• Anti-Gay Marriage Groups Aim to Keep Transparency Out of the Court
    97 replies, posted
[QUOTE=KestasLT;19491393]Marriage itself is a religious bond The contract that comes with marrage can be arranged WITHOUT IT[/QUOTE] This. We have registered partnership in Czech Republic. Gays can have all their social benefits from marriage, while church has nothing to do with it. Everybody is happy.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;19499764]This. We have registered partnership in Czech Republic. Gays can have all their social benefits from marriage, while church has nothing to do with it. Everybody is happy.[/QUOTE] Win/Win. Except if one of the persons in the relationship wants a excuse to wear a big dress.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;19494574]"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Read it again. Okay? Good. Letting a church marry someone and give them legal rights is respecting the establishment of religion.[/QUOTE] No, because you don't have to get married in any church. Marriage is purely a legal matter, thus you can do it wherever you like provided you or someone fills out the appropriate paperwork. As such, any place where you can get married, such as a church is well within their rights to deny doing this for you, and can deny holding the ceremony. The issue is that these legal documents in many areas in America are limited to male+female couples, thus it's irrelevant where you go because you can't be legally recognized. The other issue is that in America, churches get a lot of tax breaks which is in effect an endorsement from the government, this is fine, because it's not just churches that get this, but if they continue to deny gay couples to marry then that can be seen as the government endorsing such discrimination which is where the problem lies. If churches wish to keep their tax breaks then they must allow all legal marriages, if they wish to stand by stoning of gays then they should get these breaks revoked.
[QUOTE=Darkcoder;19500494]No, because you don't have to get married in any church. Marriage is purely a legal matter, thus you can do it wherever you like provided you or someone fills out the appropriate paperwork. As such, any place where you can get married, such as a church is well within their rights to deny doing this for you, and can deny holding the ceremony. The issue is that these legal documents in many areas in America are limited to male+female couples, thus it's irrelevant where you go because you can't be legally recognized. The other issue is that in America, churches get a lot of tax breaks which is in effect an endorsement from the government, this is fine, because it's not just churches that get this, but if they continue to deny gay couples to marry then that can be seen as the government endorsing such discrimination which is where the problem lies. If churches wish to keep their tax breaks then they must allow all legal marriages, if they wish to stand by stoning of gays then they should get these breaks revoked.[/QUOTE] Churches generally do something that is "deserving" of a tax break. Believe it or not most churches do good for the community, the Catholic Church in particular helps tons of homeless people with shelters and soup kitchens. That is why they get tax breaks in most cases, because they spend a lot of money to charitable and noble causes.
[QUOTE=KestasLT;19491223]Why do you care bout marriage? It's a religious bond I know there are a lot of legal benefits, but they can be arranged without marriage + those legal benefits are mostly for families that can have kids.[/QUOTE] Think of the children! Seriously. It helps with divorces and stuff if there's marriage, bonding, or whatever you call it. [editline]12:36PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Spacewolf;19491448]Fuck marriage anyways, why do you need some legal thing telling you that you love someone?[/QUOTE] 1. Have sex with woman 2. Leave woman and have no obligations to the child. There are many other reasons as well, including the fact that the majority of the world [i]is[/i] religious.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;19500742]Think of the children! Seriously. It helps with divorces and stuff if there's marriage, bonding, or whatever you call it.[/QUOTE] Plus gay couples have kids anyways, you ever hear of surrogates and adoption?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;19493652]No. Allowing a religious group to issue legal rights is a joining of church and state and is a violation of the US constitution. I'm not an American citizen however, for the record.[/QUOTE] Well, the problem is already solved. Religious marriage counts for nothing but ceremony in the U.S. You need to get it official from the government. [editline]12:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;19500769]Plus gay couples have kids anyways, you ever hear of surrogates and adoption?