SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Joined: Sep 18 2009 Posts: 132

If the law states that marriage between man and man as well as man and woman is legal and you refuse to do it, then yes, you should have your license taken away. If you refuse to do it based on religious reasons, the government should be able to step in and take it away because there is separation of church and state. Its not a religious issue, its what the government considers legally married. Marriage entitles you to benefits on a legal level on the state and national stage. Its not like Christians can talk about any sanctity of marriage like they have the market cornered on it, especially the conservative ones who get divorced like its going out of style. Granted, I wouldn't get married in a church or by a minister/pastor because I don't believe in that institution, but if you have legal status of being able to marry people, you should have to abide by the law.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

So just because something becomes socially acceptable, then you're obligated to do it because the government says you should?

Granted, I don't care about orientation when it comes to marriage, but I believe if the foundation beliefs are already in place and it's not affecting anyone within that community in a negative fashion, then I don't think it IS the government's place to step in and tell them that it's their way or the highway. And there ARE places for gay people to marry, some of which just want to make a fuss for the sake of being right.

Look from this perspective, if 50 years from now the government says it's socially acceptable for adults to have relations with very underaged minors, does that mean we have to agree with it, let alone sanction marriage?

Also when you define marriage in such a loose manor, you open the door pretty wide for other people who are legit stupid such as the guy who wanted to marry a cartoon or the other who wanted to marry his dog.

Joined: Sep 18 2009 Posts: 132

You don't have to agree with it. I never said you do. I said very specifically that if the government grants you the legal ability to marry adults, you should have to abide by those laws. If you run an ABC store and the government suddenly says that you cannot sell to anyone under 30, you'll lose your license if you sell to people 21 years of age. If they move the age down to 18, you cannot legally withhold alcohol from an 18 year old.

And please, what's loose about defining marriage between a man and a man? That argument is old as dirt and brings us back to morality. Anything can be moral at any time to anyone. At some point, someone will have to draw the line or erase all lines completely. I look at it like this: if someone wants to marry someone or something else, if it doesn't physically harm anyone involved, who am I to say that its "wrong"? People like to complain that if we open that door, society will cease to function because people will go off and marry and/or start fucking animals and inanimate objects. I can guarantee you that the naturally evolved drive in humans to have sex with the opposite sex and to have children will outweigh any deviant behavior like that. Hell, if people start having sex with horses, maybe they'll die off from ruptured colons. And if you want to use your wording as "legit stupid", then why don't you advocate for a mandatory mental screening before you're allowed to get married or have children? Talk about legislating morality.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

There is no problem technically, but when people make the argument "he's my life partner and I want to have the same opportunities that a man and a woman have", you drag along all the crazy people who do the same. And yes, you shouldn't be allowed to marry your fucking dog...that is the absolute most ridiculous thing...have some respect for matramony (coming from someone who doesn't want to get married). The whole idea of "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" doesn't hold up, because we're supposed to be at this point where you can do whatever and be accepted for what it is. If you want to live in a world where this sort of nonsense is present, then go for it.

As far as mandatory screening for having children? Perhaps something does need to happen, since the birthrate is over 40% for anyone under the age of 25, and almost half of those can't afford children without government help. Sorry, but if you're unable to provide for a child, then maybe you shouldn't be having children. I'm a skeptic on this whole thing, since I don't believe there should be screening, but at the same time we're going through an epidemic.

Joined: Sep 18 2009 Posts: 132

Doddsino wrote:

As far as mandatory screening for having children? Perhaps something does need to happen, since the birthrate is over 40% for anyone under the age of 25, and almost half of those can't afford children without government help. Sorry, but if you're unable to provide for a child, then maybe you shouldn't be having children. I'm a skeptic on this whole thing, since I don't believe there should be screening, but at the same time we're going through an epidemic.

I actually mainly agree with you about this. I'm confident that if we run a regression analysis including variables such as highest level of education completed, IQ, income, age, marital status, problem solving skills, etc., we'll find that some variables stick out as being red flags for bad potential parents. I'd then suggest that the prospective parents wait and try to better themselves and their situation (with help, of course... I'm ALL for my tax dollars going towards people who are willing to take initiative to better themselves) to become more fit to have children. It definitely puts a bias against certain groups of people, but ultimately, I think the caliber of citizen would positively increase.

