Mitch Evans stated on another thread:
“Unfortunate, but true. There are no easy answers to to the question of divorce, either, but that’s another topic for another time…”
So I figured, let’s make this another time. Sure there’s an easy answer for the question of divorce. There’s always an easy answer for everything; that’s why they’re so attractive.
The easy answer for divorce is the same answer for gay marriage: ban it. Make it illegal. You want a divorce? Not in our country, Sunny Jim. Save the children. Save the family. Ban divorce.
So many people claim that being opposed to gay marriage has nothing, no NOTHING to do with the same type of prejudice that once prohibited marriage between blacks and whites or Jew and Catholic. Heavens no. It has to do with concern over saving marriage itself, even though not one shred of evidence has been produced indicating that gay marriage would somehow threaten straight marriage.
There’s the simple answer, then. Ban divorce. Put it on the voting referendums of every single state that banned gay marriage, watch it go down and flames, and expose them for the screaming hypocrites that they are.
Anybody else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism?
PAD
• 
You know, no matter what arguments I read, I keep coming back to one question. Why is the state even involved in the institution of marriage in the first place? Why is a government license required? Since the state incurs a beaurocratic expense by regulating marriage, there must be some benefit either to society or to the government that makes that regulation of marriage worth its while. What is that interest?
The simple fact that the state requires a marriage license in order for a marriage to be recognized suggests to me that marriage is not a fundamental right, but a privilege bestowed on some segment of its citizenship. In that case, the question of gay marriage becomes one of whether or not to extend that privilege to an additional segment of the population.
If granting marriage licenses to homosexual couples meets the government’s interest in regulating the state institution of marriage, then it seems that the state should extend that privilege.
So, again, what is that interest?
Okay, so maybe it was ultimately more than one question…
No advocate of gay marriage is saying that any priest should be forced to marry gay people.
I am sure there is an advocate somewhere, but I understand you mean most. The fear is not based on what is said, but on the belief that this would be the next step. The same logic happens the other way around. There are some who oppose any restrictions at all on abortion (such as on the partial birth abortion procedure) because they fear it is just a way to eventually ban all abortion.
The reality is, some *will* try to force a church to perform a gay marriage. That doesn’t mean they will win, but they can sure tie a church up for years paying legal fees. It has already happened with other issues. So this fear has a legitimate basis in reality.
Iowa Jim
You know, no matter what arguments I read, I keep coming back to one question. Why is the state even involved in the institution of marriage in the first place?
I agree that is a good question. But before you answer that question, you have to answer the question of how you determine rights in the first place. Whatever you do, you *are* making a moral statement. The question is how do you decide what moral statement to make? Are there some fundamental rights that are natural (dare I say, God given)? Or are rights only bestowed by society? Until those questions are resolved, both sides will talk past each other all day long.
Iowa Jim
Robbnn,
1) A slave could survive on his or her own, and in virtually all cases had a very clear preference for doing so.
A baby cannot without help for years. Do you think abortion should be allowed after birth?
A baby can be transferred to someone else’s care. A fetus cannot. (This is why viability is such a huge issue.)
To answer your direct question — no, certainly not.
Government takes its income from the people in stewardship for the people. The government should not take my money and fund things I think are wrong with the exception of national defense.
As others asked, why except national defense? If private institutions can handle the helping of strangers, surely they can also handle the killing of them.
And you’re proposing a “cafeteria” model of government, where you get to choose what things your money funds and what things it doesn’t. If you want to opt for that, it’ll work both ways: my money, for example, would be withheld from all military endeavors (at least until somebody competent is in charge and I can be relatively confident that I’m not being lied to repeatedly and contemptuously), faith-based institutions, any form of corporate subsidies, the failed “war on drugs”, any and all lobbyists that suck at the government teat, and any number of other things.
I suggest you not pull that particular trigger unless you know which way the gun’s pointed.
The government should provide for national defense, traffic infrastructure, crime prevention and apprehension (including fraud). I’m okay with FEMA type emergency aid, but schooling and welfare should be private institutions. Some regulation of education is fine, and some for business and environment. Combine this with the Fair Tax instead of our current tax system and that’s the broad strokes of my view of government.
What the heck is the “Fair Tax”? That’s not being snide — I’ve never heard of it.
As to the rest — it’s a consistent view, to be sure. I strongly disagree with it, but it is consistent.
I would argue, however, that marriage is not on your list of things government should be handling or regulating. Doesn’t that mean gay marriage would officially fall into the “none of my business” column for you?
Iowa Jim:
The reality is, some *will* try to force a church to perform a gay marriage.
