Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

New York approves Same *** Marriage.Follow

#102 Jun 27 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Why would people who might produce children need to be encouraged to be married? People have children without being married all the time. Sometimes they even stay together!


Which suggests that it's better if they do stay together. And if they were married, wouldn't they be more likely to stay together? So.... If we get them to marry before having a child, then when/if they have one, they'll be more likely to stay together. Hmmm... Seems like a great interest for the state to get involved and attempt to get more people who might have children to marry!

It's not even like the dots are that far apart here.

Why is it that when I was a single mom, I got more benefits than I do now that I'm married? I had no incentive whatsoever to get married as far as the government is concerned. I had everything to gain (financially) by staying single.
#103 Jun 27 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
Which suggests that it's better if they do stay together. And if they were married, wouldn't they be more likely to stay together? So.... If we get them to marry before having a child, then when/if they have one, they'll be more likely to stay together. Hmmm... Seems like a great interest for the state to get involved and attempt to get more people who might have children to marry!

It's not even like the dots are that far apart here.


They may not be far apart, but that doesn't change the fact that you are jumping to whichever one you please, even if the picture doesn't make sense.

Example? The way you just arbitrarily deduced that it's better for couples to stay together. It's WAY better for a child for their parents to get divorced rather than scream at each other all day long.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#104 Jun 27 2011 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
I just did a quick google search, and all the statistics I've found show that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and two thirds of those are those with minor children.

Take that as you will.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#105 Jun 27 2011 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
gbaji's even better than Alma at getting people to play with him. How much better is proven by the fact that he can get so many people to bite even after all these years.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#106 Jun 27 2011 at 5:38 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I just did a quick google search, and all the statistics I've found show that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and two thirds of those are those with minor children.

Take that as you will.

Kids suck.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#107 Jun 27 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
gbaji wrote:
why does the government take an interest in this?


Quote:
which provide stability for those involved,


I guess I really need to spell it out. By promoting the stable environment of a marriage, regardless of whether or not children or dependents are involved, the government is promoting a stable environment for it's citizens. I do believe that a stable social environment is better for a government and it's population as a whole.


Why does the government care about a stable environment for its citizens? Actually, could you explain what you mean by "stable environment"? Why would the government care if two people marry, or live separately, or live together without being married?

Let's approach this from the other direction and maybe it'll become clearer. Let's pretend that that we live in a magical alternative world in which new humans appear magically out of thin air, fully educated and capable of becoming productive members of society. Would society ever develop marriage? Would any governing body ever create some kind of subsidy to reward/encourage people to get married?

My answers are "maybe, but it'd be a lot less important", and "absolutely not".

What are you answers?

Quote:
Or, benefits for marriage and children are separate because there is a social benefit, beyond the environment for children, to a marriage. A benefit for the two involved in the marriage...


But is there sufficient benefit to the rest of society to justify the cost? Like I've said before, the child wants the cookie, and that's a good reason for using the gift of a cookie as a reward/incentive, but that's not sufficient reason to give it to him. There has to be some other reason which justifies what you're doing.

Put another way, as a single taxpayer, I accept that I pay a bit more relatively speaking for health insurance, loans, social security, pension (if I paid into a pension), and what not than married people because I believe that those things serve as an incentive to people to get married, and the alternative of me having to pay more to raise a ton of children born to single mothers is not as good. I'm willing to do that for that reason. I'm not willing to pay that extra relative amount just because it's a nice thing to do for anyone who wants it. *** couples don't produce the problem of me having to pay taxes to help single mothers raise their children. I don't care if they marry or not. I do care if heterosexual couples marry or not.

Quote:
You are so stuck on this idea that marriage revolves around children, completely ignoring the many non-child related benefits of being married, and how it's somehow impossible to determine if there are children or not, so they just give them to all capable... yet we do provide benefits to those that have children, and can determine that they have children or not... Smiley: rolleyes


So since you can find exceptions to the general rule and reasons I'm talking about, we should just give the same benefits to couples who can't possibly produce children together? That just makes no sense. There are some arguments to be made for further narrowing down who we grant marriage to, but you want to use that as an argument to go in the other direction. So, since the current system isn't perfect, we should just embrace imperfection and apply it in situations it completely doesn't apply to?



