Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 7:21pm
It's the economy stupid.
- haresfur - May 23, 2024 - 6:04pm
Fascism In America
- Red_Dragon - May 23, 2024 - 5:52pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - May 23, 2024 - 4:31pm
Odd sayings
- ScottFromWyoming - May 23, 2024 - 3:10pm
Climate Change
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 2:48pm
RP Daily Trivia Challenge
- ScottFromWyoming - May 23, 2024 - 2:20pm
Israel
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 12:25pm
Wordle - daily game
- Steely_D - May 23, 2024 - 11:44am
NY Times Strands
- rgio - May 23, 2024 - 11:39am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 11:02am
Nederland / The Netherlands
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 10:03am
Music News
- Beaker - May 23, 2024 - 8:30am
Interviews with the artists
- Beaker - May 23, 2024 - 8:12am
NYTimes Connections
- ScottFromWyoming - May 23, 2024 - 7:24am
Radio Paradise Comments
- Coaxial - May 23, 2024 - 5:06am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 23, 2024 - 3:39am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 22, 2024 - 8:51pm
Science is bullsh*t
- GeneP59 - May 22, 2024 - 4:16pm
Maarjamaa
- oldviolin - May 22, 2024 - 3:32pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- ScottFromWyoming - May 22, 2024 - 3:25pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- jarro - May 22, 2024 - 11:19am
New Music
- R_P - May 22, 2024 - 9:18am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- Isabeau - May 22, 2024 - 7:56am
Trump
- rgio - May 22, 2024 - 4:44am
Coffee
- haresfur - May 22, 2024 - 12:12am
Rock mix sound quality below Main and Mellow?
- theirongiant - May 21, 2024 - 2:23pm
Most played: what's the range? Last 30 days? 90?
- theirongiant - May 21, 2024 - 2:20pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 21, 2024 - 11:59am
Name My Band
- Isabeau - May 21, 2024 - 10:27am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- Isabeau - May 20, 2024 - 2:16pm
What Did You See Today?
- Steely_D - May 20, 2024 - 1:24pm
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - May 20, 2024 - 12:00pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - May 20, 2024 - 7:50am
Shawn Phillips
- Isabeau - May 20, 2024 - 6:20am
The Corporation
- Red_Dragon - May 20, 2024 - 5:08am
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- GeneP59 - May 19, 2024 - 4:08pm
What can you hear right now?
- GeneP59 - May 19, 2024 - 4:07pm
China
- Isabeau - May 19, 2024 - 2:22pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- Isabeau - May 19, 2024 - 2:18pm
TV shows you watch
- Steely_D - May 19, 2024 - 1:13am
Music library
- nightdrive - May 18, 2024 - 1:28pm
The Obituary Page
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 18, 2024 - 4:18am
Paul McCartney
- miamizsun - May 18, 2024 - 4:06am
Virginia News
- Steely_D - May 18, 2024 - 2:51am
Gnomad here. Who farking deleted my thread?
- Red_Dragon - May 17, 2024 - 5:59pm
The Dragons' Roost
- triskele - May 17, 2024 - 4:04pm
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- ScottFromWyoming - May 17, 2024 - 1:43pm
DIY
- black321 - May 17, 2024 - 9:16am
Other Medical Stuff
- kurtster - May 16, 2024 - 10:00pm
Your Local News
- Proclivities - May 16, 2024 - 12:51pm
Alexa Show
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 12:15pm
Joe Biden
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 1:02am
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:13pm
how do you feel right now?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:10pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 12:38pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:50am
NASA & other news from space
- Beaker - May 15, 2024 - 9:29am
Human Rights (Can Science Point The Way)
- miamizsun - May 15, 2024 - 5:50am
Play the Blues
- Steely_D - May 15, 2024 - 1:50am
Animal Resistance
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:37pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:00pm
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage?
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:27pm
Social Media Are Changing Everything
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 8:08am
Internet connection
- ai63 - May 14, 2024 - 7:53am
Congress
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:22pm
Ukraine
- R_P - May 13, 2024 - 5:50pm
What The Hell Buddy?
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 1:25pm
Surfing!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 13, 2024 - 1:21pm
Bad Poetry
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 11:38am
See This Film
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:35am
Podcast recommendations???
- ColdMiser - May 13, 2024 - 7:50am
News of the Weird
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 5:05am
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 11:31am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - May 12, 2024 - 9:16am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
News Items »
Don't Divorce Us
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next |
musik_knut
Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:54pm |
|
AliGator wrote: That's a whole other issue. Don't bring it in here.
Tell me why the term "marriage" is so important to you. Do we need to separate people with the terms "marriage" and "civil unions"? Why?
I've sent an email to my dad, a Protestant minister, asking him what he thinks about gay marriage. I can't wait to hear what he responds.
