art by =saintchase

Theoryland Resources

WoT Interview Search

Search the most comprehensive database of interviews and book signings from Robert Jordan, Brandon Sanderson and the rest of Team Jordan.

Wheel of Time News

An Hour With Harriet

2012-04-30: I had the great pleasure of speaking with Harriet McDougal Rigney about her life. She's an amazing talent and person and it will take you less than an hour to agree.

The Bell Tolls

2012-04-24: Some thoughts I had during JordanCon4 and the upcoming conclusion of "The Wheel of Time."

Theoryland Community

Members: 7653

Logged In (0):

Newest Members:johnroserking, petermorris, johnadanbvv, AndrewHB, jofwu, Salemcat1, Dhakatimesnews, amazingz, Sasooner, Hasib123,

Theoryland Tweets

Forums

Home | Chat | Old Forums(Yuku)


Go Back   Theoryland of the Wheel of Time Forums > THEORYLAND STEDDINGS > Forum Archives > Archived - Non Wot Discussion Boards > Archived: Non WoT Related Discussion 09/2010 - 03/2012
User Name
Password

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-26-2011, 08:33 PM
Matoyak's Avatar
Matoyak Matoyak is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Texas - USA
Posts: 1,355
Matoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of light
Default Rick Perry Signs Anti Gay Marriage Pledge

Here's the link.

Been a while, guys. Full-time work + school + bills = busy busy. So I'm only kinda-sorta back, at best.

Saw this article, thought of TL, headed here, and didn't see it being discussed (kinda shocking, that).

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a fan of Perry, I haven't liked him as a governor for a while now. This incident only removed the respect I had for him as a person, is all.
So, basically, Rick Perry has signed a pledge saying he'll sign/push an amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Aside from obviously being a push to grab the bigot vote, this directly contradicts previous statements that he has made (all previous statements lean towards it being a states right's issue, even to the point of him implying he was OK with New York allowing it, regardless of his own viewpoints.

In my opinion, this shows him as being rather weak-willed, willing to back down, and well, a bigot himself.

Anyways, discuss. Curious as to what our international members think of this.
__________________
*Official Labrat of the TCA*
The Red Hand of Devil's End, the Blight of Bayside, the Filer of Forbidden Texts

[Gawyn] probably pops his collar. - Kivo
Mat's hat is a Darkfriend. - Daekyras
  #2  
Old 08-26-2011, 08:37 PM
Terez's Avatar
Terez Terez is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Corn
Posts: 21,128
Terez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Terez
Default

We discussed Rick Perry here. Turned into a discussion about the death penalty, of course.
__________________
Qui nos rodunt confundantur, et cum iustis non scribantur.
@Terez27
  #3  
Old 08-26-2011, 08:48 PM
Matoyak's Avatar
Matoyak Matoyak is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Texas - USA
Posts: 1,355
Matoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Well, that was about his running for president, this is specifically about his anti-gay marriage pledge. And, as you said, it devolved into a discussion about things unrelated, so I don't think it'd be a good idea to revive that one, yes?
__________________
*Official Labrat of the TCA*
The Red Hand of Devil's End, the Blight of Bayside, the Filer of Forbidden Texts

[Gawyn] probably pops his collar. - Kivo
Mat's hat is a Darkfriend. - Daekyras
  #4  
Old 08-26-2011, 08:48 PM
Terez's Avatar
Terez Terez is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Corn
Posts: 21,128
Terez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Terez
Default

Did I suggest reviving that one?
__________________
Qui nos rodunt confundantur, et cum iustis non scribantur.
@Terez27
  #5  
Old 08-26-2011, 08:50 PM
Matoyak's Avatar
Matoyak Matoyak is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Texas - USA
Posts: 1,355
Matoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Guess not, but then what was the point of bringing that discussion up then? As I said, I didn't see anyone discussing the anti-gay marriage pledge, which is what this thread is about. ~shrug~
__________________
*Official Labrat of the TCA*
The Red Hand of Devil's End, the Blight of Bayside, the Filer of Forbidden Texts