That just seems like really really bizarre logic. When your car gets a small dent, do you take a sledgehammer to it and put dents everywhere else as well? That's basically what you're arguing here. It makes no sense at all to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 Jun 27 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Why would people who might produce children need to be encouraged to be married? People have children without being married all the time. Sometimes they even stay together!


Which suggests that it's better if they do stay together. And if they were married, wouldn't they be more likely to stay together? So.... If we get them to marry before having a child, then when/if they have one, they'll be more likely to stay together. Hmmm... Seems like a great interest for the state to get involved and attempt to get more people who might have children to marry!

It's not even like the dots are that far apart here.

Don't something like 50% of US marriages end in divorce? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#109 Jun 27 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But is there sufficient benefit to the rest of society to justify the cost? Like I've said before, the child wants the cookie, and that's a good reason for using the gift of a cookie as a reward/incentive, but that's not sufficient reason to give it to him. There has to be some other reason which justifies what you're doing.

The reason can be as simple as "We want the kid to be happy with us" or even "Why the **** not?".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Jun 27 2011 at 5:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Why is it that when I was a single mom, I got more benefits than I do now that I'm married? I had no incentive whatsoever to get married as far as the government is concerned. I had everything to gain (financially) by staying single.


Because part of the objective is for the benefits of marriage to cost the rest of us less than the alternative? The idea is to provide just enough benefits to a married couple to get them to marry, and because they are married the women (single mom in this case) won't require so much direct benefits anymore.

Did it work in your case? Are you better off financially now that you are married? Are your children growing up in a better environment? And (here's where the state interest comes in), are you costing the rest of us less money?

Don't get me wrong, marriage is its own reward in most cases. But if we can provide some benefits to sweeten the pot and make the decision a bit easier, specifically with regard to "making it official", then it's worth doing. Remember, the point here is to get the couple to enter into a three way contract with the government as one party. That way the government can enforce the marriage contract. What that means is that you are protected to some degree in case of divorce, and the children you may have with your husband are protected from abandonment (again, to as great a degree as possible). Absent benefits, more couples might just shack up without getting officially married, leaving them and any children they produce in a legal limbo which will cost a lot more money to deal with down the line.


It's not about spending more money. It's about spending less by encouraging people to do something which benefits them and the rest of us at the same time.

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 4:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Jun 27 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But is there sufficient benefit to the rest of society to justify the cost? Like I've said before, the child wants the cookie, and that's a good reason for using the gift of a cookie as a reward/incentive, but that's not sufficient reason to give it to him. There has to be some other reason which justifies what you're doing.

The reason can be as simple as "We want the kid to be happy with us" or even "Why the **** not?".


But usually it's "the kid was good today", or even "if you can stay quiet on the ride home, we'll give you a cookie" though, right? The point being that the parent's reason for giving a child a cookie is not the same reason as why the child wants the cookie. So we should conclude that arguing that married couples get shared pension benefits because they wanted shared pension benefits is missing the reason why the government decided to grant them that thing.

It certainly can tell us why the government chose that benefit to give to them (incentives and rewards work best if they're things people want, right?). It tells us nothing at all about why those couples getting married is so important to the state that it would spend the money to provide that benefit to them. For that, we need to look at this from the other side of the issue. And for that, you need to ask "What does the government gain if more people get married"? Of course, in a democratic system, that also involves asking "What do the rest of us non-married people gain if more people get married?".


As a non-married person, I can tell you what I gain right now (or at least what I'm trying to gain). And it's also why I oppose giving those benefits to *** couples. Because I'm the one who'll be paying for them. I see the benefit to me if more sexually active heterosexual couples get married. It's pretty freaking obvious. *** couples? Not so much. Not even a fraction as much. There's no more benefit to me to reward them for marriage than to provide the same benefits to non-sexually-involved roommates. That is to say, pretty much zero.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Jun 27 2011 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
What you fail to grasp is that the will of the children IS the will of the parents, since this is a peoples' government.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#113 Jun 27 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But usually it's "the kid was good today", or even "if you can stay quiet on the ride home, we'll give you a cookie" though, right?