[/QUOTE] What is a surrogate? Bruce Willis?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19500690]Churches generally do something that is "deserving" of a tax break. Believe it or not most churches do good for the community, the Catholic Church in particular helps tons of homeless people with shelters and soup kitchens. That is why they get tax breaks in most cases, because they spend a lot of money to charitable and noble causes.[/QUOTE] Indeed, though I wouldn't use the catholic church as a good example, with the whole saying condoms cause AIDS in 3rd world countries and delaying shipment of them and other good stuff. I'd personally prefer to only give such benefits to secular organizations, at least that way you know they don't have some agenda like trying to get into 'heaven' through their actions, but I guess most philanthropists are just generally good people.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;19500806]Well, the problem is already solved. Religious marriage counts for nothing but ceremony in the U.S. You need to get it official from the government. [editline]12:40PM[/editline] What is a surrogate? Bruce Willis?[/QUOTE] It's basically when a guy pays a girl to have his child. The child goes to the guy and the chick gets a nice check from the deal. [editline]07:02AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19500832]Indeed, though I wouldn't use the catholic church as a good example, with the whole saying condoms cause AIDS in 3rd world countries and delaying shipment of them and other good stuff. I'd personally prefer to only give such benefits to secular organizations, at least that way you know they don't have some agenda like trying to get into 'heaven' through their actions, but I guess most philanthropists are just generally good people.[/QUOTE] Even if they are "trying to get into heaven" with their good deeds that doesn't make it bad. No one gives unless they have something to gain, even if the gain is that warm fuzzy feeling from helping another person. I have mixed feelings about the Catholic Church(for that whole condom deal in particular), but saying they do nothing good is untrue.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19500835]Even if they are "trying to get into heaven" with their good deeds that doesn't make it bad. No one gives unless they have something to gain, even if the gain is that warm fuzzy feeling from helping another person. I have mixed feelings about the Catholic Church(for that whole condom deal in particular), but saying they do nothing good is untrue.[/QUOTE] Who said they do nothing good? Also, someone's motivations for doing something in my opinion is almost as important as the end result, aka: the ends don't justify the means in all cases. I'd much rather respect someone who does philanthropic work because of that 'warm fuzzy feeling', than they read some 2k year old book and as a result cherry picked the 'good' stuff and decides to act on that. Seeing as the former is an actual honest effort, whereas the 2nd is being deluded and indirectly being told what to do for fear of some infinite punishment. Also, I'm sure the Vatican could sell all their crap and solve world hunger for the next millennia.
[QUOTE=Darkcoder;19500977]Who said they do nothing good? Also, someone's motivations for doing something in my opinion is almost as important as the end result, aka: the ends don't justify the means in all cases. I'd much rather respect someone who does philanthropic work because of that 'warm fuzzy feeling', than they read some 2k year old book and as a result cherry picked the 'good' stuff and decides to act on that. Seeing as the former is an actual honest effort, whereas the 2nd is being deluded and indirectly being told what to do for fear of some infinite punishment. Also, I'm sure the Vatican could sell all their crap and solve world hunger for the next millennia.[/QUOTE] I was just making a point. I really don't care [i]why[/i] someone does something if it's beneficial to the community, if everyone stopped giving because they didn't care about going to heaven then there wouldn't be much charity left in the world. That's most people's ultimate motivation.
Please stop talking about religion now. You haven't done anything yet, but it will cause an argument, and it's derailing the thread.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;19501032]Please stop talking about religion now. You haven't done anything yet, but it will cause an argument, and it's derailing the thread.[/QUOTE] Isn't the thread about religion to an extent? Since the people for prop 8 mostly support it for religious reasons?
[QUOTE=dual elites;19491139]fuck yeah religion, they're powerful when they're on our side :dance:[/QUOTE] Except that the fucking Mormons have more money to throw on this shit than they do.