[Gawyn] probably pops his collar. - Kivo
Mat's hat is a Darkfriend. - Daekyras
  #6  
Old 08-26-2011, 08:56 PM
Terez's Avatar
Terez Terez is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Corn
Posts: 21,128
Terez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Terez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matoyak View Post
Guess not, but then what was the point of bringing that discussion up then?
I thought since you were a Texan and all, you might care what we had to say about him. *shrug*
__________________
Qui nos rodunt confundantur, et cum iustis non scribantur.
@Terez27
  #7  
Old 08-26-2011, 08:56 PM
Kimon's Avatar
Kimon Kimon is offline
Ancient
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,401
Kimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond repute
Default

How does a Republican presidential candidate making a gay-marriage-over-my-dead-body pledge register as a surprise? With the exception of Huntsman, none of their candidates seem to hold any reasonable stances (at least as far as a Dem would be concerned...), which of course means he is getting negligible support. I think it's a safe assumption that in the present climate, regardless of personal opinion (Though frankly with Perry I imagine this stance is genuine.), I reckon it a fair assumption that support of gay marriage would be a politically suicidal stance for any Republican in hope of winning primaries.
  #8  
Old 08-26-2011, 08:58 PM
Matoyak's Avatar
Matoyak Matoyak is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Texas - USA
Posts: 1,355
Matoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terez View Post
I thought since you were a Texan and all, you might care what we had to say about him. *shrug*
Ah, I see. In that case, thankee. I'll admit to already having a pretty hard-n-set opinion on him, but knowing others' opinions on his running for presidency is interesting.
__________________
*Official Labrat of the TCA*
The Red Hand of Devil's End, the Blight of Bayside, the Filer of Forbidden Texts

[Gawyn] probably pops his collar. - Kivo
Mat's hat is a Darkfriend. - Daekyras

Last edited by Matoyak; 08-26-2011 at 09:03 PM.
  #9  
Old 08-26-2011, 09:01 PM
Terez's Avatar
Terez Terez is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Corn
Posts: 21,128
Terez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond reputeTerez has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Terez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matoyak View Post
Ah, I see. In that case, thankee.
Any time.
__________________
Qui nos rodunt confundantur, et cum iustis non scribantur.
@Terez27
  #10  
Old 08-26-2011, 09:02 PM
Matoyak's Avatar
Matoyak Matoyak is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Texas - USA
Posts: 1,355
Matoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimon View Post
~snip~
You focus on it being a state's rights issue, and appeal to that aspect of conservatism, and prevent yourself from looking like a bigot. This was his previous stance, and one that is at least SOMEWHAT more palatable to the moderates. He is going against his previous statements, and revealing he's willing to change any of said previous stances in order to get elected, which shows him as very weak, and having to scrounge for any kind of a foothold, which I would view as being more damning in the end.

It's unusual for a presidential candidate to actively show themselves as a super-slimy politician, they normally let the opponents try to smear them.
__________________
*Official Labrat of the TCA*
The Red Hand of Devil's End, the Blight of Bayside, the Filer of Forbidden Texts

[Gawyn] probably pops his collar. - Kivo
Mat's hat is a Darkfriend. - Daekyras
  #11  
Old 08-26-2011, 09:10 PM
Kimon's Avatar
Kimon Kimon is offline
Ancient
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,401
Kimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matoyak View Post
You focus on it being a state's rights issue, and appeal to that aspect of conservatism, and prevent yourself from looking like a bigot. This was his previous stance, and one that is at least SOMEWHAT more palatable to the moderates. He is going against his previous statements, and revealing he's willing to change any of said previous stances in order to get elected, which shows him as very weak, and having to scrounge for any kind of a foothold, which I would view as being more damning in the end.

It's unusual for a presidential candidate to actively show themselves as a super-slimy politician, they normally let the opponents try to smear them.
Except he is fighting for the vote of the social conservatives, for whom such a ban would likely be viewed as an imperative. As such, his stance on this issue seems predictable, and far from out of the ordinary. He does however have other stated opinions that are much more out of the ordinary, namely his contention that senators should no longer be elected by the people, that supreme court justices should have limited tenure in office, and that decisions of the supreme court should be able to be overturned by congress. Those opinions seem, at least to an outsider (which I obviously am, as I'm a democrat), extreme even for a Republican. Supporting a ban on gay marriage on the other hand seems a mainstream Republican stance.
  #12  
Old 08-26-2011, 09:17 PM
Matoyak's Avatar
Matoyak Matoyak is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Texas - USA
Posts: 1,355
Matoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of lightMatoyak is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimon View Post
~snip~
Well, true. It's not a surprise, really, other than the fact that he's outright going against previous statements that he's said, which is to me pretty telling. It's so obviously a desperate dig for support that it's surprising anyone'd even fall for it.