But it doesn't HAVE to be, right? It can be anything. A whim, a bribe, a bit of joy at handing out cookies, whatever. You don't make the kid spell out his five point agenda at how you'll be benefited by his receiving a cookie.

See, rather than try retarded little "logic" (and I use that word loosely with you) games where you try to railroad people into agreeing with you, why not just show us some real, hard evidence of these reasons? Show us where Congresscritter Smith said we should enact a benefit because it'll benefit the state in this way or where Governor Whosit said at the bill signing that the state will benefit in that way.

Oh, that's right, I forgot... you can't. You've never once been able to. So instead you make up stupid analogies that aren't even accurate and say that any reason we have of giving a cookie doesn't count because it's just not good enough in your eyes but your reasons are obviously the only ones that matter.

Well, I guess just making stuff up and insisting it's real is kind of like having real evid--- no, it's not. It's just really pathetic.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114 Jun 27 2011 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You don't make the kid spell out his five point agenda at how you'll be benefited by his receiving a cookie.
I bet he would.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#115 Jun 27 2011 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
I guess we'll find out the first time he has ***, because *** is only for procreation. ***** goes in ****** to make babies!



Cross thread shenanigans. Smiley: grin
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#116 Jun 27 2011 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
I guess we'll find out the first time he has ***, because *** is only for procreation. ***** goes in ****** to make babies!


No chance--prostitutes have a strict "No rubber, no fun" policy.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#117 Jun 27 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
idiggory wrote:
What you fail to grasp is that the will of the children IS the will of the parents, since this is a peoples' government.


Oh, I don't fail to grasp that at all. It's one of the pitfalls us conservatives warn about all the time. Once a Democratic system falls into the trap of the majority of voters simply fighting over which group(s) get the biggest slice of the government pie, the country is pretty much screwed. Fortunately, in the US, this hasn't quite happened yet. The Left is trying really hard, but most Americans still vote based on what's actually best for the whole, and not just what's best for them.

Most American's understand that government shouldn't do more than the minimum it has to. Doing otherwise gets us into that trap of limitless government and everyone fighting for benefits for their own group (red/green game failure), which leads to everyone losing in the long run. That's why we'll tend to vote against things even when they benefit our "group".


So you're correct, but forgetting that it goes in both directions. The part of us that acts as the parent attempts to moderate the behavior of the part of us that is the child when it comes to government. Thus, we limit our own benefits to what is really needed (at least we try to). Of course, the Left is like the ID saying "Take what you want; more, more more!" because it wants us to be like children rather than like parents. I could expound on why that is, but the relevant point here is that even people who are married or think they might be married will still tend to act to limit the benefits marriage grants. It's not just about what will benefit them, but also what they're willing to pay for.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 Jun 27 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But usually it's "the kid was good today", or even "if you can stay quiet on the ride home, we'll give you a cookie" though, right?

But it doesn't HAVE to be, right? It can be anything. A whim, a bribe, a bit of joy at handing out cookies, whatever.


Sure. But it's something. And that something isn't just "because cookies taste good".

Quote:
You don't make the kid spell out his five point agenda at how you'll be benefited by his receiving a cookie.


Who cares? It's not about why the kid wants a cookie. It's why the parent will give the kid a cookie. You keep returning to this flawed concept.

Quote:
See, rather than try retarded little "logic" (and I use that word loosely with you) games where you try to railroad people into agreeing with you, why not just show us some real, hard evidence of these reasons? Show us where Congresscritter Smith said we should enact a benefit because it'll benefit the state in this way or where Governor Whosit said at the bill signing that the state will benefit in that way.


I posted the first handful of links to the google search: states interest in marriage.

How about you show something indicating some other interest the state has in marriage Joph. You keep spinning and spinning, and repeating reasons why married people want and/or need those benefits, but you still have not once provided an alternative interest the state has in marriage.

