Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 170
  1. #141  
    Let’s see how good my powers of brevity are . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny
    1. Civil Unions of Gay Couples (yes or no and why)?

    Yes, for the explicit purpose of aiding actual civil liberties (such as determination of hospital visitations, willing property, etc).

    2. Legally Recognized Marriage of Gay Couples (yes or no and why)?
    No, distinguishing of differences appropriate and not a violation of any civil liberties.

    3. Do Civil Unions and Marriage Offer to the Same Legal Rights (yes or no and why)?
    Yes, either couple has the same legal rights as the other—all that differs is terminology.

    4. Should Government Be Allowed to Decide Which Marriage, and from Which Churches, are Recognized as Legal Unions (yes or no and why)?
    Government acknowledges the right to have and determines who may solidify marriages and unions (Justice of the Peace, formal Preachers, etc) but places no obligation upon any person other than government employees (thus your local church can marry homosexuals if they wish, but are not obligated).

    5. Similar to Previous Civil Rights Matters, Should the Federal Government Play a Role in Standardizing Gay/Lesbian/Straight Couples Rights in Marriage and/or Civil Unions? (yes or no and why)?
    Government need merely to clear a path for actual civil liberties of which marriage/civil unions are not so much as is the right to will property, to give medical authority, etc. Because of the nature, civil liberties and marriages provide nothing but a but a platform for which actual civil liberties may neatly rest. You marry or engage in a civil union and certain liberties are automatically assumed.

    Where I run into a real problem (after some thought) is with insurance companies as they may choose to insure or not to insure (though do so already) and as I have already noted, two brothers, sisters or mutual friends—having no intimate relationship—may also engage in a civil union as well. This becomes rather problematic for insurance companies.

    Again, a marriage or civil union has nothing to do with civil liberties and everything to do with securing actual liberties in a neat little package. I hope this clears up the confusion.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  2.    #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Yes, either couple has the same legal rights as the other—all that differs is terminology.
    Why different terminology? What legal purpose does different terminology serve?

    Government acknowledges the right to have and determines who may solidify marriages and unions (Justice of the Peace, formal Preachers, etc)
    I think this is highly dependent on the above. If the difference between marriage and civil unions is merely "terminology" as you say, then the government has a real problem on its hands IMO. How can the government credibly decide to allow Preachers from religions that only perform straight weddings do so legitimately and yet decide that those Preachers from religions that perform gay marriages do so illegitimately?

    but places no obligation upon any person other than government employees (thus your local church can marry homosexuals if they wish, but are not obligated).
    I don't disagree with this. This is a good example of separation of Church and State.

    Government need merely to clear a path for actual civil liberties of which marriage/civil unions are not so much as is the right to will property, to give medical authority, etc. Because of the nature, civil liberties and marriages provide nothing but a but a platform for which actual civil liberties may neatly rest. You marry or engage in a civil union and certain liberties are automatically assumed.
    Okay.

    Where I run into a real problem (after some thought) is with insurance companies as they may choose to insure or not to insure (though do so already) and as I have already noted, two brothers, sisters or mutual friends—having no intimate relationship—may also engage in a civil union as well. This becomes rather problematic for insurance companies.
    Interesting point. But I suppose mutual friends could just as easily get married today for the same reasons if they aren't particularly religious (not that that matters either since the divorce rate is still over 50%).

    Again, a marriage or civil union has nothing to do with civil liberties and everything to do with securing actual liberties in a neat little package. I hope this clears up the confusion.
    Great. So what do you recommend? I started this thread to discuss how the gay community might move ahead given their recent setback. Since you support civil unions, what should be done to improve their chances of success?
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    what should be done to improve their chances of success?
    Get the Mormons on their side by declaring that if marriage is no longer defined as being between a man and a woman, that opens them up to getting polygamy back.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4.    #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Get the Mormons on their side by declaring that if marriage is no longer defined as being between a man and a woman, that opens them up to getting polygamy back.
    LOL. In all seriousness though...from a purely religious perspective, I don't care how many wives the Mormons have. It's their religion. But legally, I think it is fair to limit rights to only two people. So if Mormon's want to have lots o' wives...have at it! But they'll still need to decide which of their many wives is legally recognized.
  5. #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    legally, I think it is fair to limit rights to only two people.
    Why is that any more fair than limiting to a 'traditional' view of marriage? A contract between two consenting adults is no more or less valid than a contract between several consenting adults.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6.    #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Why is that any more fair than limiting to a 'traditional' view of marriage? A contract between two consenting adults is no more or less valid than a contract between several consenting adults.
    Hey don't get me wrong...I love my wife, but I could use a few more.