We'll probably not agree about the marriage aspect of our discussion, but whatever. According to my morals, I'm right and that's all that matters. Wink

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

It's a fine line to walk when you talk about this stuff. I worked at Toys R Us for christ sake and the little bastards made me swear off ever having kids. Not sure if the law has changed, but maybe the government can give some sort of tax break to those who get vasectomys or tubes tied...I'd be the first one in line. Yeah, the problem you would have with any sort legislation that doesn't allow for people to have kids, you have to deal with the trash that keeps over spawning. Hell, I knew a lady who had 8 children with 7 different men, and she kept having children because if she didn't, the government would cut off her checks, and since she was a lazy bitch to begin with and didn't want to get a job, she figured this would be easier. And on top of that, her 14 year old daughter got knocked up, so she was a "happy grandmother".

I go back to the "socially acceptable" shit that's going on with our world. Children seem to be the beaken of hope, no matter how grim their circumstances are. You really shouldn't be "praising" little Jimmy for being "smart" for a 3 year old, because chances are...in 12 years or so...he'll be collecting sharp objects for his "collection". On a serious note, at my high school graduation, there was a "special" award given to a girl who became pregnant and continued to go to school. Now while I applaud anyone who would continue their education, why the FUCK does she get a goddamn award for it? I mean I graduated and didn't fuck up and have a baby...shouldn't I get an award?

Socially acceptable...what a load a garbage.

Posted: Oct 22 2009 01:41 pm

jerknut wrote:

If the law states that marriage between man and man as well as man and woman is legal and you refuse to do it, then yes, you should have your license taken away. If you refuse to do it based on religious reasons, the government should be able to step in and take it away because there is separation of church and state.

So if a Jewish man and woman want to get married in a Catholic church (for reasons unknown), should a priest have his license taken away for refusing to perform the ceremony? I don't know if such a thing would happen, but it's a legitimate extension of your proposal.

Joined: Sep 18 2009 Posts: 132

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

So if a Jewish man and woman want to get married in a Catholic church (for reasons unknown), should a priest have his license taken away for refusing to perform the ceremony? I don't know if such a thing would happen, but it's a legitimate extension of your proposal.

Well, you touch on the potential problem with that scenario. Why WOULD they go to a catholic church to get married? If we actually could find a couple who wanted to do this, I guess my answer would involve a few contingencies.

If the jewish couple went to the catholic priest for a straight up marriage that didn't involve specific rituals tied to either religion, then I feel that he is indeed obligated to marry them. If they went to him and wanted a traditional jewish wedding, then no, I see a completely different set of circumstances. You don't go to a dermatologist for nut cancer, just as you wouldn't go to a united methodist to learn about mormonism.

In the first scenario, we have two people wanting to get married who just happen to be jewish. They don't feel the need to celebrate it through their wedding. In the second, we have two jewish people who want to get married. Am I being clear? Its like going to war in God's name vs. going to war to increase GDP, you just so happen to believe in the Christian God. I doubt the first couple would label their primary identity as Jewish if its no big deal to get married by a catholic priest. The second couple would be more likely to have a primary identity of "jew"... but in that case its doubtful they'd ask a catholic priest to marry them (unless he was a close friend or something? Confused

).

If religion and the underlying morals associated with that religion are the main reason you refuse to marry someone, yes, you should have your license revoked.

Joined: Sep 18 2009 Posts: 132

Really, its my belief that we should get rid of "marriage" as the primary way our government identifies legal couples. I'd be much happier with civil unions being the primary indicator. You want legal rights? Get a civil union down at the courthouse. You want the pomp and circumstance, the rituals, and the partying? Get married (or have a public civil union), but this should have no bearing on your legal status.

Posted: Oct 22 2009 02:47 pm

Aren't abortions legal? Are all medical doctors required to perform abortions for fear of losing their license?

Joined: Sep 18 2009 Posts: 132

Valdronius wrote:

Aren't abortions legal? Are all medical doctors required to perform abortions for fear of losing their license?