And instead of your providing even a position on that interest, much less any supporting evidence for it, you just keep moving the bar that I have to meet to prove my position. So it's not enough to cite multiple sources all agreeing with me about the states interest in marriage, I have to find some elected person who wrote a memoir somewhere explaining why he passed some specific piece of marriage related legislation? Really? That's a bit absurd.


How about you at least provide an alternative state interest and some supporting evidence for it first, then we'll go from there? You wont, of course. IIRC the last time we got to this point, you refused to do so as well happy to declare victory even though you haven't even presented a counter argument at all.


Can you provide any alternative state interest at all? I have. I've provided supporting evidence. How about you do the same first and then we'll talk more.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Jun 27 2011 at 8:43 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
Oh, I don't fail to grasp that at all. It's one of the pitfalls us conservatives warn about all the time. Once a Democratic system falls into the trap of the majority of voters simply fighting over which group(s) get the biggest slice of the government pie, the country is pretty much screwed. Fortunately, in the US, this hasn't quite happened yet. The Left is trying really hard, but most Americans still vote based on what's actually best for the whole, and not just what's best for them.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you are considering the gov't as something that exists separate from the people and does not take their wants into consideration, unless there is some kind of benefit for themselves, you have not described a peoples' government. You've described a dictatorship.

Quote:
Most American's understand that government shouldn't do more than the minimum it has to. Doing otherwise gets us into that trap of limitless government and everyone fighting for benefits for their own group (red/green game failure), which leads to everyone losing in the long run. That's why we'll tend to vote against things even when they benefit our "group".


Your use of "understanding" and "should" here are amusing, because they are purely ideology. Personally, I think gov'ts should do EVERY thing they can to protect the rights, freedoms and equality of its people. You seem to think it's fine if inequality is widespread, if the gov't wouldn't fiscally benefit from eliminating it.

Quote:
So you're correct, but forgetting that it goes in both directions. The part of us that acts as the parent attempts to moderate the behavior of the part of us that is the child when it comes to government. Thus, we limit our own benefits to what is really needed (at least we try to). Of course, the Left is like the ID saying "Take what you want; more, more more!" because it wants us to be like children rather than like parents. I could expound on why that is, but the relevant point here is that even people who are married or think they might be married will still tend to act to limit the benefits marriage grants. It's not just about what will benefit them, but also what they're willing to pay for.


A gov't doesn't exist to moderate behavior. That's something that some (aka fascist) gov'ts do. The kind of gov'ts that respond to protests by throwing them all in prison.

What the left is trying to do is to protect the rights, freedoms and the equality of all its peoples, even when that doesn't directly translate into something beneficial for the gov't.

The thing is, they see that we are living in a system that inherently tries to **** over the majority of its peoples. The end result of their attempts to liberate the oppressed is often some stupid bandaid for the problem. But that's all they can do, because the other half is too invested in perpetuating the oppression of those groups.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#120 Jun 27 2011 at 8:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But it's something. And that something isn't just "because cookies taste good".

Says who? You? Oh, of course you do because you're desperately flailing about trying to use little failed logic games in lieu of admitting that you have zero evidence. It can very well be "cookies taste good". "Hey, dad, can I have a cookie?" (Hrmm.. cookies ARE yummy, sure why not) "Sure, son".

OMG DID THAT JUST BLOW YOUR MIND???

Quote:
I posted the first handful of links to the google search: states interest in marriage.

Which of those had the cites from people saying "this is why we're enacting these things"? Not some bullsh*t blog prattle but, you know, real evidence supporting your claims? The same thing you've been failing to deliver on for years?

Quote:
How about you show something indicating some other interest the state has in marriage Joph.

Is that your way of admitting that you have zero evidence despite your claims and begging me to change the subject?

Why yes... yes, it is.

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 9:51pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#121 Jun 27 2011 at 8:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
idiggory wrote:
What you fail to grasp is that the will of the children IS the will of the parents, since this is a peoples' government.
Oh, I don't fail to grasp that at all.