[QUOTE=Majache;19501052]Except that the fucking Mormons have more money to throw on this shit than they do.[/QUOTE] i dont get it how the hell does the mormons have more money to throw on than the Jews? this is confusing.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19500999]I was just making a point. I really don't care [I]why[/I] someone does something if it's beneficial to the community, if everyone stopped giving because they didn't care about going to heaven then there wouldn't be much charity left in the world. That's most people's ultimate motivation.[/QUOTE] Can you elaborate on this? As I don't understand how anyone can hold this position. Where do you draw the line between caring about someone's motivations and not? For example, if you were rich and some woman married you and you both lived happily, if she later told you that she only married you because she was a gold digger, you wouldn't care? There are plenty more good examples, but the best is probably the catholic church because while they do help certain groups, i.e. the homeless as you mentioned, they also hurt others because of the very same beliefs that caused them to care about the former. So how do you resolve this conflict? They help one group while indirectly killing another(spreading condom myths), as well as limiting the rights of others(gays) and don't forget hiding paedophile preists from the legal system, all because of their beliefs. Isn't it simply better if they lost the religious beliefs and did something good simply because they want to? There are people who do good things without religious motivation, and good people are still good people regardless of religion, thus I'm not sure the disparity between the two is really that great, or even there at all. I would consider myself more moral than a lot of religious people I've known/talked to simply because my morals are based on observation of the world, and logic, not what a book says I should do. As such, I can't respect people who do things because of their religious beliefs, as they are nothing more than deluded and not doing something for good reason. If they had good reason then they wouldn't need religion.
[quote]According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), [b]there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.[/b] These rights and responsibilities [b]apply only to male-female married couples[/b], as the 1996 [b]Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.[/b] [/quote] [quote] [b]Rights and benefits[/b] * Right to benefits while married: o employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges o per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating o Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances) o sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits * Larger benefits under some programs if married, including: o veteran's disability o Supplemental Security Income o disability payments for federal employees o medicaid o property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans o income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates o wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3] * Joint and family-related rights: o joint filing of bankruptcy permitted o joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records o family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison o next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims o custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce o domestic violence intervention o access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods * Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs * Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses. * Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens * Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime * Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse * Court notice of probate proceedings * Domestic violence protection orders * Existing homestead lease continuation of rights * Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption * Funeral and bereavement leave * Joint adoption and foster care * Joint tax filing * Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society * Legal status with stepchildren * Making spousal medical decisions * Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver * Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation * Right of survivorship of custodial trust * Right to change surname upon marriage * Right to enter into prenuptial agreement * Right to inheritance of property * Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege) * For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including: o Social Security pension o veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing o survivor benefits for federal employees o survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers o additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease o $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty o continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits o renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse o continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances o payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death o making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts [/quote] Sauce: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States[/url]
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;19501319]i dont get it how the hell does the mormons have more money to throw on than the Jews? this is confusing.[/QUOTE] Hey, you're right. At that, why can't the Jews just suck all the pro 8'ers up their giant jew noses? Or maybe they could hide the ballot box in one of their secret jew caves where they keep their jew gold. None of this is consistent with reality.
Who cares, they can still live together and pretend they're married so what difference does it make?
[QUOTE=Dyson6;19501561]Who cares, they can still live together and pretend they're married so what difference does it make?[/QUOTE] yeah who needs all those benefits bestowed upon the married it's all hooey just pretend you have marital benefits
[QUOTE=Darkcoder;19501470]Can you elaborate on this? As I don't understand how anyone can hold this position. Where do you draw the line between caring about someone's motivations and not? For example, if you were rich and some woman married you and you both lived happily, if she later told you that she only married you because she was a gold digger, you wouldn't care? There are plenty more good examples, but the best is probably the catholic church because while they do help certain groups, i.e. the homeless as you mentioned, they also hurt others because of the very same beliefs that caused them to care about the former. So how do you resolve this conflict? They help one group while indirectly killing another(spreading condom myths), as well as limiting the rights of others(gays) and don't forget hiding paedophile preists from the legal system, all because of their beliefs. Isn't it simply better if they lost the religious beliefs and did something good simply because they want to? There are people who do good things without religious motivation, and good people are still good people regardless of religion, thus I'm not sure the disparity between the two is really that great, or even there at all. I would consider myself more moral than a lot of religious people I've known/talked to simply because my morals are based on observation of the world, and logic, not what a book says I should do. As such, I can't respect people who do things because of their religious beliefs, as they are nothing more than deluded and not doing something for good reason. If they had good reason then they wouldn't need religion.[/QUOTE] I agree, to an extent. What I mean to say is that if someone does something good, I am not as concerned about the motivation behind it. The thing I think should happen is that the churches get rewarded for doing good for the community(like the tax breaks they get), while they would get punished for bad stuff they do. I agree there are good people out there but a large percentage of people who do good do it for religious reasons(they want to please their god so they put extra money in the collection jar at church, or give to a church sponsored charity). If they do good I am not going to hate them for doing it for a bad reason.