Firstly, only certain doctors are allowed to perform abortions. You must be trained and certified in abortion techniques. Now if that just happens to be part of the schooling you receive during your tenure in medical school, you can exercise what's called the conscience clause which allows you to be exempt from performing certain procedures based on religion and beliefs and whatnot. Anyone remember wal-mart not carrying birth control? I personally don't think I'd want a doctor who believes that a man could be born of a virgin and be resurrected 3 days later, but I guess that's beside the point. I believe that as a trained medical professional, you are obligated to follow the laws and ethics set forth by your professional organization. Wouldn't be a big deal except these laws were created in direct opposition of the first abortion laws. This is actually pretty timely as the white house is preparing to either limit these conscience laws or get rid of them completely.

Posted: Oct 22 2009 03:34 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

jerknut wrote:

If the law states that marriage between man and man as well as man and woman is legal and you refuse to do it, then yes, you should have your license taken away. If you refuse to do it based on religious reasons, the government should be able to step in and take it away because there is separation of church and state.

So if a Jewish man and woman want to get married in a Catholic church (for reasons unknown), should a priest have his license taken away for refusing to perform the ceremony? I don't know if such a thing would happen, but it's a legitimate extension of your proposal.

A religious ceremony does not constitute legal marriage. You must still apply for a marriage license FROM THE STATE in order to be considered married in the eyes of the federal government. A priest may perform the ceremony, but so may a justice of the peace.

If two Protestants show up at a Catholic cathedral and say they want to get married there, the archdiocese has the right to refuse them. They can get still married, just not there. Let's look at it another way. You show up at TGI Friday's. You're sweaty, shirtless, drunk, and a little horny. You have the money required to pay for the services they offer. Your money is just as good as anyone else's. They have the right to tell you to get the fuck out and never come back. The sacrament of matrimony is no different. That is what they're refusing you - the sacrament.

Joined: Sep 18 2009 Posts: 132

I somewhat agree with Syd on the whole, but I don't like the analogy. None of your rights are denied when TGIF denies you service. Its a private business, they are allowed to refuse service. I don't know why it would happen in the specific sense (athiest getting married by 7th day adventist, jew by shi'ite, protestant by catholic) but very generally, if you are legally able to do something and are denied the ability to do it by someone, I think that's fundamentally wrong and the.. uh... "disabler" should have their license revoked or at the very least their practices and choices should be investigated.

Joined: Sep 18 2009 Posts: 132

Really, the better analogy would be if you went to TGIF and were denied service because you are gay, black, or an atheist. A restaurant in particular can make a case against serving sweaty, shirtless drunks since they're serving food and they have health codes to meet. You'd likely get sued if you denied service to a black man simply for being black.

(at this rate I'll crack the top 100 in no time :rolleyes:)

Posted: Oct 22 2009 04:34 pm

Not nessicarily, Churches are private organizations, and don't have to follow those guidelines. Remember that the courts ruled that since the Boy Scouts were a private organization, they could refuse to let gay members in.

A church is, in a nutshell, a private club. They choose who to admit as members in any way that they choose. They also have the right to turn away anyone they want for any reason.

And, my feeling is, that a government should not be weighed down by morals, or individual definitions of morals. The government should simply create, uphold, and enforce the laws. A perfect government should be black and white, with no shades of gray, in it's actions or it's laws.

The problem with the US is that it was founded by religious zealots, and many of the laws still reflect that. To many extents, the law is still pursuaded by religious organizations. If it wasn't, then both abortion and homosexual pairing rights would not be issues at all.

Joined: Sep 18 2009 Posts: 132

Which founding father was a religious zealot? Many were theists at most.

How do you create, uphold, and enforce laws without getting into moral territory? Laws are direct reflections of our values and beliefs, which then influence our behaviors and morals.

When a member of a private club has the ability to grant some citizens rights while denying others their rights, that should cross legal boundaries. Its not joining their club we're talking about, its about a legal status granted by a member of the club (if that's what they want).

Posted: Oct 22 2009 08:02 pm

(I will admit I didn't read a bulk of the recent comments but I read enough I think to comment) As far as marriage goes I am all for them having the right to be married, they deserve to be just as unhappy as the rest of us in straight marriages. Seriously though...the whole if we legalize it some guy is going to want to marry his neighbors doorknob is a paranoid argument, as long as the couple are consenting adults and they keep it in their bedroom it is none of our business. Putting clauses on peoples lives like that as far as marriage is not the American way, your morals / freedoms do not trump any other persons...sure you have the right to argue up and down, scream and shout, but at the end of the day I believe they have as much right to marry as you or I do.