You have no proof of that — a deep-seated belief, yes, but no evidence. Has any group said they intend to do this?
And isn’t it just as likely that the gay community would be satisfied with legal sanction and leave various religious faiths to their own choices?
Oh, right. I forgot. Gay activists are lurking behind every corner with Christian babies in their teeth. My mistake.
TWL
We’re 100+ messages in. That pig singing yet?
How many causes have you “put your money where your mouth is”? Have you fought for every belief you espouse? Have you given money to every organization that also espouses it? If not, then you aren’t living up to your own standard.
By that standard, since you oppose the war, you should be in Iraq and fighting against the US. Otherwise you aren’t putting your money where your mouth is. If the US is wrong, why aren’t you willing to fight to oppose it?
Everyone chooses their battles. For example, when the tsunami hit, people gladly gave to Tsunami Relief Funds everywhere, and this is a good thing. We took a different route, though. Rather than give to the tsunami-specific funds, we gave to general relief funds. More people have died from poverty/disease since the tsunami than perished on that one day. By your standard, though, I guess I should have taken a leave of absence to go feed the children myself.
Your standard is all but impossible to live up to.
No, it
Oops. Put the tags in the wrong place. Oh, well.
Sorry to burst your smugness balloon, but Craig himself tied the two proposals together.
Sorry to burst your own balloon, but no, he didn’t.
I’d repeat it again with more clarity if I thought you’d listen, but really, there’s no point, is there…?
Because society isn’t supposed to come up with compelling reasons to “allow” something. In a free society, that’s unnecessary. Society is supposed to come up with compelling reasons to PREVENT something.
Well, no that’s not quite true either. Society is supposed to act in its own best interest.. It promotes those things that further those interests, thus the reason for marriage and why it is between a man and woman. That’s not discrimination, that’s biology.
And the fact is that there is not a shred of evidence that indicates gay marriage would damage the commonweal. None. That it would either act as a deterrent to heterosexual union or would somehow foster the breakdown of those unions.
The truth is that marriage is a state of mind. One that can be changed with a definition, and what you propose that society do is to redefinewhat the purpose of marriage is for.
You’re are right, though, in saying that by and of itself, gay marriage won’t cause the downfall of marriage any more that allowing dogs to marry or multiple spouses. It is, however, another nail in the coffin if the idea of marriage because it moves us even closer to the point where marriage is irrelevant or worse, a joke. The final nail would probably be to give unmarried couples the same rights and benefits as married couples. which I believe is the whole point behind domestic partnerships and civil unions, which I also oppose.
In fact, I predict that when, not if, gays finally get the right to marry, unmarried couples will move to ask for those same benefits based on, you guessed it, discrimination.
So the bigots cling desperately to their eroding position, claiming that being called on their bigotry is unfair and still not offering any proof–other than their opinion–that society is threatened by gay marriage. Only their own bigotry is threatened, because bottom line, they hate gays and don’t want to see them accorded equality.
What eroding position? All you, (and your posse is starting to take up the clarion call) have done is call people names.
“Oh yeah? Well… well you’re just a bigot and a doody head!”
With insightful reasoning like that behind it, its a wonder anyone could stand up to that withering retort. (Well, okay, I haven’t actually seen “doody head” appear… yet)
Which is SOP. Black men serving beside white men in the military, black men playing baseball with white men, was greeted with the same hostility and ignorance. Fortunately, history shows that in the long run, the bigots tend to lose as more enlightened thinking replaces theirs.
Yeah, well, history tends to lie a lot. And it’s usually written with a biased point of view. And history also tends to show that not all “enlightened” decisions were all that smart.
The only question remaining in its inevitability is…which side of history do you want to be on? The side that realizes progress must be made in society in order to reflect developing thinking? Or the side lobbying against change while citing tired old saws of how the republic will fall if the status quo is allowed to change.
Let’s see, which side was it that said the Roman Empire would fall and was proven right?
Still, quips aside, I’m not against all change, PAD, but then again, all change isn’t good.
\\”It was only marriages between Blacks and Whites that caused a real problem, and even that wasn’t a big problem as long as it was a white man and black female.”\\
Yet until the late 1950’s it was illegal in several states until overturned by the Supreme Court.
At the turn of the last century people were calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw black & white marriages for all the same reasons people today want to outlaw gay marriages.
* They would destroy the sanctity of marriage,
* Marriages would lose their value,
* It was a sin against the bible,
* It would lead to the downfall of civilization.
The only difference in arguments between then & now is the matter of procreation.
\\”White men had had black mistresses for centuries.”\\
A mistress isn’t a wife.