(As an aside, I tend to avoid thinking in the Demo-Repub mindset, and tend to prefer talking on the Conserv/Libert/Util/Liberal kind of scale, but eh, that's just me.)

This election'll be the first I'm able to vote in...gunna be interesting. At this point, I'm more likely to vote against someone than for someone. :-/
__________________
*Official Labrat of the TCA*
The Red Hand of Devil's End, the Blight of Bayside, the Filer of Forbidden Texts

[Gawyn] probably pops his collar. - Kivo
Mat's hat is a Darkfriend. - Daekyras
  #13  
Old 08-26-2011, 09:31 PM
Kimon's Avatar
Kimon Kimon is offline
Ancient
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,401
Kimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond reputeKimon has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matoyak View Post

This election'll be the first I'm able to vote in...gunna be interesting. At this point, I'm more likely to vote against someone than for someone. :-/
It happens. I've been voting since '96, always for democrats. At times more out of a sense of loyalty and pragmatism than actually liking the candidate - as was the case in 2000 when I voted for Gore rather than Nader. I still remember us all huddling around the tele in Ann Arbor in 2000, and us all shaking our heads in disbelief that the country had actually elected Bush. How scary is it to think that he would now be by far the most palatable if in the current crop of Republicans...
  #14  
Old 08-26-2011, 10:24 PM
Sei'taer's Avatar
Sei'taer Sei'taer is offline
Inbred, Ugly, and Drunk on Corn Liquor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 5,505
Sei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond reputeSei'taer has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Gee whiz. I, for one, am incredibly surprised.

Were there midgets and back up dancers at this signing? Because I expect that to happen too.
__________________
Sei'taer
General of the Southern Border, Landogardner, Bringer of Pain, Theoryland Hillbilly




www.buckeyestation.com look at it, love it, share it with your friends!
  #15  
Old 08-27-2011, 02:13 AM
Res_Ipsa's Avatar
Res_Ipsa Res_Ipsa is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,915
Res_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant futureRes_Ipsa has a brilliant future
Default

Why does being "anti-homosexual marriage" make one a bigot? You realize you are just applying the standard in reverse. Calling someone bigoted because they do not conform to your standard of tolerance makes you a bigot. Dee Dee Dee.

I will go to my death bed saying people are allowed in this country to represent different views. You are no better than the ill you seek to proscribe with that language. Many fine people have fine moral reasons for disagreeing with homosexual marriage just as many fine people agree with homosexual marriage.
__________________
More fools know Jak Fool than Jak Fool knows!

" 'Looks like the game can be won after all,' [Mat] said. 'Tell the foxes I'm mighty pleased with this key they gave me. Also, you can all go rot in a flaming pit of fire and ashes, you unwashed lumps on a pig's backside. Have a grand bloody day.' "

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."
  #16  
Old 08-27-2011, 02:48 AM
The Unreasoner's Avatar
The Unreasoner The Unreasoner is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,382
The Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Whether I am a fine person or not is up for debate, but I am against gay marriage. And straight marriage. The State should allow for civil unions (gay and straight), but marriage is a religious institution. And separation of Church and State must be maintained, even strengthened. I don't want the State interfering with my beliefs or rituals, and I don't want my elected officials operating according to rules I am unfamiliar with.
__________________
Exfeuck? Not quite...
  #17  
Old 08-27-2011, 04:50 AM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,859
GonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unreasoner View Post
The State should allow for civil unions (gay and straight), but marriage is a religious institution.
Why is marriage a religious institution?
More specifically, why is it only a religious institution?

That's a serious question, by the way.
To give an idea of how much trouble you could find yourself in, consider baptism. One part of that is a religious name giving (or name acknowledgement, whatever). This would seem to mean that in the USA, the government is not allowed to get into the naming business. So the US government should immediately, and retro-actively, abolish all name-related laws, rules and so forth.

