Politics: A new beginning - Page 110

leagleaze · 11-21-2003, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I would think you might want to substitute "compulsion" for "hobby." Since I am not gay, I will find it amusing in a sick sad way when I don't find it depressing.

And I don't see why "commie" is automatically an insult. I know that Slave means it pejoratively, but then, people call other people gay and mean it pejoratively.

Understandable. It is difficult for me to even listen to the discussions. Either people are academically discussing it as an interesting issue, or they are passionately for or against it. It is hard to listen to the former (and this is why I rarely engage in these discussions on this board) since to me it is hardly academic.

As far as the people who are rabidly against it and other similar issues, since I have to be able to respond to the arguments I have to listen. It is a bit like going into a room where you know everyone hates you and plans on discussing this fact and what they find wrong with you in the most explicit manner possible, and just sitting there and taking notes. Over the past 6 months I have developed a wonderful blank stare.

And yes, I was speaking to Slave's specific use of it, not the general term.

SlaveNoMore · 11-21-2003, 12:37 AM

Quote:

leagleaze
And yes, I was speaking to Slave's specific use of it, not the general term.

Um, I called him "comrade" and gave a shout out to his Bay-Area Baathist buddies, the "Ivory-Tower socialists"

And I called him a "pinko" in a PM to him.

Where did I call him a Commie?

leagleaze · 11-21-2003, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Um, I called him "comrade" and gave a shout out to his Bay-Area Baathist buddies, the "Ivory-Tower socialists"

And I called him a "pinko" in a PM to him.

Where did I call him a Commie?

On the hidden board lover. (For those of you who don't know, we talk about you in an Admin only board. The gossip is faaabulous.*)

*Actually it is pretty boring and amounts to something like this:

Slave: Hey, Tyrone would make a good politics mod, anyone have a problem with that?
E/O: Fine with me.
Leagleaze: Sure.

SlaveNoMore · 11-21-2003, 12:45 AM

Quote:

leagleaze
On the hidden board lover. (For those of you who don't know, we talk about you in an Admin only board)

Be on the lookout for two guys named Vito and Tony. They're coming over to..er..say hi.

leagleaze · 11-21-2003, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Be on the lookout for two guys named Vito and Tony. They're coming over to..er..say hi.

Cool. Tell them to bring some pasta or something. I'm hungry and my fridge is empty.

Say_hello_for_me · 11-21-2003, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No, I'm saying that if marriage was purely a religious ceremony, without a civil component to it, then the state couldn't tell anyone that they had to let gays marry. They could have their own morally-pure church, and who visits whom in hospitals, etc., could be decided on the basis of some other criterion.

Feel free to explain this better, but I don't get the impression that its like the (name your favorite American church) just started telling our G how to run marriage. At least, not since the time our G came into being circa 1776 or 1783 or whatever.

Wasn't this stuff settled between church and state in the old world(s) such that there was never any other meaning given to the concept of marriage (i.e., man and woman)? Insofar as you might be complaining about some recent interference of the church in defining the meaning, I don't know what the hell you'd be referring to. This stuff was settled around year (quick, anyone got Google?) hundred.

Hate to say this, but all the chest thumping in the world about the badness of the "extreme right" or the "sinners" or whatever, ain't likely to change most people's minds. You want sympathy? Tell me (and most Americans) how I will (or may) pay less in taxes by doing whatever it is you want. And yes, I think you people could list many, many ways this will (or may) happen. That's how Archie and Edith will acquiesce.

Hello

Gattigap · 11-21-2003, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You want sympathy? Tell me (and most Americans) how I will (or may) pay less in taxes by doing whatever it is you want.

Grover? Is that you?

Replaced_Texan · 11-21-2003, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

Wasn't this stuff settled between church and state in the old world(s) such that there was never any other meaning given to the concept of marriage (i.e., man and woman)? Insofar as you might be complaining about some recent interference of the church in defining the meaning, I don't know what the hell you'd be referring to. This stuff was settled around year (quick, anyone got Google?) hundred.
Hello

I don't think so. In Mexico you generally have two cermonies, one religious and one civil. The religious one is purely superfulous, and you're not considered "married" by the state unless you go through the civil ceremony. http://www.mexconnect.com/MEX/jrose/jrmarriage.html

General run down of requirements to get married:
England: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Scotland: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Northern Ireland: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Austria: Only civil marriages are legal.
Ireland: Can be married by civil or certain religious ceremonies.
Belgium: Can only be married by the ""Ambtenaar van de Burgerlijke Stand/Officier de l'Etat Civil"
Finland: (unclear)
France: Must have a civil ceremony before any religious ceremony.
Greece: In order for the marriage to be valid, within forty days after the wedding the couple must declare at the Registry Office that the wedding has been performed.
Italy: Can be married by civil ceremony or (if one of the parties is Italian) religious ceremony.
Malta: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Neatherlands: Can only be married by civil ceremony.
Spain: Recent developments in the law allow Catholic, Protestant, Islamic and Jewish ceremonies without a separate civil ceremony.
Switzerland: Apparently, it depends on the municipality.
(http://www.european-weddings.com/legal.htm)
Belize: Generally, a civil ceremony though a Minster of Religion can perform ceremonies in the cayes. http://ambergriscaye.com/pages/town/marriage.html
Costa Rica: Civil ceremony only. http://www.discoverypress.com/marry.html

I had no idea how sophisticated the wedding-industrial complex really was until I started googling for this post.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 11-21-2003, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leagleaze
You shouldn't call him a Commie.

