We've been down this road before

Post #183,634 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 9:05:12 PM Reply	We've been down this road before Here are some questions for you anyways. I know that you don't think that I'm really married (I'm an atheist, married in a civil ceremony only). Where in the following chain of cases do you draw the line between what you accept as marriage and what you don't? Why do you draw the line there? It is OK to say that one case is not clearly on one side or the other, in that case please state when it would be a marriage to you and when it wouldn't be a marriage. Married in a church by a priest of your brand of Christianity. Married in a church by a priest a different brand of Christianity (some brand you don't fully agree with, eg Catholic or Southern Baptist). Married by a priest of a different brand of Christianity (some brand you don't fully agree with, eg Catholic or Southern Baptist). Married by a rabbi. (Christianity minus Christ.) Married in a traditional muslim ceremony. (Sort of Christianity plus a lot of stuff) Married in a traditional Hindu ceremony. (Note that Hindus do not believe in anything resembling Christian notions of God. But they have lots of gods.) Married in a traditional Buddhist ceremony. (Buddhists do not generally accept anything resembling our notions of deities.) Married in a Wiccan ceremony. (The practice and beliefs of Wicca in the USA is..fluid. And then some.) Declare themselves to be married. Any further responses from me will depend on knowing what criteria you use. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,676 by daemon 11/9/04 12:04:19 AM Reply	married by Ashton Brown would suffice and you are close enough for a rematch as for your list even your last example means more to me than a civil marriage in the courthouse/state rep/state anything do I accept that you are married? Yes, she Hasnt left you yet. Do I wish you would regular it? Yes call ash, declare yourself married by personal fiat I regard that different. Since in person you delared yourself by fiat (last year or the year before, dont remember) you are/have been "married" in my eyes that automagically invokes the "rule of the North" you cannot woo a sexual encounter with any woman you ever met while you have ever met the "husband" unless she is a "hottie" and you wish to assert your claim via fisticuffs except when the husband is obviously pussy whipped and the woman is a cunt then all bets are orf we can ifdef from there but that is baseline regards, daemon that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #183,678 by Nightowl 11/9/04 12:09:20 AM Reply	Speaking of Ashton... (new thread) Created as new thread #183677 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=183677\|Speaking of Ashton...] "It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
Post #183,680 by daemon 11/9/04 12:12:53 AM Reply	more I think about it the more you should tell me to fuck off, it aint my business to determine wether you and "your wife" are married, its a declaration that as a free American I must acceptuntil you declare otherwise, apologies, regards, daemon that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #183,765 by ben_tilly 11/9/04 12:12:45 PM Reply	In which case... if two gay men who are old enough to know what they are doing hold a ceremony and declare themselves married, would you now be inclined to say that that's their business and they are now married until events prove otherwise? Because that is my position right there. Given that the state cares to treat marriages differently than non-marriages, I think that the state should treat gay marriage like heterosexual marriage. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,781 by daemon 11/9/04 1:24:28 PM Reply	already said that a couple of posts up :-) that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #183,823 by CraigB 11/9/04 6:56:02 PM Reply	Re: In which case... This might almost be the place to bring up marriage being exclusively between man and woman... Um. Based on what criteria? Appearance? Plumbing? (Current or at birth?) Although not terribly common, what to do with indeterminate gender? Maybe count chromosomes? Measure hormone balance? How about the ability (or desire) to breed? Should get interesting when someone ABnormal requires that the terms be defined. CraigB
Post #183,826 by Another Scott 11/9/04 7:40:16 PM Reply	It could always be made more complicated. Howdy. It looks like you've been around here a long time, #129. You should post more. :-) Gender can be complicated. That's one of the reasons why I think concentrating on gender is missing the big picture. My view is that society should support families. It should encourage people to get together to support each other, take care of each other, raise children (if so inclined), etc. The difficulty comes in defining a family. There's a long history of ship's captains, and judges, and even priests marrying people. That seems to me to be a tradition worth preserving. Up until recently, and even now in some societies, multiple simultaneous wives were not uncommon. The US decided that was a bad thing, so it's not allowed now. There are financial and social benefits bestowed on marriage. There are also personal, financial, and psychological benefits to being married. My grandfather and his sister lived in the same house after their spouses died. They were a family even though they weren't married to each other. It was better for both of them to stay together rather than live separately. I think society should encourage that when possible. I think they should be able to claim the same tax deduction that a married couple could. I think they should be able to have the same survivor benefits of a spouse without the necessity of a will (though everyone should have a will). Etc. So how should a "family" be defined so that it fits with all of this? Maybe two adults living together who make a commitment to each other. It could be fairly simple ((e.g. my grandfather, his sister, and my uncle (who helped care for them)), or get complicated (an adult man with 2 unrelated women? 3 adult men with 5 unrelated women?). Should the government get out of the secular marriage business? No, I don't think so. Should marriage be redefined? No, I don't think so but might be persuaded. I think though that by conferring benefits on families rather than married couples would take care of a lot of the problems. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. (Who now worries about the backlash from single people...)
Post #183,909 by Ashton 11/12/04 1:10:01 AM Reply	This fine Human suggestion is____entirely too___sane to fly amidst a bunch of religio-zealots who have just appointed a Certified Village Idiot (and coterie of fiends) to - shepherd their Bagman-with-the-Codes for Terran Destruction, at-will. ie Not a snowball's chance in figmentary-Xian-Hell of any such blindingly Sane legislation ever occurring! You Silly.
Post #183,908 by Ashton 11/12/04 1:02:14 AM Reply	As a Reverend in the Universal Life Church I have in fact, married three couples. One was doomed from the first by youthful insouciance; a second lasted about 15 years and the third - persists. As to this thread.. You cannot untangle the pernicious busybodiness of the average Murican Xian -- ill-informed about the contradictions within his so-called gospels, suffused with the built-in Tribble-like Born-~~Pregnant~~Guilty AND Sinfilled perpetually.. All wrapped-together within that smug sense of being amidst the Only-True Certainty [Essential corollary re all others, natch: And You Aren't! ] No Wonder there's all this dissension about the Holy State of Matrimony, esp. as practised by such hypocrites .. as dare disparage the FULLY-EQUIVALENT.. I Divorce You I Divorce You I Divorce You traditions of the non-Christers they Love-to-Despise. (ie everybody-Not-moi cha cha cha) Sorry, but, 'rational discussion' of the strange, mean-spirited, Hugely-intolerant superstitions of The Majority -- is itself side-splitting. in a Tom Lehrer sort of way. I Who Be

Welcome to IWETHEY!