Why is the term important to me? Because my religion is important to me. If that is a foreign concept to you and others, fine. And because my religion is important to me, its teachings are, too. I wasn't as religious as I am now until I was an 18 year old scared stiff kid hoping to stay alive in Nam...ok?
|
|
winter
Location: in exile, as always Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:54pm |
|
AliGator wrote:I make no bones about being a PK. It doesn't define me, but it did shape me. I'm really interested in hearing my dad's opinion. Because, you know, he believes in evolution and that whole pro-choice thing, and all that librul stuff.
|
|
Xeric
Location: Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:53pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:It seems a good number would dictate, even demand, that religions broaden their definitions...that's not granting religious freedoms and freedoms of religions... In June, I will be attending a wedding to be held on a golf course...to me, the venue is insignificant...so if anyone might think I'm such a strict ass on the topic and that only a Church may serve as the cite for a wedding, they would be wrong. So, I am to mind my own business? In other words, suppress my thoughts on this matter? Sorry, but if that's the sentiment behind that statement, it quite simply and defiantly, won't happen. Ever. Of course, that seems to be part of the thrust by the majority in here... accept one definition...think alike...walk the line...show no variance from what is expected...genuflect...heel. I guess I'm what some would think of as an arrogant Conservative Republican: never yielding on my rights... Time to move along...this has become a circular discussion...thanks to all who participated and showed civility...I do respect that despite any differences... nite all... Again, dude, that is your line, not mine. And religion's stance on the matter, in general. Open thine eyes, brother.
|
|
AliGator
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:53pm |
|
Beaker wrote:PK's are such hard asses! I discovered some time well after meeting her, that a friend of mine was the daughter of the pastor who performed our service. The stories she can tell would make ya blush... I make no bones about being a PK. It doesn't define me, but it did shape me. I'm really interested in hearing my dad's opinion. Because, you know, he believes in evolution and that whole pro-choice thing, and all that librul stuff.
|
|
AliGator
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:51pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:
Maybe we can't agree on what 'right' means? You have the right to free speech...you have Miranda Rights...the right to privacy...to be secure in your person, papers and property...
Marriage is nowhere found to be listed as a 'right'...
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right...marriage falls into that category...it is not a right.
Ok, then parenthood is not a right, yet people become parents all the time. I'm just saying, it's taken for granted in our society. We are free to marry who we want, unless we're gay, in which case, sorry, no dice.
|
|
musik_knut
Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:50pm |
|
Xeric wrote: And, again, they are welcome to do so for themselves. Not for me.
Religious norms govern those who choose to follow a particular faith. If you want to believe that the only true marriages are blessed by Jesus in a church—or by Necropholastaces in a Wigwam on Vernal Tuesday—you go right ahead. As I said, it's fine with me, because I'm committed to minding my own business.
And if I want to say that anybody who is willing to publicly commit to a lifetime with another person has as much right to be considered married as anybody else, good for me. And I'll thank you to mind your own business.
And the government perhaps should stay out of it, but can't, because of various legal issues pertaining to property, custody, and so on.
I keep coming back to what SFW said: there is nothing to be lost by the religious by broadening their definition. Nothing, that is, that they'd want to keep; all that is threatened is some sense of exclusivity, or self-importance, that most churches would claim not to be invested in. But insisting that the law not broaden its definition does huge harm to a large number of people who are just as deeply in love—and wish just as devoutly (yes, that's the word) to be married—than any o' them in that wigwam.
It seems a good number would dictate, even demand, that religions broaden their definitions...that's not granting religious freedoms and freedoms of religions... In June, I will be attending a wedding to be held on a golf course...to me, the venue is insignificant...so if anyone might think I'm such a strict ass on the topic and that only a Church may serve as the cite for a wedding, they would be wrong. So, I am to mind my own business? In other words, suppress my thoughts on this matter? Sorry, but if that's the sentiment behind that statement, it quite simply and defiantly, won't happen. Ever. Of course, that seems to be part of the thrust by the majority in here...accept one definition...think alike...walk the line...show no variance from what is expected...genuflect...heel. I guess I'm what some would think of as an arrogant Conservative Republican: never yielding on my rights... Time to move along...this has become a circular discussion...thanks to all who participated and showed civility...I do respect that despite any differences... nite all...
|
|
AliGator
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:49pm |
|
katzendogs wrote: You are right! It's a ceremony.
|
|
winter
Location: in exile, as always Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:48pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:
Maybe we can't agree on what 'right' means? You have the right to free speech...you have Miranda Rights...the right to privacy...to be secure in your person, papers and property...
Marriage is nowhere found to be listed as a 'right'...