That's not nice.

As pope, you should be warm and fuzzy.

If he's pope, can I call him a homophobic nazi, or will you make me limit it to homophobic nazi sympathizer?

(Still having trouble coming to terms with my Catholicism).

Say_hello_for_me · 11-21-2003, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't think so. In Mexico you generally have two cermonies, one religious and one civil. The religious one is purely superfulous, and you're not considered "married" by the state unless you go through the civil ceremony. http://www.mexconnect.com/MEX/jrose/jrmarriage.html

General run down of requirements to get married:
England: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Scotland: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Northern Ireland: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Austria: Only civil marriages are legal.
Ireland: Can be married by civil or certain religious ceremonies.
Belgium: Can only be married by the ""Ambtenaar van de Burgerlijke Stand/Officier de l'Etat Civil"
Finland: (unclear)
France: Must have a civil ceremony before any religious ceremony.
Greece: In order for the marriage to be valid, within forty days after the wedding the couple must declare at the Registry Office that the wedding has been performed.
Italy: Can be married by civil ceremony or (if one of the parties is Italian) religious ceremony.
Malta: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Neatherlands: Can only be married by civil ceremony.
Spain: Recent developments in the law allow Catholic, Protestant, Islamic and Jewish ceremonies without a separate civil ceremony.
Switzerland: Apparently, it depends on the municipality.
(http://www.european-weddings.com/legal.htm)
Belize: Generally, a civil ceremony though a Minster of Religion can perform ceremonies in the cayes. http://ambergriscaye.com/pages/town/marriage.html
Costa Rica: Civil ceremony only. http://www.discoverypress.com/marry.html

I had no idea how sophisticated the wedding-industrial complex really was until I started googling for this post.

I am honestly not asking you to do more work, but first, do any of those predate 1776 or 1783 or whatever? Most of those countries had revolutions since then, and they weren't always fighting merry ole colonial england. France? Mexico? I thought they were pretty much revolting against the church. So I'm not sure their systems qualify as the systems of our old-world forefathers.

Second, even if they do predate 1776 or 1783, the marriage concept is still derived from systems that were church-based, right? Before 1700 or so, I'm having trouble picturing any nation doing secular marriages.

And third, of those that do, do they allow same-sex marriages yet? I'm gonna bet that they do in the Netherlands and one or two others.

And hey, I'm just trying to counter any notion that its the (any) religion trying to tinker with things here.

Hello

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 11-21-2003, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leagleaze
It is difficult for me to even listen to the discussions. Either people are academically discussing it as an interesting issue, or they are passionately for or against it. It is hard to listen to the former ... since to me it is hardly academic.

But we find you interesting.

We would like to dissect you.

Say_hello_for_me · 11-21-2003, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If he's pope, can I call him a homophobic nazi

Cite please?

Damn dude, I'm one of (your people) too. Its one thing not to agree with some (many) policies, edicts or whatever, but homophobic nazi?

Hello

Tyrone Slothrop · 11-21-2003, 12:52 PM

My point was not about marriage per se, but that when religion and government become entangled, religion suffers.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 11-21-2003, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't think so. In Mexico you generally have two cermonies, one religious and one civil. The religious one is purely superfulous, and you're not considered "married" by the state unless you go through the civil ceremony. http://www.mexconnect.com/MEX/jrose/jrmarriage.html

General run down of requirements to get married:
England: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Scotland: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Northern Ireland: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Austria: Only civil marriages are legal.
Ireland: Can be married by civil or certain religious ceremonies.
Belgium: Can only be married by the ""Ambtenaar van de Burgerlijke Stand/Officier de l'Etat Civil"
Finland: (unclear)
France: Must have a civil ceremony before any religious ceremony.
Greece: In order for the marriage to be valid, within forty days after the wedding the couple must declare at the Registry Office that the wedding has been performed.
Italy: Can be married by civil ceremony or (if one of the parties is Italian) religious ceremony.
Malta: Can be married either by civil or religious ceremony.
Neatherlands: Can only be married by civil ceremony.
Spain: Recent developments in the law allow Catholic, Protestant, Islamic and Jewish ceremonies without a separate civil ceremony.
Switzerland: Apparently, it depends on the municipality.
(http://www.european-weddings.com/legal.htm)
Belize: Generally, a civil ceremony though a Minster of Religion can perform ceremonies in the cayes. http://ambergriscaye.com/pages/town/marriage.html
Costa Rica: Civil ceremony only. http://www.discoverypress.com/marry.html

I had no idea how sophisticated the wedding-industrial complex really was until I started googling for this post.

Very interesting.

I find Spain interesting, since it has essentially limited religious marriage to the Ibrahamic religions -- no Hindus need apply.

But in all of this, my bottom line question is: what kind of asshole cares whether or not two people who love each other are "married"? Why the hell does anyone consider it their business?

Sorry, thought it was important that their be some level of emotional rant in this debate.

ltl/fb · 11-21-2003, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Cite please?

Damn dude, I'm one of (your people) too. Its one thing not to agree with some (many) policies, edicts or whatever, but homophobic nazi?

Hello

I think he was using nazi in its generic sense (many people do; some find this offensive). The homophobic part is easy, so I won't insult you by explaining.

Perhaps homophobic facist is more to your taste?