If this is true, I can only assume your constant references to "the state" as though it were some sort of sentient alien being rather than a collect of citizens with the same thoughts, believes and motives as us non-"state" people are intentionally disingenuous.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Jun 27 2011 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
Quote:

I posted the first handful of links to the google search: states interest in marriage.

Which of those had the cites from people saying "this is why we're enacting these things"? Not some bullsh*t blog prattle but, you know, real evidence supporting your claims? The same thing you've been failing to deliver on for years?


So are we just gonna ignore the fact that his search parameters actively assume that the state actually does have an interest in marriage?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#123 Jun 27 2011 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Why is it that when I was a single mom, I got more benefits than I do now that I'm married? I had no incentive whatsoever to get married as far as the government is concerned. I had everything to gain (financially) by staying single.


Because part of the objective is for the benefits of marriage to cost the rest of us less than the alternative? The idea is to provide just enough benefits to a married couple to get them to marry, and because they are married the women (single mom in this case) won't require so much direct benefits anymore.

Did it work in your case? Are you better off financially now that you are married? Are your children growing up in a better environment? And (here's where the state interest comes in), are you costing the rest of us less money?


Better off now? Only slightly. My children are ok either way (oldest is almost 21 and lives on his own, doesn't really matter). And why in the **** would I worry about everyone else paying in as an incentive to get married?? In case you don't realize this, I was paying into the system when I was single, too. I was paying my own way, I suppose. But I got a bigger tax break, and more options were open to me when I was single. I didn't take those options, but they were there. I don't have them anymore.
#124 Jun 27 2011 at 11:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory wrote:
So are we just gonna ignore the fact that his search parameters actively assume that the state actually does have an interest in marriage?

I'd feel worse if it actually returned anything of value. No one is arguing that no one else in the world shares Gbaji's fallacious arguments. The argument is that Gbaji is incapable of backing those arguments up with actual evidence. The same argument was used in the CA court case with the same lack of supporting evidence and, unsurprisingly, they lost the case. Gbaji finding other chuckleheads who use the same failed logic isn't exactly earthshattering.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#125 Jun 27 2011 at 11:45 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Well, at least he didn't link us clips from Beck and Limbaugh.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#126 Jun 28 2011 at 6:34 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
Ari wrote:
Churches and religious institutions will not be forced to perform SSM ceremonies.


So it's more of a registered partnership, or whatever you guys would call it?
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#127 Jun 28 2011 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
Mazra wrote:
Ari wrote:
Churches and religious institutions will not be forced to perform SSM ceremonies.


So it's more of a registered partnership, or whatever you guys would call it?

Nah, marriage in the US is secular as far as the government is concerned. For example, my parents couldn't get married in a Catholic church because my dad is divorced but the Church doesn't recognize divorce (plus he was a Protestant, so it was kinda screwy from the start). They just had a justice of the peace marry them; a so-called "civil service." The church doesn't hand out marriage licenses directly; they either do so with government backing*, or people go to a government agency, and then throw a wedding after.

I actually just attended a wedding two weekends ago where they did it. The families were rather religious, so they had the wedding ceremony and reception last weekend. But the couple has actually been married for a year; they just never had a wedding, just the government issued them a marriage license.

TL;DR: Getting married in a church is not necessary nor necessarily sufficient to be "married" in the eyes of the government.

*Edit: Technically they can help fill out the paperwork, but they can't file at the church.

Edited, Jun 28th 2011 9:57am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#128 Jun 28 2011 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Is there any state in which churches can issue marriage licenses? I know NJ requires the couple to file their application for a license after the wedding (with the priest's signature as well as two witnesses).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#129 Jun 28 2011 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Churches don't issue marriage licenses, county offices do. You get your license from the county, head to the chapel, have someone officiate it and sign the license that you actually agreed to get married, it gets returned to the county office and registered with the Dept. of Health, and you're married.

The officiating part is the bit the state cares the least about. Provided you, your spouse and some officiant sign the paper and have witnesses and no one comes back and contests it, the state doesn't care what happened at the "ceremony".

