Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

[PowerWizard]

Yet another step to make the term "marriage" meaningless. Congratulations to Vermont for "legalizing" nonsense!

[Reverend Joe]

Yet another step to make the term "marriage" meaningless. Congratulations to Vermont for "legalizing" nonsense!

Apparently it's only a legal term. If churches aren't required to perform ceremonies or recognize same-sex marriages, then marriage between a man and a woman is just as meaningful as before.

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?

[Lemur]

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?

Ah, finally, a post from someone who's been married a while. It's true, after a decade or so, it's very hard to maintain crazy romance. That out-of-your-head flush of emotion that you felt for the first year or so? Yeah, that's gone. It's okay though. A slow burn is better than a forest fire in the long run.

[Reverend Joe]

Ah, finally, a post from someone who's been married a while. It's true, after a decade or so, it's very hard to maintain crazy romance. That out-of-your-head flush of emotion that you felt for the first year or so? Yeah, that's gone. It's okay though. A slow burn is better than a forest fire in the long run.

I'm not even married... I just have common sense.

[Lemur]

My Google skills are failing me, so I'm unable to link to the report, but there was a study of long-term emotions between couples last year. Anyway, the findings were that 90% of people start with crazy love and then mellow into companionship/friendship love. But there was a small percentage of people who continued to feel mad, passionate romance for their entire relationship. For decades.

If we can't duplicate that with a drug, we must kill them all.

[BigTex]

My Google skills are failing me, so I'm unable to link to the report, but there was a study of long-term emotions between couples last year. Anyway, the findings were that 90% of people start with crazy love and then mellow into companionship/friendship love. But there was a small percentage of people who continued to feel mad, passionate romance for their entire relationship. For decades.

If we can't duplicate that with a drug, we must kill them all.

Nvm, XOXOXO

[PowerWizard]

Apparently it's only a legal term. If churches aren't required to perform ceremonies or recognize same-sex marriages, then marriage between a man and a woman is just as meaningful as before.

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with gays. I just find it amusing that gays want marry, despite marriage is between man and woman. I won't go to further explanations why do I think it is, I think it's either self-explanatory or not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

Ok, I was just stating that last post because I have heard the argument that Government can not dictate what marriage is if it is not a civil institution.

[KarlXII]

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

If you recall, racial equality was not supported by a majority for a long, long time.

The same with gay marriage. With time, my friend, with time.

[Lemur]

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us.

I think claiming to know the will of Almighty God is a very dangerous bit of hubris. God is, by definition, unknowable and incomprehensible.

And don't even think of bringing Leviticus into this. I don't see anyone stoning people who gather sticks on the Sabbath. Anyone who has actually studied the Bible, rather than reading off their pastor's Greatest Hits, knows that it is a library rather than a book. I don't know a single serious theologian who suggests that every word is meant to be taken literally.

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

Also, as long as I'm picking on you, how does one "force the issue" with a "superlative"?

[KarlXII]

[QUOTE=Lemur;2202894] pastor's Greatest HitsQUOTE]

With such hits as:

John, 3:16
He Died for Our Sins
Crumbling the Walls of Jericho (Remix)

[Xiahou]

I think claiming to know the will of Almighty God is a very dangerous bit of hubris. God is, by definition, unknowable and incomprehensible.

That's true, maybe God really wants human sacrifice and cannibalism- but I doubt it. Religions base their teachings on many things including the bible, scholarly discussion, ect. Religions do claim to know some of the will of God pretty much by definition. Look at the Ten Commandments for starters.

And don't even think of bringing Leviticus into this. I don't see anyone stoning people who gather sticks on the Sabbath. Anyone who has actually studied the Bible, rather than reading off their pastor's Greatest Hits, knows that it is a library rather than a book. I don't know a single serious theologian who suggests that every word is meant to be taken literally.

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

That's a pretty nice strawman you've built yourself there.

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

Also, not only is that false to begin with, but there's more Catholic (which I'm pretty sure TSM is) doctrine against homosexual acts than what's in the bible.

[ajaxfetish]

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

Well, depending on your choice of translation, there's a pretty good argument to be made for condemnation in some of the Pauline epistles as well. Either way, however, there's plenty of room for interpretation and modern application.

Ajax

[Lord Winter]

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

So by extension, should the Supreme Court not overturn anti sodomy laws?

[Andres]

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage

Was God elected? If not, then what does He have to do with legislation?

[Lemur]

Another cup of hot, frothy crazy from the wingnuts: Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

You're more or less right about this. I doubt any legislators will be given the boot next election cycle over this because Vermont society is, outside of some intolerant patches, at least tolerant of same-sex unions. A few cowards voted against this legislation because they "got more no calls than pro calls" even on the Democratic side. Personally if I had any influence over Corcoran's (a guy who did just that) next election I'd give him the boot, but as this is not an election year I doubt he'll get much of a backlash.

I'd just like to put forward that since the institution of marriage is recognized by the federal and state governments and brings certain benefits it must be defined as a civil and not a social institution. Ceremonies held at churches are social in nature, but the right to make medical decisions for a loved one when they are sick, and the right to file joint tax returns are very definitely not merely social. Were marriage a social institution the only thing one would need to do to get a same-sex marriage is find a church or other religious institution/person who was willing to preside over a, materialistically speaking, meaningless ceremony. That is as I have shown not the case.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're more or less right about this. I doubt any legislators will be given the boot next election cycle over this because Vermont society is, outside of some intolerant patches, at least tolerant of same-sex unions. A few cowards voted against this legislation because they "got more no calls than pro calls" even on the Democratic side. Personally if I had any influence over Corcoran's (a guy who did just that) next election I'd give him the boot, but as this is not an election year I doubt he'll get much of a backlash.

I'd just like to put forward that since the institution of marriage is recognized by the federal and state governments and brings certain benefits it must be defined as a civil and not a social institution. Ceremonies held at churches are social in nature, but the right to make medical decisions for a loved one when they are sick, and the right to file joint tax returns are very definitely not merely social. Were marriage a social institution the only thing one would need to do to get a same-sex marriage is find a church or other religious institution/person who was willing to preside over a, materialistically speaking, meaningless ceremony. That is as I have shown not the case.

But if marriage is a civil not social institution, then it must treat everyone the same, including same sex marriage. Brown vs Board of Education stated that separate but equal institutions are inherently unequal. Marriage and civil unions are supposedly separate but equal, but under that ruling it is unconstitutional, therefore same sex marriage is legal and the judges are right to rule in its favor.

That is, like you presented, if marriage is to be a civil not a social institution.