IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Sure-if they also name it for themselves.'Coz "marriage"...
...is already taken: That belongs to *English*, not Religionese. If each religious nutcase sect wants to make up their own meaning for the term, then OK, go ahead -- only, then they can each also make up their own private term to go with their own private meaning.
The idea is that "marriage" becomes a church thing, or a social thing.
The idea was very good, sure; in fact, it was *almost* exactly correct. But only almost: It gets the last final little detail, namely who gets to define English, and who gets to abandon it, ass-backwards.

Marriage is *already* "a social thing". (Well, what isn't? Most everything is.) The thing is, though, since the Enlightenment, "social things" have been regulated by civil society. No, I'm not saying the weren't regulated before; they've always been. (That's pretty much inherent in the term, "social", isn't it?) I'm only saying that before, in the Dark Ages, "social things" were regulated either by autocratic fiat or by dogmatic superstition, and since the Enlightenment, they've been brought into the light of public scrutiny and (more-or-less) democratically-wrought, rationally-based, civil(ised!) Law.

Abdicating the power to define the very language your laws are written in, the language which more or less *is* your whole society, to the religious -- that is to roll all that progress right back into the Dark Ages.

(Sheesh, it makes one shiver with fear of the dark that you guys can't see that, it's so obvious. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised: It's the "boil a frog by putting him in the kettle while it's cold" phenomenon. Your United States have been slowly but inexorably religiofied for so long, you have a hard time seeing how close they are to finally becoming the United States of Christian Talebania.)
--
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), same old GMail.
New FWIW, this Xian agrees with me
For too long, the debate around same-sex unions has hinged on a sacrament exercised by the state, not the church, and the church has been all too willing to go along and get along, piping up here and there like a harpy polarizing the debate on both sides with different interpretations of Scripture. But I do not want a senator to offer me the bread and wine on Sunday. I do not want a governor to sprinkle water on my children’s heads for baptism. I do not want the mayor to put her hands on my head in confirmation.

Why would I want the state to have any say in my marriage?

http://unorthodoxolo...o-be-married.html
--

Drew
New I'm dealing with this right now
I'll have both a rabbi and a priest at my wedding, and neither are actually required. They are more for the family members than us.
New I can picture the joke now
there was a priest, a rabbi and box at this party
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New It writes itself.
Drove for 2 hours in traffic with my TL.

Late by 30 minutes. Starbucks.

We phone tagged during the ride, so he wasn't too worried.

He didn't say please hurry, he said take your time and be careful.

We grab some coffee and sit down with him.

Tall. Skinny. Very little hair. Old. How old? Glance, and
could be an old 50 or a young 60. He's over 70.

Reserved smiles, I'm on best behavior.

So, tell me about yourself? He asks specific deep probing questions,
rips right into you.

Gently.

Offers up any information we'd like on him.

Asks what we feel about religion. TL goes 1st. Warm gentle loving
things said, with a bit of annoyance concerning the hierarchy.

He gently agrees. Asks about my experiences and beliefs.

Uh oh. Decision time. TL is holding my hand, and gives a squeeze.
I'm supposed to be nice.

But he ASKED! And he really seems to want to know. Oh well, if we lose
him due to a conflict with me, such is life. I'll find another one
and shutup during the next interview. I have time.

My heart starts to pump. The adrenaline kicks in. Fuck! Physical
fight or flight response. Cut that shit out. Oh well, roll with it.

I explained to him that almost all of my religious conversations are
pretty much spent pointing out contradictions and obvious bullshit,
and they almost always ended bad, so it really wasn't something I
typically did, especially with a professional representative of the
religion.

Him: Go for it.

Sigh.

So father, do you know anything about Cherry Hill, NJ?

Him: Sure, that's a heavily Jewish area.

Me: Hmm, well. Do you know the Down's Farm area?
No? That's ok. When I was 3 my father tried to buy a house
there. They told him he was not allowed, that he needed to go
across the street to Woodcrest.

So he did.

That pretty much informs my early world view on the issue.

Not that I adhere to "mine". The reason you guys are here
are for the old folk, not us.