\\In fact, the legal cases that were tried were NEVER for trying to GIVE two people of different races tthe right to marry, it was for trying to TAKE IT AWAY.\\
The legal cases were to end laws banning the marriages. They were instituted by the state(s) when arresting & trying people for attempting to enter a marriage that was outlawed.
\\1 Corinthians 6:9 being a good example\\
It says adulterers & sexual perverts. It doesn’t say what sexual perversion is. Yes, it could apply to gays, but it could equally refer to anyone who does it in anything other than the missionary position. (Or, as Carlin put it, “man on top get it over with quick).
\\how can we use the law to force a man of God to perform a religious ceremony that flies in the face of God’s word\\
Allowing gay marriage doesn’t mean that churches will be forced to perform the marriages. The marriages would be civil.
But as for the government regulating church ceremonies, New Mexixo is currently considering a no gay marriage amandment that expressly says that churches CANNOT perform gay marriages.
You have no proof of that — a deep-seated belief, yes, but no evidence. Has any group said they intend to do this?
And isn’t it just as likely that the gay community would be satisfied with legal sanction and leave various religious faiths to their own choices?
What I have is experience. And that experience is that the agenda is not just to get equal rights (such as being allowed to get married) but to be seen as equally legitimate. And as long as churches say homosexuality is wrong, there will be tension there. So no, it is not “likely.”
I clearly stated that not all gay activists will go on a crusade against churches. But past history (such as ACT-UP disrupting Catholic Mass services) gives me ample evidence that not all gay activists would consider civil unions or even marriage as enough if churches still refuse to recognize such unions. Yes, some of them are on the fringe, but you do not find many in the gay community condemning the fringe.
I believe that you would not do so. But I am surprised that you would even suggest it is enough for others. The “slippery slope theory” is not always true, but in this case I think it is. As I said before, the same logic is used against my views about banning partial birth abortion.
Iowa Jim
\\Yes, some of them are on the fringe, but you do not find many in the gay community condemning the fringe.\\
There are people on the fringe on both sides. I also haven’t heard any Christian organization condeming Fred Phelps (www.godhatesfags.com).
\\not all gay activists would consider civil unions or even marriage as enough \\
Likewise there are churches & religious groups who oppose gay civil unions as well as gay marriages.
Are atheist SOL? I dunno, are atheists unable to form their own societies?
Well, considering one of the main purposes of religon is to create a bond of commanility. It is easier to create that with everyone believing the same thing than it is for people to NOT believe the same things. Creating a society on disbelief would be a lot more difficult.
There are mutiple schools of atheisism from the down right contemptious of organized religon to those who take a more Campbellian approach.
Do they have no friends? Family? Just so you know, most churches will provide relief for anyone who comes to their door, even atheists.
Sorry, this is America, 2005 AD. Atheist is a dirty word with this presidential dynasty.
You may have to hear some stuff you don’t want to, but there it is (I was working with the homeless awhile ago, and asked one fellow why he refused to go to the mission. He said he didn’t want to get preached at. His buddy said, small price to pay for food and a cot)
I got thrown out of working at a soup kitchen for refusing to pass out bibles on the tables. I said that giving them food was one thing but doing so with the price of having religon thrown in their face was wrong. Let the people have their own beliefs. They are human beings and deserve that right.
For example, I
[b]The standard of “giving what’s asked” versus “giving what I can” are very different. Churches typically ask for 5-10% of a person’s incoming, but they will probably only 2-3% on average. Is it hypocritical for someone to only give that 2-3%?[/b]
Short answer: [i][b]YES[/b][/i]! According to certain statements made by a certain man quoted in the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. 😉
Schools shave said several times that they need good teachers more than anything else. Why aren’t you becoming a teacher instead of just an involved parent? Isn’t that hypocritical of you?
The standard of “giving what’s asked” versus “giving what I can” are very different. Churches typically ask for 5-10% of a person’s incoming, but they will probably only 2-3% on average. Is it hypocritical for someone to only give that 2-3%?
If I had thought about becoming a teacher when I was younger, I may have done so. But I didn
I clearly stated that not all gay activists will go on a crusade against churches. But past history (such as ACT-UP disrupting Catholic Mass services) gives me ample evidence that not all gay activists would consider civil unions or even marriage as enough if churches still refuse to recognize such unions. Yes, some of them are on the fringe, but you do not find many in the gay community condemning the fringe.
I’d certainly agree that not all gay activists would be satisfied with any of the solutions we give.
However, not all Christians are happy even with the current status quo. You want to use fringe gay activists, as I said before, I’m going to quote Fred Phelps at you. Repeatedly. I’ve yet to see many in the Christian community condemn him. Or Falwell. Or Robertson.
