Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Rogan Josh]

It is not a change at all.

I will not consider two gay men as "married" just like I don't consider the USA as "the land of the free". They can call themselves whatever they like as long as a government which is supposed to represent me does not sanction their opinion over mine.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
I believe you're being economical with the truth.

What have you been smoking....?

[Whaleboy]

RJ: You can call them whatever the hell you want, but in terms of how the state recognises marriage/civil unions, I do not see a discernable difference, and you as one subjective do not have the logical right to impose your views regarding definition upon another.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


The standard of states differ. California is usually pretty liberal.

Also, and its been mentioned before, the issue is largely a federal one rather than a state one... therefore the decision of a single state isn't helpful in this regard.

Tell me one state that forbids people from living together in a stable relationship regardless of formalities?

As to the Federal issue, we have the DoMA which prevents the Feds from recognizing "marriages" except those between one man and one woman. However, that act does not apply to domestic partnerships per se. In other words, Kalifornia domestic partners may already have all the rights that any married couple have.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


WHAT???



I believe you're being economical with the truth.

I'll just call it flat-out lying.

Why would you want to forbid non-religious institutions from performing marriages?

Is the government not a non-religious institution?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
*SNIP*

a government which is supposed to represent me

Oh... I see... its the government specifically for Rogan Josh... not for the people collectively.

Thanks for clearing that up, since you're the final arbiter of whats good and right {/sarcasm off}

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


They are separate conceptually... and I think rightly so.

I think its justified in the seperation of church and state clause.

Mr.Baggins, just in case you do not understand me, I am asking why two people cannot get married by simply agreeing to marry each other and then registering their marriage with the state?

[Kontiki]

Also, where did I bring up a restriction to religious groups? Your the one that wants to place restrictions on what the government will and will not recognize.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Oh... I see... its the government specifically for Rogan Josh... not for the people collectively.

Thanks for clearing that up, since you're the final arbiter of whats good and right {/sarcasm off}

So you don't think I have the right to an opinion on the matter now? Would you like to have the right to vote removed if part of a religious group?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Tell me one state that forbids people from living together in a stable relationship regardless of formalities?

As to the Federal issue, we have the DoMA which prevents the Feds from recognizing "marriages" except those between one man and one woman. However, that act does not apply to domestic partnerships per se. In other words, Kalifornia domestic partner may already have all the rights that any married couple have.

There are specific benefits given to married couples that aren't given to couples merely living together in a stable relationship... except for certain states that provide for common-in-law marriage (except that typically doesn't extend to homosexuals.)

Its true that there are legal inconsistencies right now, and I guess the state courts and eventually the federal courts will need to sort out these issues.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


So you don't think I have the right to an opinion on the matter now? Would you like to have the right to vote removed if part of a religious group?

You have the right to any spoken or written opinion that you wish*. As does everyone else, including gays. You alone do not define "the people".

* that does not infringe the civil liberties and rights of other citizens or incite others in that manner.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

*SNIP*economic with the truth

What have you been smoking....?

It's a diplomatic or political way of saying that someone is lying... Not that you'd know diplomacy or tact if it hit you.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Mr.Baggins, just in case you do not understand me, I am asking why two people cannot get married by simply agreeing to marry each other and then registering their marriage with the state?

The states each have their own ways of dealing with this, and in many ways, they are. The important question remains the federal issue, particularly with the "equal and fair representation" credo, and there being no fair representation with unfair taxation... essentially the founding principal of the country.

[Elok]

Huh...Ming, did you vote in my "Civil Unions for all" poll? If so, which way? Obviously you aren't against gay unions, I'm just wondering if you think my idea was a decent compromise. You seem to be a hermit-type debater, occasionally issuing out of your cave to tell somebody he's being stupid but otherwise staying silent...except for official moderator duties 'n'stuff. You might say I'm curious about the man behind the malevolent avatar.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


There are specific benefits given to married couples that aren't given to couples merely living together in a stable relationship... except for certain states that provide for common-in-law marriage (except that typically doesn't extend to homosexuals.)

Its true that there are legal inconsistencies right now, and I guess the state courts and eventually the federal courts will need to sort out these issues.

Mr.Baggins, my question remains. Why does the STATE have to issue licenses and have a formal ceremony, regardless of who conducts it, for a marriage to be validly formed?

Historically, that STATE was not invovled in legalizing marriages. Here is a link to the practice of the Romans.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa110700a.htm

Note, that everything was privately conducted. The state was not involved. The families of the bride and groom were. People could get married simply by living together for one year.