Beaker wrote: 
That's just crazy talk!

 BillnDollarBaby wrote: 
I'm sure you'll think of something.

 Beaker wrote: 

But if we lose the term "nutbag" what will we call Slabby behind his back?

 Lazy8 wrote: 
off the crush list. :(

 Xeric wrote: 
...back to the guns thread.

 Xeric wrote: 

They aren't always outnumbered.  Sometimes, it feels awfully lonely being a raving lib.  It all depends on the time of day and the topic, me thinks.  Or more than likely, me-don't-thinks.  I am sleep deprived and on pain meds.  What the hell am I talking about?

 Lazy8 wrote: 
In a self-selected community.  Which always makes me wonder . . . I mean . . . well, where was I going with that?

 AliGator wrote: 

I was thinking that was France... don't you have two ceremonies?  One legal and then one religious, assuming you want the religious one?

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Doesn't make him wrong, tho—they are outnumbered.

And in this case wrong as well, but...where was I going with this?

 musik_knut wrote: 
I've no qualms with your religion and its importance to you. I just want to know why religion has appropriated the term "marriage." And please forgive me for bringing up France again (I do it a lot here), but over there, the only legal marriage ceremony is the one performed by the mayor. You can be married by a priest (or other man of the cloth), but the only ceremony that is recognized by law is the one performed by the mayor of the town you're married in. And yet, people married by the mayor call themselves "mariés" and their union is a "marriage," whether they eventually have a ceremony in a church or not.

 Beanie wrote: 

As always, Ms. Beanie nails it. 

 AliGator wrote: 

Me too.

 musik_knut wrote: 
Another conservative loner amongst all the RP libs? You people should start a clique or something.

 

You'd have to have a lot of extra fingers to count just the conservatives who've said they're vastly outnumbered here.

oy vey.

i gave back the only ring i was ever offered.

Aaaaaagh!!  I can't take it!

Nobody is asking religion to broaden its definition of marriage.  Just government.  Sheesh.
reallyreallygoingtobednow...

 musik_knut wrote: 
Sure, okay.  But it's more than that.  It's what those who would define marriage strictly on religious grounds would insist upon.

My take: religious marriage, same-sex marriage, secular marriage . . . all legitimate marriages.

Religious take: religious marriage.

Which of those implies limitations?  Which of those forces people who want marriage to toe some particular line? 

 musik_knut wrote: 

So...if nobody reasonable agrees with you, you close up shop and head home? That's a debate!

Wait a minute, that's religion. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

 AliGator wrote: 

Ah, free to marry is not the same as the right to marry...

 musik_knut wrote: 
You do not have the right to default on your mortgage.  You entered into a legal contract.  If you default, your mortage holder has the right to relief as outlined in the contract you signed.  If your government chooses to bail you out, well, that's a whole 'nother conversation for a whole 'nother thread.

I am not pushing the line about CL.  You have the CL to engage in whatever religous belief you want.  How is it wrong to support CL?  I am not following you on that part at all.

My denomination not only permits, but supports and works for the right for all citizens to be married on their own terms.  It is possible to keep religon out of this matter, or any other for that matter.  Many people simply choose not to.  I do not believe that abortion is right, and would never have one.  That is my personal choice based on my personal beliefs.  However, I am pro-choice because my ethical beliefs should not make laws for someone else.  They have to live with their actions if they choose to have one.

I hear and understand you, but I don't agree with the concept.  Your description of all rights, except to the term marriage reeks of the "separate but equal" concept of segregation.  It may have been the law, but it was still wrong.  And time has proven that it was wrong.  The majority of religions at the time supported government mandated hatred.  Churches, historically, have not proven to be good law makers.  Its why our fore-fathers tried to guarantee us the freedom to worship and believe as we saw fit.

 Xeric wrote: 

That line is a sentiment I sense...ok?