TWL
Just a few thoughts I had.
The idea that a gay couple will try and force the church to marry them (by bringing the issue to court) seems as likely as a Jewish couple bringing the church to court because a priest refuses to marry them in a traditional jewish ceremony. I know that there are gay advocates within the church (and synagogue, and any other religious institution) trying to change religious dogma, as religious folk, they are trying to do it within the church (synagogue, ect), not in the american legal system.
I am a religious Jew and I have many conflicting thoughts as to whether a rabbi should perform a gay ceremony. I am also a proud resident of Massachusetts and have absolutely no compunction having a justice of the peace preside over a gay marriage. I am a very ardent supporter of gay marriage as a civil ceremony with the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. Perhaps it’s because I never see my religion represented by the government that I can make this distinction (until recently it was still illegal for alcohol to be sold on sunday’s here, which really messed me up). It’s bigotry plain and simple to deny homosexuals the same right to marry the person he or she loves (with the same restrictions of legal age with no blood relation applied) that is given to heterosexuals. I can think of reasons my rabbi shouldn
If I had thought about becoming a teacher when I was younger, I may have done so. But I didn
In other words, it’s too inconvenient. That’s no problem as far as I’m concerned, because everyone makes their career choice. However, you criticize those who say it’s too inconvenient to join the military. That’s why I think you are being inconsistent.
I’m not being inconsistent. You’re not reading and thinking carefully enough.
If the state or federal government would pay my way through school (which would require not only paying me to go to school but paying me enough to support my family while I’m there), I would go. However, they won’t, and I can
PAD, You gave us an easy answer. “Make it legal”. That’s just as easy of an answer as, “Make it illegal”. Guess it just depends on you prespective and what kind of “spin” you want to put on the issue.
A_Greene,
I don’t have any research to back it up, but my gut instinct tells me that most divorces in the US are the result of our “fast-paced” society.
The stereotypical marriage a few decades ago was one where a couple got married, started having kids within a couple of years, the husband worked (slowly) up the food chain in the job, etc.
Now, think of the advice kids get today: both have careers, kids are several years in coming (after all, you need to enjoy YOUR life when your young before having children). It’s all about now, not later.
Honestly, I don’t think couples today in the U.S. have to struggle as much together. Struggles early in marriage make it stronger when the REAL problems hit later: lost jobs, troubled kids, health issues.
That’s not the only reason by any stretch, but it’s common in a lot of divorces I’ve noticed.
If the state or federal government would pay my way through school (which would require not only paying me to go to school but paying me enough to support my family while I’m there), I would go. However, they won’t, and I can
So, how is that different than your saying you won’t teach because of the lack of family support?
Did you actually read my post. I’m getting tired now, but let me try to explain AGAIN.
IF I could step out of my current job and DIRECTLY into a PAYING teaching job, just like someone who feels this war is just could step out of their current job and DIRECTLY into a PAYING military job (most with a signing bonus), I just might do it. However, I can
Thans mark L. I appreciate your response, but I was hoping for more than gut instinct. Maybe I’ll have to do my own research, dámņ me and my infernal laziness.
“The reality is, some *will* try to force a church to perform a gay marriage.”
Really, Jim? And is anyone trying to “force” a minister of the World Church of the Creator to perform an interracial wedding? That’s been legal since ’67, after all…
I guess it’s time to come out of the walk-in closet – I am involved in a polyamorous relationship. In our case, it’s polyandrous, not polygamous, but that should be just as horrible, right?
Since multiple marriage isn’t an option, my wife and I will be binding with my cohusband in a handfasting ritual this spring. In our hearts, it will be every bit as solid as a state-approved wedding.
Are any of your regular monogamous relationships breaking apart now, as the result of my revelation? For that matter, is our multiple commitment to each other and our daughter weakened at all by our gay neighbor and his boyfriend?
eclark: Marriage should be between a male and female… period.
Luigi Novi: No. Not period. Any idea rises or falls on its merits, and the anti-gay marriage crowd
“The fellow in the midst of divorce; my heart goes out to you. I’m trusting it isn’t because you don’t like the same kind of ice cream. It is, of course, your decision and it sounds like no children are involved, so even better.”
Robbnn, Thanks for your good wishes. No, the matter isn’t about ice cream. Unfortunately, it also wasn’t my decision (which is why I said that it shouldn’t be allowed without both parties agreeing), and there is a child involved. That’s just some of what’s making it complicated.
“Unfortunately, it also wasn’t my decision (which is why I said that it shouldn’t be allowed without both parties agreeing), and there is a child involved.”
Howard, my deepest sympathies.