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right...marriage falls into that category...it is not a right. So if marriage isn't a right, and has no constitutional protections, the government is free to define it as it sees fit? We could pass a law that forbade anyone but people who pass stringent genetic, educational, and economic criteria to marry. No sense letting the sick, the stupid, and the poor breed more of the same, after all. And what about the Ninth Amendment?
|
|
AliGator
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:48pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:
Suddenly, everything is a right: I have the right to default on my mortgage and the Government must assist me... Marriage is not a right...where does any statute speak of marriage rights? Bestow such a right?
You continue pushing the line about civil liberties...while overlooking my thoughts that Civil Unions should be recognized and in such Unions, no rights can be denied that are afforded all other 'unions'...I am not alone in that regard...seems your side of the issue isn't hearing my side: full rights, ALL rights, but not the term 'marriage'...
Perhaps many might wish it were so, but keeping religion out of this matter is impossible...
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of most religions denying Civil Unions...just the term 'marriage'.
That's a whole other issue. Don't bring it in here. Tell me why the term "marriage" is so important to you. Do we need to separate people with the terms "marriage" and "civil unions"? Why? I've sent an email to my dad, a Protestant minister, asking him what he thinks about gay marriage. I can't wait to hear what he responds.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:48pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:You continue pushing the line about civil liberties...while overlooking my thoughts that Civil Unions should be recognized and in such Unions, no rights can be denied that are afforded all other 'unions'...I am not alone in that regard...seems your side of the issue isn't hearing my side: full rights, ALL rights, but not the term 'marriage'...
Perhaps many might wish it were so, but keeping religion out of this matter is impossible...
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of most religions denying Civil Unions...just the term 'marriage'.
My religion defines "marriage" as "two or more people sharing a milkshake at a fast food joint." It's right there in our sacred texts, page 18. Next to the dry cleaning ad. No, the other side. Right there. Marriages (and families) predate all governments, and they predate all religions. Governments do not define marriages, they recognize them. Families define themselves. Governments just have to catch up.
|
|
katzendogs
Location: Pasadena ,Texas Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:47pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:
.it is not a right.
You are right! It's a ceremony.
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:47pm |
|
We are best rid of religion in this case. Finally, and for the the health of the commomwealth, get Jesus and God out of it! Marriage is NOT a religious sacrament nowadays, and thanks Heavens! It is a legal commitment and contract, and the superstitions and beliefs of an Iron Age Middle Eastern people should not apply to us here and now. Let us join the circle of civilization and let all people regardless of their sexual perference participate in civil society openly (as they always have secretively). Here speaking as a happily married atheist. Screw your sacrament. Let us not be divorced 'cause of your prejudice!
|
|
winter
Location: in exile, as always Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:44pm |
|
Beanie wrote:So, MK, I'm not piling on here, but I'll give you some food for thought. My husband, the Millwright-cum-Constitutional Scholar (that's not a joke), is quick to point out that the US Constitution is actually intended to protect the rights and liberties of the minority. When we define amendments to the Constitution that restrict the rights of the minority, it defies the most basic tenets upon which this country was founded. That is the basis for the unconstitutionality of the amendment. Majority does NOT always rule in this country when it comes to civil rights, and that's by design. Good gracious. I just segued from spirituality to constitutional law. I think it's time for bed! Happy debating, all!
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:43pm |
|
cheezus.
|
|
musik_knut
Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:41pm |
|
AliGator wrote: Please explain this to me. "Marriage is not a right." By that logic, according to how I'm interpreting it, parenthood should not be a right.
If I meet X and Y criteria, I can get married. It's not hard to meet the criteria. Hell, the state of Kentucky let me marry n4ku! I don't see where or how this was not my/our right.
And, anyone can be a parent. It doesn't matter who you are, you can create a child and carry it to term in this country. It's a right.
Call me dense, but I don't see your point.
Maybe we can't agree on what 'right' means? You have the right to free speech...you have Miranda Rights...the right to privacy...to be secure in your person, papers and property... Marriage is nowhere found to be listed as a 'right'... Driving a car is a privilege, not a right...marriage falls into that category...it is not a right.
|
|
Xeric
Location: Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:41pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:
Of course religions insist on defining marriage; they have done so for the ages. Most recently in California, a sizeable majority defined the parameters at the ballot box...the minority was not content with the will of the majority...and that is not unusual...but The People spoke...and still, some won't hear them. This issue is best left free of Government intrusion...I was fully irritated when some in my Party, The Republican Party, began a conversation on whether marriage should be defined and entered into The Constitution...that would have been met with my endless objections.
I suspect I am in a distinct minority in RP on this matter...I think I can count on one hand, those of Conservative bend like me...