Or, alternatively, something can be both a religious institution and a secular one. In that case, the government can simply ignore baptisms (apart from issues like health and safety regulations and such). And the churches can ignore the theological question of whether or not a legal name change makes a previous baptism invalid.
And, similarly, religious marriage and secular marriage could be considered to be separate things. In that case, the government would have no say (beyond health and safety stuff and the like, again) on what or how religious marriages would take place. And at the same time, the government would base the laws of who could get married to whom purely on secular considerations, in which case there is no valid reason to object to gay marriage at all.

So, Unreasoner, do you object to the government requirement of providing a name for a newborn to be put on a birth certificate, and if not, why do you approve of your government interfering in the practice of baptism in that way?
  #18  
Old 08-27-2011, 05:30 AM
Zombie Sammael's Avatar
Zombie Sammael Zombie Sammael is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Too close to New South Wales
Posts: 3,225
Zombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Skype™ to Zombie Sammael
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat View Post
Why is marriage a religious institution?
More specifically, why is it only a religious institution?

That's a serious question, by the way.
To give an idea of how much trouble you could find yourself in, consider baptism. One part of that is a religious name giving (or name acknowledgement, whatever). This would seem to mean that in the USA, the government is not allowed to get into the naming business. So the US government should immediately, and retro-actively, abolish all name-related laws, rules and so forth.

Or, alternatively, something can be both a religious institution and a secular one. In that case, the government can simply ignore baptisms (apart from issues like health and safety regulations and such). And the churches can ignore the theological question of whether or not a legal name change makes a previous baptism invalid.
And, similarly, religious marriage and secular marriage could be considered to be separate things. In that case, the government would have no say (beyond health and safety stuff and the like, again) on what or how religious marriages would take place. And at the same time, the government would base the laws of who could get married to whom purely on secular considerations, in which case there is no valid reason to object to gay marriage at all.

So, Unreasoner, do you object to the government requirement of providing a name for a newborn to be put on a birth certificate, and if not, why do you approve of your government interfering in the practice of baptism in that way?
Name-giving is only one aspect of the Baptism ceremony. It's more of a pre-initiation into a religion, so it isn't really the same thing. The Unreasoner is (admirably) trying to separate the religious concept of marriage from the legal concept of union; unfortunately, the two are inextricably linked.

I can see absolutely no rational reason for not allowing gay marriage, other than to propagate discrimination and maintain heterosexual privilege. Disallowing it is comparable to miscegenation rules which were designed to discriminate against ethnic minorities. This is why, Res, sensible people equate being anti-gay marriage with a level of bigotry; it's not simply a matter of having a different opinion (which is fine), it's a matter of wanting to discriminate against members of a particular group with no rational basis other than that they are members of that group.
__________________
Sa souvraya niende misain ye

Master of the lightnings, rider on the storm,
wearer of a crown of swords, spinner out of fate.
Who thinks he turns the Wheel of Time,
may learn the truth too late.

Light is held before the maw of the infinite void, and all that he is can be seized.

The one who Death has known
  #19  
Old 08-27-2011, 05:40 AM
The Unreasoner's Avatar
The Unreasoner The Unreasoner is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,382
The Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat View Post
Why is marriage a religious institution?
More specifically, why is it only a religious institution?
To my knowledge, it began as a religious institution. And whenever it appears as a state function, it contaminates the political process. Politicians and religious groups try to inject their own views into public policy. And some religious definitions of marriage are really incompatible. Take polygamy, for instance. Some religions find the practice completely alien. Or other religions and gay marriage.

Denying state marriages to everyone is a fair and efficient way to shut everyone up.

Quote:
That's a serious question, by the way.
To give an idea of how much trouble you could find yourself in, consider baptism. One part of that is a religious name giving (or name acknowledgement, whatever). This would seem to mean that in the USA, the government is not allowed to get into the naming business. So the US government should immediately, and retro-actively, abolish all name-related laws, rules and so forth.
This isn't really my position. I recognize the need for names, and for State recognition of families.