Even if a law made it so that both parties had to agree, what would be the good? If a wife wants a divorce and her husband doesn’t, she can and probably will just make life a living hëll until he agrees to it. If a person is committed (oh the irony) to getting a divorce, nothing will stop them.
Nothing anyone says can really make you feel better at this point and I know because I’ve been at that point. I can only promise that time will bring new perspectives and, as you seem like a very decent guy, I would expect to see you in much happier times a few years from now. For what it’s worth, my ex and I have an excellent relationship and in fact I’ll be spending spring break at her house. Her husband is a person I genuinely consider a friend and the kids have doubtlessly benefited from everyone acting like adults (of course, I’m also lucky to have a wife who does not find this situation totally insane).
Obviously, it takes two to make something like that work and you can’t control how the other person will behave but if you, as it seems you are, keep your child’s interests first and foremost, you’ll be doing the right thing. Good luck, man.
It’s a bitter thing to recognize, but my divorce is still my greatest failure in life and yet without it I could not be where I am now, in a far better situation, far happier (and I think the same can be said for my ex, truth to tell). I cant think of the divorce as any kind of good thing but…well, there you are.
“What the heck is the “Fair Tax”? That’s not being snide — I’ve never heard of it. “
It’s also known as a well-administered Income tax where, if you make money, you pay tax. And if you don’t, you don’t. As opposed to sales and property taxes which don’t care if you make money or not, you’re still expected to pay tax.
“So yes, any able bodied person, 18-34, who feels this war is justifiable and right, should do what they can and enlist. That?s what the military needs, that?s what they should do. To do anything else is hypocritical.”
So, if I’m a 27-year-old chemical or materials’ engineer working on a new form of bullet-proof vest or vehicle armour, I should immediately join up and go to the front lines, in spite of the fact that my reasearch may well save a lot more soldiers’ lives in the long run than my presence on the front?
“”The reality is, some *will* try to force a church to perform a gay marriage.”
Really, Jim? And is anyone trying to “force” a minister of the World Church of the Creator to perform an interracial wedding? That’s been legal since ’67, after all…”
Again, I don’t know about the U.S., but in Canada, a Catholic school was forced by the courts to accept a homosexual couple showing up at the school’s grad dance, in spite of the school official’s deeply held religious beliefs against it. Worse, the courts told those same officials that, if they attempted to cancel the dance to prevent couple being able to attend, they would be held in contempt.
So don’t EVER say the government won’t force people to do something they don’t want to do. Not with their track records.
“Again, I don’t know about the U.S., but in Canada, a Catholic school was forced by the courts to accept a homosexual couple showing up at the school’s grad dance, in spite of the school official’s deeply held religious beliefs against it. Worse, the courts told those same officials that, if they attempted to cancel the dance to prevent couple being able to attend, they would be held in contempt.”
Don’t be such an intellectually dishonest áššhøld StarWolf!
Letting kids (even gay ones) dance is NOWHERE NEAR the same as making them perform gay marriage.
Considering the long-term mental, emotional, and intellectual damage religion does to people, we should stop trying to ban gay marriage and ban religion. All churches shut down. If you wanna believe in some silly god, so it at home and leave the intelligent people alone…
Tim asked:
“I would argue, however, that marriage is not on your list of things government should be handling or regulating. Doesn’t that mean gay marriage would officially fall into the “none of my business” column for you?”
Oh, absolutely. If your solution is enacted, I’d shrug my shoulders and not give it another thought. If the government is involved and it’s put up to a vote, I have a responsibility to be involved. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t effect me, so I’d be off the hook.
People have asked why marriage is a government thing, and I answered that above: to protect children and stay-at-home spouses from abandonment. There is some merit to that, I think. No fault divorce has created that 50 percent divorce rate (which is a misleading stat, but whatever), so if there was no legal marriage what would that stat look like? You’d have to be nuts to be a stay-at-home mom and allow your job skills to evaperate. Legal marriage does preserve that. I wonder if, instead of a legal marriage contract, there was a voluntary legal parenting contract… interesting thought.
Why my exception for national defense? Because that’s government’s job. I may not agree with the tactics government uses, but defense is necessary. Voting would handle that well enough. The other stuff just doesn’t belong to the government. They don’t do education or welfare very well (despite some wonderful teachers and best intentions) so they shouldn’t do it at all.