I consider ANY revealed truth religion, revealed to someone else, as
nothing more than a way to control the masses. I came up with a pretty
good phrase, almost all the words starting with 'm', but didn't write it
down. I should have. He referred to it later.

And as far as the prayers you say during the ceremony, no war cries.

Note: These points were made over about a 3 minute one sided conversation,
as I hit various issues (that you may have seen me post about). I didn't
go for the pedophile one, that would be too easy, and this was a personal
experience conversation, not a generic "you guys suck" one.

Him: No war cries? I assure you (blah blah)

Me: (as I cut him off): No, you need to understand what my crazy
paranoid brain considers war cries. Any time I hear Christians praying
for peace, I'm trying to figure out who they are at war with, and just
how many Jews are going to die as part of the process.

At this point my TL is trying not to glare at me. She's doing a
pretty good job of maintaining a poker face, and then leaning
in and nodding sadly at me, trying to "emote" to the priest that
I'm damaged goods but I'm still marriageable.

The priest nods. And smiles.

And then blows me away.

His life experience easily qualifies him to understand my point of
view, and he partially embraces it. As he said, it's not just paranoia.

He'll do.

Actually, he's far better than "do". Hopefully he'll stay for
the whole party and can share some stories. I'm waiting for his
book, I might have access to it a bit before physical publication.

So now we have a tag team, the rabbi and the priest.

And if you like, a box.
     Mark Morford on the gay heathen hordes freaking out the - (Ashton) - (52)
         Wow...not too reactionary... - (beepster) - (2)
             well look at the bright side :-) - (boxley) - (1)
                 :-) -NT - (beepster)
         Interesting point there - (drook) - (34)
             I have said that for years, the state has no business - (boxley) - (2)
                 Is it? - (drook) - (1)
                     Current law is the name on the birth certificate - (boxley)
             Re: Interesting point there - (jay) - (20)
                 Words count - (drook) - (18)
                     bing bing bing! - (beepster) - (8)
                         I view it differently. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                             You missed the implication of what I said - (drook) - (5)
                                 But the horse left the barn and is in the next county. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                     Good idea, but DOA - (drook)
                                     marriage is a religious term not a legal term - (boxley) - (2)
                                         So they were covered on each other's insurance? - (drook) - (1)
                                             actually neither had insurance :-) - (boxley)
                             nope, my marriage was illegal in virginia - (boxley)
                     I don't think it would really work - (jay) - (8)
                         People are lazy, I'm counting on that - (drook) - (7)
                             There would be - (jay) - (6)
                                 I'm not trying to change the language people use - (drook) - (5)
                                     can we use a fade away shot - (boxley)
                                     Which isn't enough - (jay) - (3)
                                         in the real world the fundie gets fired - (boxley)
                                         actually a real world example link - (boxley)
                                         What? - (beepster)
                 bassackwards - (boxley)
             Interesting discussion. - (static) - (9)
                 I think that where you stand depends on where you sit. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                     Yep, I've 'committed marriage' upon 3 sets, so far -- - (Ashton)
                     I had another thought. - (static)
                     thanks for proving my point - (boxley) - (1)
                         My point, too. - (static)
                 Marriage probably predates religion - (jay) - (3)
                     I seriously doubt . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                         Unanswerable question - (jay) - (1)
                             Ummm . . . paper thin? - (Andrew Grygus)
         So this thread became about who gets to define language... - (CRConrad) - (13)
             1. doesnt matter, - (boxley) - (1)
                 You're missing the point by a mile, as usual. - (CRConrad)
             Define "married" - (drook) - (4)
                 Married=Living in a civil union(religious blessing optional) - (CRConrad) - (3)
                     Dammit, you're making a good point - (drook)
                     Well said. Here's an interesting summary. - (Another Scott)
                     Stuart Chase ceased revolving-in-grave upon this utterance - (Ashton)
             Each religion can define it for themselves - (mhuber) - (5)
                 Sure-if they also name it for themselves.'Coz "marriage"... - (CRConrad) - (4)
                     FWIW, this Xian agrees with me - (drook) - (3)
                         I'm dealing with this right now - (crazy) - (2)
                             I can picture the joke now - (boxley) - (1)
                                 It writes itself. - (crazy)

Powered by Agua de Culo!
74 ms