[QUOTE=KestasLT;19491223]Why do you care bout marriage? It's a religious bond I know there are a lot of legal benefits, but they can be arranged without marriage + those legal benefits are mostly for families that can have kids.[/QUOTE] No it's not, it's a legal bond that implicates an intimate connection. People make their own meaning of it, you can't just say "it's religious" and be done with it.
[QUOTE=KestasLT;19491223]Why do you care bout marriage? It's a religious bond[/QUOTE] So we're assuming that gay people can't be religious? Some people are religious [B]AND[/B] gay.
[QUOTE=fenwick;19502515]So we're assuming that gay people can't be religious? Some people are religious [B]AND[/B] gay.[/QUOTE] A lot of Christian Churches don't want gays.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19502543]A lot of Christian Churches don't want gays.[/QUOTE] Yes, I know, but some of them don't care. You don't have to go to a Christian church (or any church for that matter) to be religious anyway.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19502543]A lot of Christian Churches don't want gays.[/QUOTE]Is Christianity the only religion that is allowed to marry people now?
[QUOTE=evilweazel;19490844]I'm pretty sure most of the people who oppose it just don't agree with it, not fearful of it.[/QUOTE] That's not what homophobic means and you know it. Homophobe technically means fear of the same, but we use it in context to mean "people-who-are-really-horrible-to-gay-people" [editline]09:57PM[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;19500690]Churches generally do something that is "deserving" of a tax break. Believe it or not most churches do good for the community, the Catholic Church in particular helps tons of homeless people with shelters and soup kitchens. That is why they get tax breaks in most cases, because they spend a lot of money to charitable and noble causes.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and recently the Catholic Church was threatening to withdraw its soup kitchens from Washington if they voted in favour of gay marriage. It shows you how much they [i]actually[/i] care about the poor and needy if they're ready to just subjugate them to political pawns.
[QUOTE=Splurgy;19512448]That's not what homophobic means and you know it. Homophobe technically means fear of the same, but we use it in context to mean "people-who-are-really-horrible-to-gay-people" [editline]09:57PM[/editline] Yeah, and recently the Catholic Church was threatening to withdraw its soup kitchens from Washington if they voted in favour of gay marriage. It shows you how much they [i]actually[/i] care about the poor and needy if they're ready to just subjugate them to political pawns.[/QUOTE] Well, at least they have soup kitchens. It's a private organization, technically a nation. They can do whatever they want.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;19512915]Well, at least they have soup kitchens. It's a private organization, technically a nation. They can do whatever they want.[/QUOTE] The Catholic church isn't a nation. The Vatican is a nation, but the churches on American soil are under American jurisdiction. They're not embassies.
[QUOTE=Splurgy;19512448] Yeah, and recently the Catholic Church was threatening to withdraw its soup kitchens from Washington if they voted in favour of gay marriage. It shows you how much they [I]actually[/I] care about the poor and needy if they're ready to just subjugate them to political pawns.[/QUOTE] I thought the whole deal was over forcing the Catholic Church to hire gays, not gay marriage.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.