    But in terms of legal recognition I just think that polygamy would open Pandora's box to the sort of thing DL was referring to earlier (with insurance companies) and probably be a burden on our system in many ways that I've admittedly not done a lot of deep thinking about.

    In general, I would say that a society can define a civil union as a legally recognized union between two people. Such civil unions exists between M-F, F-F, M-M...so it must remain within our species...age appropriate....no in-breeding allowed...both parties enter into such unions without duress and under their own freewill, etc....and such civil unions will be recognized as marriages under the banner of whichever religion they so choose. Toward that end, if the "marriage" is to extend beyond the two legally recognized parties enjoined in a civil union, such an extension would be purely "ceremonial" and/or "religious", but certainly allowed.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 11/12/2008 at 09:41 AM.
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Hey don't get me wrong...I love my wife, but I could use a few more.
    And one Mrs. Buj is more than enough for me, thanks!
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8.    #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    And one Mrs. Buj is more than enough for me, thanks!
    (she's standing right there, isn't she?)
  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Hey don't get me wrong...I love my wife, but I could use a few more.
    LOL...well, I'm not sure I would personally want additional wives or husbands added to the mix, but there are times when it'd be nice to have additional hands contributing to the income or household chores.
    But in terms of legal recognition I just think that polygamy would open Pandora's box to the sort of thing DL was referring to earlier (with insurance companies) and probably be a burden on our system in many ways that I've admittedly not done a lot of deep thinking about.
    To me, that's like saying that corporations are a bigger burden on our system than partnerships or sole proprietorships. Insurance companies structure their offerings in many ways already. If they're offering insurance to a household with 8 family members, what difference does the makeup of the family make other than when setting their rates?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10.    #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    LOL...well, I'm not sure I would personally want additional wives or husbands added to the mix, but there are times when it'd be nice to have additional hands contributing to the income or household chores.

    To me, that's like saying that corporations are a bigger burden on our system than partnerships or sole proprietorship. Insurance companies structure their offerings in many ways already. If they're offering insurance to a household with 8 family members, what difference does the makeup of the family make other than when setting their rates?
    Okay, so taken to your extreme, how big can this "corporation" be? Where do you draw the line as to how many people can be recognized in a civil union?

    I understand where you're coming from, but I think they are very different things. But if you want to use corporations as an example I'd argue that we should be talking about the limitations set forth on the type of corporate structure and the number of equity holders in such corporation, not the number of employees - such as LLC, S-Corp, C Corp, Sole Proprietorship and limitations as to the number of shareholders to each. For instance, since S-Corps typically limit the number of shareholders to 35, perhaps a civil union should be viewed as a legally recognized entity but one that can be no larger than 2 shareholders?
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Okay, so taken to your extreme, how big can this "corporation" be?
    What difference would it make to the government? What if me and my village of hippie friends decide to pool our resources and all share in the responsibilities of our 'household'?
    Where do you draw the line as to how many people can be recognized in a civil union?
    Why would you need to draw a line?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12.    #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    What difference would it make to the government? What if me and my village of hippie friends decide to pool our resources and all share in the responsibilities of our 'household'?

    Why would you need to draw a line?
    Form an S-Corp or an LLC and have at it I suppose - and then form your own religion (or find an existing one) that is willing to bless you all as one big happy "married" family.

    Peace.
  13. #153  
    And one Mrs. Buj is more than enough for me, thanks!
    (she's standing right there, isn't she?)

    No. But a man's gotta know his limitations. [/clint eastwood]
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  14.    #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post

    No. But a man's gotta know his limitations. [/clint eastwood]
    I suppose I could keep this going with a well placed Viagra joke right now...but I digress.

    (seriously...I've never cheated on my wife since the day I met her)
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Form an S-Corp or an LLC and have at it I suppose - and then form your own religion (or find an existing one) that is willing to bless you all as one big happy "married" family.

    Peace.
    I already have my own religion. Tobology was discussed at length in The Ramble.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16.    #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I already have my own religion. Tobology was discussed at length in The Ramble.
    Cool. Do you serve Kool Aid?
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Cool. Do you serve Kool Aid?
    No. I leave that to Jim Jones. We serve beer. It's proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    No. I leave that to Jim Jones. We serve beer. It's proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    Here, here!
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  19. #159  
    Beer

    Liquor
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  20. #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Beer

    Liquor
    You, sir, are clearly a heathen. I will pray for you.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions