend to do is take something you all do or embrace, or at least refuse to outright disown publicly, which is unpopular, and write it off as "well it's trendy to bash x." Whether x is the south, rednecks, jingoism, Christianity, being white, being rich, whatever.

Let's not presume just because you sense some bias regarding organized political Christianity in the U.S., or the practice of intolerance by many Christians in the U.S., that we're all just part of the latest trend. Many of us have had very unpleasant dealings with the Christian religion be it because of our faith (or lack thereof), our lifestyles or whatever other reason. Christianity, both individual and political, has a bad reputation in the United States and it's a well-earned one. Yes they aren't beheading gay people publicly in the street but black churches in the South do get bombed with some regularlity and for awhile there people were afraid to go to work at medical clinics that performed any preventive birth procedures. And certainly a lot of gay people in the United States have spent time in intensive care units after severe beatings although I will grant we can't scapegoat Christianity as a religion for that. Certainly a lot of people who never step foot in church on Sunday can't stand those homos always shoving it in your face (translation: existing.)

That said, I think no one here would come out and say Christianity itself is bad or evil, at least not in any way that every organized religion isn't. I don't think someone is a bad person for being Christian or has to be a bad person in order to follow Christian values or teachings. But I do think that Christian values and teachings have been utterly hijacked in this country by hatemongers and exploited for political purposes and thinly veiled propagation of political ideology under the umbrella of tax-exempt "Family Values" organizations or other church parapolitical organizations. I think that if you aren't out to hate on someone or try to persecute some type of behavior you dislike religiously by making it illegal, you are probably one of those Christians who doesn't have a lot to do with organized religion. You may not even go to Church. The Christians I have run into in the U.S. who don't attend Church at all but believe in God and consider themselves to be believers just sort of shake their head and shrug and talk about how bad it is that people who really don't follow any of Christ's teachings of love,f orgiveness and compassion are "in charge" of Christianity in America.

I'm not really against Christians or Christianity, but I am definitely against the ideology in the U.S. with political ambitions which guises itself as "the oppressed silent majority of moral values Americans." I don't think any of the Christians I know would tell you that I have ever treated them badly in any way, but there are certainly people with microphones and media networks and talk radio influence who would be quick to tell you that someone who's against veiled hate groups (usually "Family Values" is somewhere in the title) is out to make Christianity illegal or is against all Christian faith, and stopping people from banning abortion or excluding gays from the right to marry in a Constitutional amendment would just be their first step in making church or prayer illegal. Perhaps ironically these are the same sort of people who want to forbid teaching evolution in the classroom or at least subjugate it in science books to creationism and intelligent design. Their agenda looks and feels an awful lot like theocracy given that if you took them at face value they think they are just victims whose faith is under attack left and right in America from atheist persecution.

Duskofdead wrote: Alright first off Sunny--- one of the things you folks on the let's say conservative side of things tend to do is take something you all do or embrace, or at least refuse to outright disown publicly, which is unpopular, and write it off as "well it's trendy to bash x." Whether x is the south, rednecks, jingoism, Christianity, being white, being rich, whatever.

I don't know about "write it off". Also while I don't know that you meant it bad be careful with the "you all do or embrace" business. I'm not really that conservative. But even conservatives aren't all those things.

Also it is trendy to bash/make fun of most of those things. Even Cheney makes fun of the south. And making fun of rednecks is pretty much Jeff Foxworthys entire career (though he does do it well).

At a basic level there are certain things everyone can make fun of/bash in the US and still be reasonably PC, and a bunch of other things that will get you in trouble unless you belong to that subtype. And one of the things its general OK to bash/make jokes about, especially in urban areas, is Christianity. Whereas you'd get awkward moments saying similar stuff about other specific religions.

But the only point I had bringing it up was that I'd probably have to make an example using something that was less PC.

you are probably one of those Christians who doesn't have a lot to do with organized religion. You may not even go to Church.

I don't get to one as often as perhaps I should but I don't think going to church makes you a bad or hateful person.

Alright here lets get some specifics. If I had to pick one denomonation that I tend to prefir and belong to it'd be ELCA Lutherans. This isn't a fringe group. Its the seventh largest denomination in the US with about five million members.

And we even allow gays to be pastors as long as they're in "faithful committed same-gender relationships."

You've had people like http://www.lcna.org/ for some time. And I'm given to understand that our runaway homeless shelters are in part geared and trained to support kids who came out, and had it go really bad.

But yeah. Organized religion bastards all of us. Gotta just lump everyone in together. Every Christian that goes to church is an Evangelical Babtist who hates gays.