Quote:
Or, alternatively, something can be both a religious institution and a secular one. In that case, the government can simply ignore baptisms (apart from issues like health and safety regulations and such). And the churches can ignore the theological question of whether or not a legal name change makes a previous baptism invalid.
Exactly. One doesn't have to be related to the other. And it would simplify the process for both classes of institutions.
Quote:
And, similarly, religious marriage and secular marriage could be considered to be separate things. In that case, the government would have no say (beyond health and safety stuff and the like, again) on what or how religious marriages would take place. And at the same time, the government would base the laws of who could get married to whom purely on secular considerations, in which case there is no valid reason to object to gay marriage at all.
Exactly. Gay people obviously exist, and all people are equal under the law. And so homosexuals should be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexuals. This includes rights concerning families (recognizing couples by granting civil unions, tax breaks, the right to adopt, being medical proxies, etc). The government would still protect the country's citizens: by denying tax-exempt status to scams, enforcing basic health codes/public safety codes, and prosecuting religious groups that are clearly harmful (by exploiting children, subjugating women, torturing animals, etc).
Quote:
So, Unreasoner, do you object to the government requirement of providing a name for a newborn to be put on a birth certificate, and if not, why do you approve of your government interfering in the practice of baptism in that way?
Baptism gives a baptismal name, a birth certificate gives a legal name. Most people will probably choose them to be the same, but everyone is free to choose otherwise.

I didn't know baptisms gave people names. And I call myself a Catholic. Shows how much I know...
__________________
Exfeuck? Not quite...
  #20  
Old 08-27-2011, 06:07 AM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,859
GonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unreasoner View Post
To my knowledge, it began as a religious institution.
Shows how much you know. Sorry, couldn't resist that.

Seriously, this is an area where state and religion have been intertwined, separated, twined again and so forth since (at the very least) the start of history.
But there is no reason at all to think there has ever been marriage in which the secular aspects (property, power) were any less important than the religious aspects (whatever those are).
This Wiki page talks about it. Of course, there's always the question of how accurate it is, but in general, no less accurate than most other sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter,[citation needed] with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required. However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, "It becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust."[21]
That suggests rather strongly that marriage wasn't a primarily religious institution as late as the second century AD, doesn't it?

If you want to go back even further, then you can look at the Egyptian Pharaohs who were having marriages of state for political reasons to daughters of neighbouring kings, and officiated at their own weddings since they themselves were gods. That's a neat combination of religious and secular marriage, isn't it?

Quote:
And whenever it appears as a state function, it contaminates the political process.
Can you prove this?
For instance, over here in the Netherlands we do have separation of religious and secular marriage. And I can't say that I see much evidence of such contamination around me.

Quote:
Denying state marriages to everyone is a fair and efficient way to shut everyone up.
That would also have been the case when the "mixed race marriage" was the conservative bogeyman. Yet then abolishing legal marriage was not a practical option at all, and neither is that the case now.

Quote:
This isn't really my position. I recognize the need for names, and for State recognition of families.
If you think about it, then you might also be able to recognise the need for legal unions, the need for State recognition of standardised legal unions, and the fact that since before religious marriage became a standard (see my Wiki quote), we've used secular marriage for this purpose.

Quote:
Exactly. Gay people obviously exist, and all people are equal under the law. And so homosexuals should be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexuals. This includes rights concerning families (recognizing couples by granting civil unions, tax breaks, the right to adopt, being medical proxies, etc). The government would still protect the country's citizens: by denying tax-exempt status to scams, enforcing basic health codes/public safety codes, and prosecuting religious groups that are clearly harmful (by exploiting children, subjugating women, torturing animals, etc).
That can be done, in this case, by making gay marriage legal. We know that works, it has been done plenty of times before.

There are no actual examples showing that abolishing legal marriage and replacing it by civil unions will work. None at all.

So, on the one hand we have a proven and approach to providing justice and equality for more people, on the other hand we have an unproven and probably impossible (from a practical viewpoint) pipe dream.
What reason can you offer for suggesting that the "civil unions for all" scheme could work?
I think that if you propose the abolition of (legal) marriage, that then a lot of religious people would vote against that. I do not see any reason to think it would be possible to get a majority for your approach, ever.

Quote:
Baptism gives a baptismal name, a birth certificate gives a legal name. Most people will probably choose them to be the same, but everyone is free to choose otherwise.
And the same could be true with legal marriage and religious marriage, of course. Why mix the two at all?

Quote:
I didn't know baptisms gave people names. And I call myself a Catholic. Shows how much I know...
Strictly speaking, the name you get at baptism is your "Christian name", and the name on the birth certificate would be your "first name" (and "second name", and so forth). For most Christians, the two are the same.
 

Tags
gay marriage, governor, politics, president, rick perry, rule 34


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.