The Fair Tax removes ALL taxes except a federal sales tax. No corporate taxes, or income or property taxes. Only a 23-27% sales tax. Prices would go down because the cost of production would drastically drop and competition drives costs down. Off shoring would stop overnight, geographical distribution would even out (people and companies wouldn’t avoid high tax areas anymore). Everyone receives, I believe, up to a 17000 dollar rebate so the poor aren’t paying taxes. Rich folks pay more because they buy more, no loopholes. Illegal aliens and organized crime end up paying taxes, and even Social Security is shored up. No withholding. It sounds like you’re paying more, but since the average person currently pays 35% tax, and the cost of goods would drop by about 25%, everyone comes out ahead (except IRS folks and most tax accountants). Do a google search or check out Neil Bortz’s website for details. It’s the answer to a lot of problems, but will probably never be enacted.
Howard,
Man, then I am really sorry. I can’t imagine. I hope you can see your child often.
Robbnn,
The Fair Tax removes ALL taxes except a federal sales tax.
Ah. In that case I have to object to it quite strongly.
A sales tax, or indeed any sort of consumption tax, is about as regressive a tax system as you can possibly create. Those well off can afford the taxes and don’t see a problem, but those living on the borderline often CANNOT cut consumption: the most obvious example is money required for transportation, be it subway fare or filling up your car at the pump.
The rich can afford to save and thus wind up paying a far lower percentage of their actual income in taxes than the poor would under this scenario — because the rich have the ability to sock money away, and the poor don’t have the choice to do so.
Thus, the poor get hit harder, and income inequities simply grow with time.
That’s great if you’re a free-market social Darwinist, but not so great for the rest of us. Count me out on this one. (I’d give lots of credit to Neal Bortz for the name, though — it’s as beautifully misleading and Orwellian as three-quarters of the Bush administration program names!)
Howard —
You’ve got my sympathies as well. I’ve never been in your situation (and hope not to be), but having been in the kid’s role it will work out in the end. Bill appears to be a good example of that, and my parents are on pretty good terms these days. (Granted, in their case it took a very long time.) It’s an absolutely horrible thing to go through (and it sounds like yours may be higher on that scale than some), but one does tend to make it out the other side. Eventually.
Best wishes to you.
TWL
I’m not a regular follower of this blog; this thread was recommended to me by a friend. (Thanks, Luigi) I say this in explanation of returning to a point which was dropped days ago.
–The easy answer for divorce is the same answer for gay marriage: ban it. Make it illegal. You want a divorce? Not in our country, Sunny Jim. Save the children. Save the family. Ban divorce. –PAD
If you read the various states’ anti-gay amendments carefully they do just that! They define marriage as a union of one man and one woman for life. For life. No provisions for adultery, for spousal abuse, for incompatability, for anything.
But if some judge, based on a clear reading of the amendment, were to begin denying divorces, there would be such a hew and cry….
Bladestar – What’s amusing about your ad hominem rant is that you have not yet shown where I’m wrong. Where, exactly, I’m mistaken in that
A – the government FORCED a religiously-run institution, which I’m not a member of, by the way, in case you were incorrectly assuming I had any particular belief in that (or any other) god, to act AGAINST its beliefs?
And that,
B – in LAW, once a PRECENDENT has been set, it often becomes MUCH EASIER to take the next step?
And that, given FACTS “A” and “B” above, a logical extrapolation is that with the PRECEDENT of the religious school being forced, and such precedents carrying much weight in courts, that people might well try (and quite possibly succeed!) to make a case forcing religious institutions to perform marriages they don’t want to?
Remember, facts please, not knee-jerk insults.
And, while you’re at it, you may wish to address the real point there.
To wit, if it does come to that, yes the homosexual community does win in gaining those ‘rights’ and ‘benefits’. But what of the rest of society and the fact that it has lost a little more freedom in exchange? That, yet again, the government has stepped in and told them what to think and how to behave even where their deeply held morals (however skewed many might view them as being) are concerned? One more link in the chains which are slowly surrounding us and squeezing the freedoms out of us, bit by bit.
And is it a “good freedom” you may well ask?
Perhaps not.
But, a wise man once wrote that, “freedom which is granted only when it is known beforehand to be beneficial, is not true freedom at all.”
And he was right.
I was going to respond to eclark, but Luigi pretty much covered all the points. The only thing I would add is in response to saying “all (I) have done is call people names.”
Which is not true. I’ve presented perfectly straightforward statements that you and your “posse” have yet to present any sort of credible refutation to. The notion that gays marrying would somehow “devalue” marriage continues to be based not on any fact that I know of, but merely your opinion based only in fear and bias. Can you actually present a comprehensive, thorough, unbiased and credible scientific study that proves couples would cease marrying or that married couples would seek divorce because they feel that marriage would no longer have any worth?
