It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Yes, it really is 2009: Judge refuses to marry interracial couple(67 posts)(67 posts)
(67 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 21, 2009
As a side note; polygamy is (sort of) legal in Canada, thanks to a recent, high-profile case: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/09/23/bc-polygamy-charges-blackmore-oler-bountiful.html
Just imagine all the possible configurations...
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
cogadh: 6 states have specifically voted on gay marriage and passed it out of the 8 states that have even considered it (to date, there is a ninth pending this November). The remaining 42 states have never voted on gay marriage, but an additional 9 of them do allow same-sex civil unions. On top of that, several states that had gay marriage bans have been ruled unconstitutional, most notably Texas. Then you have states like California that, through the machinations of the Mormon Church, did ban marriages within California, but does recognize gay marriages performed outside of California as legal unions (also true of New York and Washington DC).
You make blanket statements about the country and the people as whole without really understanding the details of the situation. Yes, there are laws on the books that prevent gay marriages, but all of those laws are being challenged in more cases than not, they are being overturned, either by the vote of the people or by the ruling of the court. You assume that because there are laws that, by their letter, appear to ban gay marriage that we, for the most part, are against the subject, when in fact, most of these laws and state constitutions were written decades if not centuries before the idea of gay marriage even existed. They are not written to specifically ban gay marriage, they just weren't written to take into account gay marriage, hence why they are now being changed.
Yes, there will always be people here that are against things like gay marriage, just as there are in every country, but you cannot assume that just because some of us are like that, all of us or even most of us are like that.
avatar
Navagon: I just find it funny that a country founded on the principals of freedom and civil liberties took two centuries to finally cave in to the idea that maybe these things should apply to women and other ethnicities as well. Now America is slowly coming to terms with the idea that homosexuals may also deserve equal treatment. How does a country with such principals at its very core lag so far behind most of the developed world in implementing them?
Anyway, I'm not making blanket statements so much as I'm highlighting the fact that the perception of Americans interfering with the marriage rights of others does hold water.
My 'blanket statement' was merely intended to show you that the tyranny of the majority approach is inherently flawed.

Most of the developed world? to my knowledge, there are only 7 countries in the world that actually have laws of the books that recognize and perform same sex marriages and 3 or 4 more that recognize them but don't perform them. There are far more that allow for civil unions, but those are technically allowed in just as many places in the US.
You have to remember that while the United States is considered a country as a whole, it is really just a conglomeration of several states that are essentially countries unto themselves that joined together under one banner to allow for common defense, currency, basic rights, etc. As such, the laws of those sovereign states take precedence over the laws of the country (for the most part) and it is at that level that changes need to be made. The problem is the idea that the constitution, both the individual states ones and the national one, is considered sacrosanct and perfect as it is. For years we held this up as the ultimate example of how to form the basis of a government and changing it literally takes an act of Congress. This is not an easy thing to accomplish by design. Essentially, both the founding fathers and the people as a whole kind of shot themselves in the foot with the way it was designed.
It took us almost a century to recognize the woman's right to vote, almost another half a century more to recognize the black man's rights as a whole and now we have been fighting over the homosexual rights for about 30 years. At this point, we are actually getting better at this than we have in the past, but its still not there yet.
Posted October 21, 2009
I don't think I've ever heard a joke about the Polish.... also, "piles and piles" of black friends! I'm sorry, but that's hilarious. This case is obviously hopeless.
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
cogadh: The idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a religious concept, not a legal one

Correction: the idea of marriage is a religious concept (or rather a christian one, if I'm not mistaken). The word "marriage" could be restricted to the religious ceremony, while the legal rights and agreements traditionally reserved for the religious marriage should be applied indiscriminately to any pair or group wishing to be joined into such an agreement.
Post edited October 21, 2009 by Miaghstir
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
PhoenixWright: I don't think I've ever heard a joke about the Polish.... also, "piles and piles" of black friends! I'm sorry, but that's hilarious. This case is obviously hopeless.

http://www.polishjoke.com/
My favorite old-time Polish joke:
Why are there no ice cubes in Poland?
Because they lost the recipe.
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
cogadh: My favorite old-time Polish joke:
Why are there no ice cubes in Poland?
Because they lost the recipe.