Edit: There might be some churches out there that will give you the license registration form, but that's like getting blank tax forms from the library. It's just paper until the appropriate government agency has it in their possession.

Edited, Jun 28th 2011 8:43am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Jun 28 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Ari wrote:
Churches and religious institutions will not be forced to perform SSM ceremonies.


So it's more of a registered partnership, or whatever you guys would call it?

Nah, marriage in the US is secular as far as the government is concerned. For example, my parents couldn't get married in a Catholic church because my dad is divorced but the Church doesn't recognize divorce (plus he was a Protestant, so it was kinda screwy from the start). They just had a justice of the peace marry them; a so-called "civil service." The church doesn't hand out marriage licenses directly; they either do so with government backing, or people go to a government agency, and then throw a wedding after.

I actually just attended a wedding two weekends ago where they did it. The families were rather religious, so they had the wedding ceremony and reception last weekend. But the couple has actually been married for a year; they just never had a wedding, just the government issued them a marriage license.

TL;DR: Getting married in a church is not necessary nor necessarily sufficient to be "married" in the eyes of the government.


Confusing stuff.

Our registered partnership is legally almost identical to marriage. I don't get why they don't just call it marriage and get over with it. Let the religious societies decide whether they want to actually wed homosexuals, but at least let them get married at the mayor's office or wherever.

Looks like the US overtook us in that regard. At least we came first with the civil union rights. And ****.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#131 Jun 28 2011 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
Mazra wrote:


Confusing stuff.

Our registered partnership is legally almost identical to marriage. I don't get why they don't just call it marriage and get over with it. Let the religious societies decide whether they want to actually wed homosexuals, but at least let them get married at the mayor's office or wherever.

That's our separation of church and state. If the priest my parents wanted had been someone able to give wedding licenses, he could not have refused them. Because religious institutions and marriage licenses are separate, the government cannot force a religious institution to "marry" someone they don't want to.

The marriage license is the meat; the wedding ceremony is just bells and whistles so far as the state is concerned.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#132 Jun 28 2011 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
Looks like the US overtook us in that regard. At least we came first with the civil union rights. And ****.


Believe me, we haven't. The number of states that even offer partnership are pitifully few--just a few offer actual marriage.

****, the states in which it is illegal to fire someone for being ***, or refuse them service, is a majority.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#133 Jun 28 2011 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
That's our separation of church and state. If the priest my parents wanted had been someone able to give wedding licenses, he could not have refused them. Because religious institutions and marriage licenses are separate, the government cannot force a religious institution to "marry" someone they don't want to.

The marriage license is the meat; the wedding ceremony is just bells and whistles so far as the state is concerned.


The Church can legally marry people here, but our freedom of religion law means the government can't force them to wed people they don't want to wed, because it goes against their religion. You can always get married at the mayor's office, though.

Edit: That said, the Church can make exceptions if the individual priest/whatever wants to. My dad's Catholic and after divorcing his first wife, he married my mom (Protestant) in a Catholic ceremony. They were friends with the priest.

idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Looks like the US overtook us in that regard. At least we came first with the civil union rights. And ****.


Believe me, we haven't. The number of states that even offer partnership are pitifully few--just a few offer actual marriage.

****, the states in which it is illegal to fire someone for being ***, or refuse them service, is a majority.


I forget that your states all have different laws.

Silly. Smiley: tongue

Edited, Jun 28th 2011 4:47pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#134 Jun 28 2011 at 8:47 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Our registered partnership is legally almost identical to marriage. I don't get why they don't just call it marriage and get over with it. Let the religious societies decide whether they want to actually wed homosexuals, but at least let them get married at the mayor's office or wherever.

That's our separation of church and state. If the priest my parents wanted had been someone able to give wedding licenses, he could not have refused them. Because religious institutions and marriage licenses are separate, the government cannot force a religious institution to "marry" someone they don't want to.

I don't believe that's addressing his contention. He gets the part about not forcing religious institutions to do something they don't want to do, but is questioning why therefore no one gets to do that thing religious institutions don't want to do. Timmy doesn't like chocolate cake, and we shouldn't force him to eat it, but why should chocolate cake be banned from the cafeteria?