Will anyone HERE actually step up and say with all seriousness, “If gays are allowed to marry, I will probably get divorced because my own union has less worth?” “If gays are allowed to marry, I never will, because I wouldn’t want to be part of any club that has gays as members?” Seriously. I want to know. I’m not talking about people claiming that OTHER people might feel that way at some point in the future, or that society in general might feel that way, or that our children’s children might feel that way.
I want to know what percentage of Americans actually are willing to bag marriage FOR THEMSELVES if gays are allowed to marry. And it better be one dámņëd big percentage to warrant paying attention to them. Because if they’re claiming that gays marrying will make marriage become “irrelevant” or “a joke” but are saying they themselves won’t consider it irrelevant or a joke and will take it just as seriously as ever, then all they really are are bigots, promoting their bigotry while hiding behind the notion of keeping marriage white for whites…I’m sorry, hetero for hetero.
And you know what? It’s not name calling. It’s truth in labelling.
PAD
Luigi Novi: And in furtherance of Peter
As for church-state relations regarding homosexuality and gay marriage, there was this story out of Canada last year:
Canadian Court declares religious ad to be ‘hate speech’
It’s not on the level of forcing churches to perform ceremonies, but it shows that the state is capable of affecting how church doctrine is used.
//I was going to respond to eclark, but Luigi pretty much covered all the points. The only thing I would add is in response to saying “all (I) have done is call people names.”//
This is the same eclark who made such statements as
//Discrimination is a crock argument designed mainly to elicit an emotional response. That’s why liberals make it.//
and
//They attempt to make a connection between gay marriage and interracial marriage. Once again, an apples and oranges argument. Liberals don’t bother to point that out because it diminishes their argument. //
without an ounce of support.
After which, he accuses people of name-calling.
To paraphrase a fictional medical professional, what eclark says is unimportant, and we do not hear him.
Loren wrote…
As for church-state relations regarding homosexuality and gay marriage, there was this story out of Canada last year:
Canadian Court declares religious ad to be ‘hate speech’
It’s not on the level of forcing churches to perform ceremonies, but it shows that the state is capable of affecting how church doctrine is used.
First of all, I can see why an add featuring two male figures with a universal “don’t” sign over top of them could be considered “hate speech.”
What I really want to say though, is this: the same-sex marriage legislation that is currently before Canadian parliament contains written guarantees that no religious institutions will be forced to perform these marriages if they don’t want to. The opposition, however, claims that this is a meaningless clause since that would be under the control of the individual provinces and not the federal government.
I believe, though, that in the event that this bill passes, no church in this country will be forced to perform same-sex marriages.
Tim,
You didn’t read my brief explaination of the Fair Tax, then. Products would not be more expensive, but less: the end result is that you pay about the same thing for everything, but you don’t pay the hidden tax on everything. The rich are taxed without loophole and the poor are rebated their sales tax. Take gasoline for example: right now I’m paying 1.86 per gallon. IIRC about 50% of that is tax. Remove that tax and the base price is now 93 cents (Texaco might still sell it at 1.86, but with Racetrack selling at 94 cents, how long will Texaco stay up there?) Sales tax on 93 cents makes it, say 1.25 per gallon. How is that unfair to the poor?
The average built in tax (remember no company pays their tax, they pass it on to the consumer in the price of the goods sold) is 27%. Remove that cost of tax on goods, and the item WITH THE SALES TAX INCLUDED remains about the same, only you aren’t paying withholding or any other tax.
Why penalize the well off and the rich for making money? Why not tax on consumption? Further, if the cost of goods is the same, why would rich people not spend as they always have? Look closely at the Fair Tax before dismissing it. It works (and it isn’t Neil’s idea, he just gives it air time). In addition, more small companies would start up because they don’t have this ridiculous tax liability at the gate.
It really is a good plan. Check it out.
Speak of the devil: today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution had this article in the Metro section (registration required to read):
Georgia House votes to make no-fault divorces more difficult
According to the article, the bill would “extend the waiting time for an uncontested no-fault divorce from 30 days to 120 days for a childless couple and 180 days for a couple with children… The bill also would require divorcing couples with children to take classes on the impact of separation or divorce on kids. The classes would cost $30, but a judge could waive the fee for low-income couples.”
Tim Lynch: A sales tax, or indeed any sort of consumption tax, is about as regressive a tax system as you can possibly create…those living on the borderline often CANNOT cut consumption
The other important aspect of the FairTax that Robbnn failed to mention is the rebate.
Each household would receive a monthly rebate check “equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures.” That poverty level calculation is from the HHS, and includes transportation costs. The link shows what the rebate amounts would be.