Sounds like the jokes we Swedes tell about our "friendly but backwards" Norwegian neighbors. And they about us I assume.
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
cogadh: Correction: the idea of marriage is a religious concept (or rather a christian one, if I'm not mistaken). The word "marriage" could be restricted to the religious ceremony, while the legal rights and agreements traditionally reserved for the religious marriage should be applied indiscriminately to any pair or group wishing to be joined into such an agreement.
avatar
Miaghstir: Marriage has been around since before reliable recorded history, which certainly predates Christianity. I don't see why religious people should be able to determine who can and cannot get married.
Post edited October 21, 2009 by PoSSeSSeDCoW
Posted October 21, 2009
Before religion? Pray tell. Note: "religion", not "christianity".
My idea is that christians use a christian ceremony, jews use jewish ceremony, muslims use a muslim ceremony, and non-religious people don't generally use a ceremony or they create one of their own. It's still the same unity and agreement.
Post edited October 21, 2009 by Miaghstir
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
PhoenixWright: I don't think I've ever heard a joke about the Polish.... also, "piles and piles" of black friends! I'm sorry, but that's hilarious. This case is obviously hopeless.

Q:How do you get a one-armed Polish guy out of a tree?
A: Wave.
I know more and more of them ....
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
Miaghstir: Before religion? Pray tell. Note: "religion", not "christianity".

I edited my post right before you said that - I decided to clarify. However, it isn't known what actually came first.
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
Miaghstir: Before religion? Pray tell. Note: "religion", not "christianity".
avatar
PoSSeSSeDCoW: I edited my post right before you said that - I decided to clarify. However, it isn't known what actually came first.

And I edited further, after that... right, knowledge that another is creating or editing a post would be beneficial at times
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
Miaghstir: And I edited further, after that... right, knowledge that another is creating or editing a post would be beneficial at times

Yes, it certainly would. I have no problems with people using their own ceremonies for marriage - in fact, I think it's a fine idea. What I do have a problem with is, as it is in the US in some states, sort of a two-tier system for marriage. They argue that marriage should only be for those who, essentially, are heterosexual, and that homosexuals should just "be fine with" civil unions - even though they generally have less rights involved.
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
cogadh: The idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a religious concept, not a legal one
avatar
Miaghstir: Correction: the idea of marriage is a religious concept (or rather a christian one, if I'm not mistaken). The word "marriage" could be restricted to the religious ceremony, while the legal rights and agreements traditionally reserved for the religious marriage should be applied indiscriminately to any pair or group wishing to be joined into such an agreement.

You're right, I should have been more specific and said "Christian concept" and not "religious concept" in regards to the idea that it is only a heterosexual union.
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
PoSSeSSeDCoW: Yes, it certainly would. I have no problems with people using their own ceremonies for marriage - in fact, I think it's a fine idea. What I do have a problem with is, as it is in the US in some states, sort of a two-tier system for marriage. They argue that marriage should only be for those who, essentially, are heterosexual, and that homosexuals should just "be fine with" civil unions - even though they generally have less rights involved.

Precisely, what I'm saying is that I'm fine with their union being called differently, depending on what their religion calls it (or "civil union" for non-religious ones, whatever), but no matter the name of the unity or the people unified (sex, number, colour - as long as all are willing) they should have precisely the same rights (yes, I'm branching this discussion out to concern not only skin colour and sexual preference, but also the number of people involved, go ahead and unite even if you're 3, 4, or 7).
Well, actually, I'm thinking there should only be a single name (use "civil union" for everyone, and let the christians have their fun with their ceremony and their notion of "marriage" - that should not concern the legality at all). Just as kids play games does not make them "real", similarly the church and state should be entirely separate... I want to join the tennis club? I go to ask them and follow their rules. I want to join a church? I ask them about it and subsequently follow their regulations.
Post edited October 21, 2009 by Miaghstir
Posted October 21, 2009
avatar
Miaghstir: Sounds like the jokes we Swedes tell about our "friendly but backwards" Norwegian neighbors. And they about us I assume.

Pfft, we aren't friendly at all.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Yes, it really is 2009: Judge refuses to marry interracial couple(67 posts)(67 posts)
(67 posts)