And the reason is because it is an assault on their worldview. Religious institutions opposed to *** marriage want more than to not perform the marriage, they want for the marriage to not be possible to be performed.
#135 Jun 28 2011 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
Allegory wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Our registered partnership is legally almost identical to marriage. I don't get why they don't just call it marriage and get over with it. Let the religious societies decide whether they want to actually wed homosexuals, but at least let them get married at the mayor's office or wherever.

That's our separation of church and state. If the priest my parents wanted had been someone able to give wedding licenses, he could not have refused them. Because religious institutions and marriage licenses are separate, the government cannot force a religious institution to "marry" someone they don't want to.

I don't believe that's addressing his contention. He gets the part about not forcing religious institutions to do something they don't want to do, but is questioning why therefore no one gets to do that thing religious institutions don't want to do. Timmy doesn't like chocolate cake, and we shouldn't force him to eat it, but why should chocolate cake be banned from the cafeteria?

And the reason is because it is an assault on their worldview. Religious institutions opposed to *** marriage want more than to not perform the marriage, they want for the marriage to not be possible to be performed.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, there's no real religious reason to object to the US allowing *** marriage.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#136 Jun 28 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Interestingly, the church didn't actually develop an anti-homosexual agenda until the late 70s/early 80s. Before then, they were largely mum on the issue.

Which is the case for most of society. Polls from the mid 60s to mid 70s were basically fine with the idea of abolishing sodomy laws (and abortion). It wasn't until the family values campaigns started in the late 70s that churchs/social groups really tried to oppose the emergence of homosexuality. Which is interesting, because it had already moved into the view of society 1 to 2 decades earlier, depending on location.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#137 Jun 28 2011 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
It's a useful issue to get people out to the polls. Manufactured outrage is quite effective if you convince people it's real.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#138 Jun 28 2011 at 6:14 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts


That's all I got.
#139 Jun 28 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Paskil wrote:


That's all I got.


They both sound like idiots.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#140 Jun 28 2011 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Paskil wrote:


That's all I got.


They both sound like idiots.


Preech on brother. Smiley: lol
#141 Jun 28 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Smiley: frown
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#142Almalieque, Posted: Jun 28 2011 at 7:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Heh, I guess you would know.
#143 Jun 28 2011 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
In order for that to be considered "cross thread shenanigans", someone would have had to actually make that argument. Since no one has (in the way you presented it), it's just the usual made up stuff. You've argued against so many contradicting arguments from me that you can't even keep them straight! lol


I'm guessing that's what you meant.

Quote:

Quote:
No chance--prostitutes have a strict "No rubber, no fun" policy.

Heh, I guess you would know.


Smiley: snore
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#144 Jun 29 2011 at 5:49 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,087 posts
Idiggory wrote:
I'm guessing that's what you meant.


Given that I've been arguing the same exact argument, I would have to say "no, it's not"
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#145 Jun 29 2011 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
Given that I've been arguing the same exact argument, I would have to say "no, it's not"


Your argument is made up of sub-arguments that contradict each other.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#146 Jun 29 2011 at 11:36 AM Rating: Excellent
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Given that I've been arguing the same exact argument, I would have to say "no, it's not"


Your argument is made up of sub-arguments that contradict each other.


I would be remiss if I didn't politely point out that your face is made up of sub-arguments that contradict your mom.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#147 Jun 29 2011 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
I would be remiss if I didn't politely point out that "benefiting the state" is a deeply socialist motive to do anything. Smiley: grin
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#148 Jun 29 2011 at 1:12 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
I would be remiss if I didn't politely point out that your face is made up of sub-arguments that contradict your mom.


I... don't have a comeback to that.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#149 Jun 29 2011 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
This fight goes to PF in a knockout.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#150 Jun 29 2011 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
If only he had used the NO U counter.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#151 Jun 29 2011 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
I'm not cool enough to use large tags.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 66 All times are in CST
bihjsa, Iamadam, lolgaxe, tjnekoeikw, Anonymous Guests (62)