Thus, those living at or near the poverty line, who CANNOT cut consumption, will end up paying little or no federal taxes at all. (And currently, even if they’re not paying income taxes, they’re at least paying OASDI taxes of 7.65%.)
The StarWolf: Bladestar – What’s amusing about your ad hominem rant is that you have not yet shown where I’m wrong. Where, exactly, I’m mistaken in that A – the government FORCED a religiously-run institution, which I’m not a member of, by the way, in case you were incorrectly assuming I had any particular belief in that (or any other) god, to act AGAINST its beliefs? And that, B – in LAW, once a PRECENDENT has been set, it often becomes MUCH EASIER to take the next step?
Luigi Novi: You are wrong in presuming that the two things are analogous, and in presuming that a
You didn’t read my brief explaination of the Fair Tax, then.
I did, but I did in fact miss the bit about the rebate.
A few comments:
— The rebate helps, but only up to a point.
— There is no way on Earth that you can make this work and also have products be less expensive. You reduce prices and you’re reducing the revenue that our current sales taxes take in; you also kill off all the other forms of taxation and you’ve all but dried up the revenue stream.
Therefore, to make this work and still let government operate, you need to either (a) find another way of raising revenue, which seems to go against the principle in question; or (b) cut services DRASTICALLY.
Now, if you believe (as Robbnn clearly does) that government shouldn’t be providing things like education and any form of safety net (Social Security, welfare, etc.), then this all fits together beautifully.
If, however, you believe that the government should be involved in things like education and safety nets, then the “Fair Tax” is exposed as an attempt to kill off those programs by “starving the beast”, to use Grover Norquist’s term.
I’d appreciate it, Robbnn, if you pointed out that this assumption/requirement is part and parcel of the “fair tax.” It’s not simply changing the tax system — it’s fundamentally changing what government does.
I’m happy to talk about that openly, and I think we’ve done so. However, I’m not going to let camouflage stand.
(As for “penalizing the rich for earning more”, that’s not an argument I’m prepared to get into at this time, since it’s far more involved than one-liners tend to make it out to be and I just don’t have that kind of time at the moment. Another time, perhaps.)
TWL
“First of all, I can see why an add featuring two male figures with a universal “don’t” sign over top of them could be considered “hate speech.””
Ah, I see … and the letter “P” with a universal “Don’t” sign atop it is “hate speech” against people parking? Now, sniper crosshairs laid atop the couple, yes, you’d get no argument from me saying it wasn’t. Otherwise, let’s not get carried away.
“The rich are taxed without loophole and the poor are rebated their sales tax.”
The trouble with that is, the rich can easily go spend their money in another country with no such taxes (I remember enjoying being able to do that in Hong Kong, for example), and the poor can’t escape it so easily.
Yes, they have a ‘rebate’. But how many poor people actually file tax returns and can afford an accountant to show them these tricks? Heck with a 19% rate of functional illiteracy in this country, you really expect that those who most would need that money would know to get it? Let’s get real here.
With a properly administered Income Tax, the poor don’t get taxed in the first place, so you don’t need an expensive bureaucracy to administer the rebates.
> Luigi Novi: You are wrong in presuming that the two things are analogous, and in presuming that a ?precedent? for one thing, in and of itself, will automatically mean lead to a ruling for a completely different one.
Where did I say that? I said “it often becomes MUCH EASIER to take the next step”. Where was this inaccurate?
>For one thing, we?re not talking about a school dance. We?re talking about church.
And we were talking about a church-run, church-managed school.
>By contrast, a school dance is NOT a sacrament.
Of course not. But it is being conducted in accordance with the laws and beliefs of the church which owns and runs the school. Same as with a sacrement which is conducted according to the beliefs and laws of the church. it’s the principle, here, not the details.
>Second, if this was a Catholic school, as you stated above, doesn?t that mean that it was tuition-based?
No.
>”Only a hypocrite would argue that lifting a ban on what someone ELSE can do is somehow forcing you to think or behave in some way.”
Let’s see … I’m having a horse race and someone wants to enter a zebra. I tell them “no”, because a horse race is for horses. Then the government comes along and forces me to redefine “horse race” to include zebras. How, exactly is this NOT forcing me to rethink what I’m doing and change the way I’m doing them?
And while people are not animals, obviously, the principle is exactly the same. Someone didn’t like the fact that they didn’t fit the established criteria for an institution (in this case “marriage” instead of “horse race”) and so they forced the world to change for them.
What will be the next change? And how many more before we no longer recognize the society we grew up in and realize we may have gone too far?
Luigi Novi: Irrelevant. Laws require justification, particularly when they are challenged. Not mere tradition or precedent. The idea that society does not have to provide reasons why something must be banned simply because