GhostWriter16
Deity
Why would an asexual person want to get married? Marriage generally has a connotation of including sex...
Farewell Poopsmith
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
Why would an asexual person want to get married? Marriage generally has a connotation of including sex...
Libertarianism and Conservatism are two internally consistent ideologies, so I really don't see how one can be both. Just because a position is commonly associated with conservatism it doesn't make you a conservative if you hold it for say, libertarian reasons.
Someone who claims to be both is usually neither, and just tries to appeal to as many people as possible within the commonly perceived rightwing camp.
Like biological differences such as the concentration of melanin in one's skin?
Nope.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
A romantic relationship is not necessarily a sexual one.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Why is it any of your business why they want to get married?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Its not... I didn't say it was.
I do think a marriage between two men (Or two women) is not accurately described as a "Marriage." Thus I don't want the government using the term.
Honestly, I'd rather the government not use the term at all. But if they're going to use it, I'd rather them use it correctly
Back to more interesting discussion
I do think a marriage between two men (Or two women) is not accurately described as a "Marriage." Thus I don't want the government using the term.
Honestly, I'd rather the government not use the term at all. But if they're going to use it, I'd rather them use it correctly
Back to more interesting discussion
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Didn't most of Rome's dictators actually exceed the legal limit of their terms in office? (Sulla certainly did so before Caesar.) I thought that Cincinnatus was the exceptional one, for actually giving up the job.
madviking
north american scum
reverse is true too
Please replace the bolded noun with the accurate noun (and not with a phrase).
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
So you'd prefer it to refer solely to the Sacrament?Honestly, I'd rather the government not use the term at all. But if they're going to use it, I'd rather them use it correctly
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Well it did, just not in any appreciably leftist way.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, fascism in general, yeah, but weren't the Nazis kind of riding a bandwagon that was already well on its way by the time they became prominent? (Or am I missing something?)
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Nah, the Nazis intellectual roots do go back further, and it's really coincidence that they arrived at the same time as Fascism, and only aped some of the outer structure of the Fascist system.
Their real "inovation" was to subplant traditional German nationalism with notions of racial hygiene that had sort of an ivory tower intellectual reputation to them before. Hitler very cleverly appealed to German Nationalists while decrying all the traditional symbols and ideas of the German Nationalists: The Kaiser, the Borders of 1914, even the flag.
The German right-wing until then didn't have many ideas beyond "Let's go back to 1914 somehow," and as obscene as the Nazis ideas were, they were one of the few right-wing parties in Germany actually presenting ideas about the future of Germany, rather than harping on the past.
Their real "inovation" was to subplant traditional German nationalism with notions of racial hygiene that had sort of an ivory tower intellectual reputation to them before. Hitler very cleverly appealed to German Nationalists while decrying all the traditional symbols and ideas of the German Nationalists: The Kaiser, the Borders of 1914, even the flag.
The German right-wing until then didn't have many ideas beyond "Let's go back to 1914 somehow," and as obscene as the Nazis ideas were, they were one of the few right-wing parties in Germany actually presenting ideas about the future of Germany, rather than harping on the past.
So you'd be alright with "gay marriage" being completely equivalent to the current legal benefits of marriage, except that it's called differently?I do think a marriage between two men (Or two women) is not accurately described as a "Marriage." Thus I don't want the government using the term.
Honestly, I'd rather the government not use the term at all. But if they're going to use it, I'd rather them use it correctly
GhostWriter16
Deity
Protestants don't consider marriage to be a sacrament, but I'd rather not have the government use the term because its the much more neutral to say "Civil Unions can be held by any two people of any gender" than "Marriage can be held by any two people of any gender." The former simply talks about legal benefits, the latter implies social acceptance, which I don't agree with.
In terms of taxation benefits, visitation benefits, anything like that, yeah, sure, why not?
However, I think the issue of gay adoption is a bit more complex than "Right to adopt" because I don't think ANYONE (Gay or straight) has a "Right" to adopt a child. I'd prefer children be raised with both a mother and father, but I know that's not always happening, and I'd definitely rather two otherwise fit parents in a gay relationship to raise a child than two alcoholics or in an orphanage or foster homes.
So... I don't actually know in that regard. My position is to leave it to local courts and not really think about it all that much. (Yeah, I just said what you think I said, I honestly don't care to articulate a position on that issue. I'm not going to change my vote based on this issue unless maybe we got two candidates that were exactly the same except for this issue, in which case I'd go for whichever candidate supported federalism
)
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Do all marriages have to receive a >50% approval rating to be officially recognised as such, or just those between people of the same sex?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Society can think what it wants, that's not the point. I explained my position that the government should not use the word "Marriage" in any legal sense, to avoid all the controversy (Granted, gay adoption would still be controversial, as would the fact that gays can have civil unions by more conservative Christians, but I'm not bothering to argue #1 since I don't care much one way or the other, and #2 would still leave a substantial number more people happy by simply not recognizing it one way or another.)
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Do you think that religious ceremonies should have any legal weight, or do you think that all couples should have to undergo a separate, secular ceremony and do whatever the hell they want in their spare time, as same-sex couples do now? (At least in the UK; I'm not up to date on how it works in various US jurisdictions, but I understand that in those were civil partnership is recognised something similar applies.)
Nope. Sulla and Caesar were in fact the exceptions, and IIRC Sulla's term limits were a bit vague (and may not have existed at all). Caesar modified the terms of the dictator rei gerundae causa such that it was to last for a year, then was elected consecutively each year by the Senate until everybody got tired of the rubber stamping and elected him dictator perpetuo. So, technically, none of the Roman dictators ever exceeded their legal term limits.
Given the sheer volume of dictators the Romans elected in the fourth and third centuries, one would assume that if they had all been overstaying their term limits, the Republic would have bent to tyranny long before Caesar was born.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, if religious ceremonies work, I think they should work both ways, if a liberal church wants to throw their Chrisitan convictions to the curb and "marry" a gay couple in such a case, fine. Also, all religions should be able to do it as well, and it should be doable outside religion.
That said, I'm not sure how the laws currently work, or what the reprecussions are. I'm just saying what makes sense to me.