And, again, they are welcome to do so for themselves. Not for me. Religious norms govern those who choose to follow a particular faith. If you want to believe that the only true marriages are blessed by Jesus in a church—or by Necropholastaces in a Wigwam on Vernal Tuesday—you go right ahead. As I said, it's fine with me, because I'm committed to minding my own business. And if I want to say that anybody who is willing to publicly commit to a lifetime with another person has as much right to be considered married as anybody else, good for me. And I'll thank you to mind your own business. And the government perhaps should stay out of it, but can't, because of various legal issues pertaining to property, custody, and so on. I keep coming back to what SFW said: there is nothing to be lost by the religious by broadening their definition. Nothing, that is, that they'd want to keep; all that is threatened is some sense of exclusivity, or self-importance, that most churches would claim not to be invested in. But insisting that the law not broaden its definition does huge harm to a large number of people who are just as deeply in love—and wish just as devoutly (yes, that's the word) to be married—than any o' them in that wigwam.
|
|
Beanie
Location: under the jellicle moon Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:38pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:
Of course religions insist on defining marriage; they have done so for the ages. Most recently in California, a sizeable majority defined the parameters at the ballot box...the minority was not content with the will of the majority...and that is not unusual...but The People spoke...and still, some won't hear them. This issue is best left free of Government intrusion...I was fully irritated when some in my Party, The Republican Party, began a conversation on whether marriage should be defined and entered into The Constitution...that would have been met with my endless objections.
I suspect I am in a distinct minority in RP on this matter...I think I can count on one hand, those of Conservative bend like me...
So, MK, I'm not piling on here, but I'll give you some food for thought. My husband, the Millwright-cum-Constitutional Scholar (that's not a joke), is quick to point out that the US Constitution is actually intended to protect the rights and liberties of the minority. When we define amendments to the Constitution that restrict the rights of the minority, it defies the most basic tenets upon which this country was founded. That is the basis for the unconstitutionality of the amendment. Majority does NOT always rule in this country when it comes to civil rights, and that's by design. Good gracious. I just segued from spirituality to constitutional law. I think it's time for bed! Happy debating, all!
|
|
musik_knut
Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:38pm |
|
BillnDollarBaby wrote:
I disagree. If one citizen has the right to be married, all should. While it is a religous institution for many people, it is still, at its core, a legal union, often but not always performed under religious authority. My marriage gives me legal rights and priveleges like tax breaks, inheritance, power of attorney, etc. Not everyone who is married is religious. I was married by a notary public in a harbor-side park. Does that make me less married because a religious figurehead didn't "bless" it? No. I don't deny any church the right to deny gay marriage under the rules of their denomination. But our government is not supposed to be involved in religion. This is not a religious issue, it is a legal one. We are denying a basic privelege to a large number of our citizens because of religious mores. So again, I ask those who inject religion into what should be a legal debate, to keep your religion out of our civil liberties.
I do believe, that if your church does not approve of gay marriage because of your laws, you do not have to perform religious ceremonies for gay couples. But that has nothing to do with the law.
Suddenly, everything is a right: I have the right to default on my mortgage and the Government must assist me... Marriage is not a right...where does any statute speak of marriage rights? Bestow such a right? You continue pushing the line about civil liberties...while overlooking my thoughts that Civil Unions should be recognized and in such Unions, no rights can be denied that are afforded all other 'unions'...I am not alone in that regard...seems your side of the issue isn't hearing my side: full rights, ALL rights, but not the term 'marriage'... Perhaps many might wish it were so, but keeping religion out of this matter is impossible... I might be wrong, but I am not aware of most religions denying Civil Unions...just the term 'marriage'.
|
|
Leslie
Location: Antioch, CA Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:37pm |
|
BillnDollarBaby wrote:
I respect your opinions. The only thing I take issue with is that this debate always comes around to religion. (I say that in a broad sense, not in regards to you specifically.) The rights and responsibilities that I am granted by the fact of my marriage are NOT religious, they are legal. They are only religious if I choose to make them so. And I don't. Our commitment to each other is based soley on that... our commitment to each other.
Exactly.
|
|
AliGator
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 7:36pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:
I don't care if two people, joined in a recognized Civil Union, call themselves 'married'. I don't want the Government dictating the definition historically defined by religions over the ages...
What some might not understand, perhaps due to preconceived notions, is that because I don't support the notion of marriage between same sex couples, I would also deny them rights, all rights...I would go the extra mile to defend all their rights...
Marriage is not a right...
Please explain this to me. "Marriage is not a right." By that logic, according to how I'm interpreting it, parenthood should not be a right. If I meet X and Y criteria, I can get married. It's not hard to meet the criteria. Hell, the state of Kentucky let me marry n4ku! I don't see where or how this was not my/our right. And, anyone can be a parent. It doesn't matter who you are, you can create a child and carry it to term in this country. It's a right. Call me dense, but I don't see your point.
|
|
|