Gay marriage

[Bricker]

@Lightnin

If only we’d handled universal suffrage, miscegenation, and slavery this way.

We did handle slavery this way! We passed the 13th Amendment.

And we did handle suffrage this way, for race, gender, and age – three separate amendments, 14, 19, and 26.

So, yeah, good idea.

[Tastes_of_Chocolate]

While I’m celebrating the MN amendment defeat, I really wish that oppoenents had run more of a campaign of education. I know several people that were totally misinformed of what the proposed amendment would do.

Reality - The amendment would have defined marriage as one man, one woman. Nothing more. A defeat changes nothing (status quo is no same sex marriages allowed.)

One of my co-workers believed that a no vote would immediately make same sex marriages legal, and that all pastors/priests/rabbis etc would be required to perform same sex marriages if requested.

I would have loved to have seen more ads explaining that no, your congregation would not be required to host same sex marriages even if they object.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Irishman

No, it’s not all the same money. General collections are separate from special collections. It’s right there in the name. Knights of Columbus get their funding separate from the church’s collection plates.

Maybe you’ve never been to a catholic mass. Let me break this down for you. At the offertory, baskets are passed down the rows. The congregation opens their wallets and takes out a five or drops in a check and passes it on. This is the general collection. At the end of mass the baskets are either passed around again or they’re at all the exits with a note specifying what specific cause this collection is for. The congregation opens their wallets and takes out a five or drops in a check. This is a special collection. After mass, the knights are hosting a pancake breakfast in the dining hall so the congregation troops downstairs and opens their wallet and takes out a five or drops in a check. This is how the knights fundraise their money. I hope this clarifies a few things for you.

[B.Serum]

@Tastes_of_Chocolate

While I’m celebrating the MN amendment defeat, I really wish that oppoenents had run more of a campaign of education. I know several people that were totally misinformed of what the proposed amendment would do.

Reality - The amendment would have defined marriage as one man, one woman. Nothing more. A defeat changes nothing (status quo is no same sex marriages allowed.)

One of my co-workers believed that a no vote would immediately make same sex marriages legal, and that all pastors/priests/rabbis etc would be required to perform same sex marriages if requested.

I would have loved to have seen more ads explaining that no, your congregation would not be required to host same sex marriages even if they object.

In California’s case, the Prop 8 people were out-and-out lying in their ads. The use of fear and confusion is one of NOM’s fundamental strategies whenever SSM is on the ballot.

[Irishman]

Inner Stickler, I’m not sure what you think I’m confused on. That is exactly how I expect it to work. Is your point that the same people are handling the money intake? That the same people are the ones doing the donating? That the money is being collected in the same vicinity and roughly same time period?

What about any of that negates that the collections are separate, labeled separately, and clearly identified what they are for?

[Inner_Stickler]

All of it. There’s nothing magical about putting some money in account 1 and some money in account 2.

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@MEBuckner

I wonder where the goalposts will be moved to now?

Well, nothing really changed in MN, it was a symbolic victory. And in Maryland, the storm kept people from getting to the polls, and in a stunning coincidence, those people would all have voted against it. :rolleyes:

Doesn’t explain Maine or Washington, though

[Der_Trihs]

@tomndebb

The general fund is the money that is collected every week from all parishoners and used for the maintenance of the diocese. Special collections are special, and are collected from people who wish their money to go to that particular issue.
Money received from donors to a collection or from the Knights of Columbus, (a resolutely Right Wing organization within the RCC), is money provided by individuals who have chosen to support the campaign in the way that the archbishop has described it.
Money taken from the general fund, (or by the sale of investments), is money that all members of the diocese have contributed for the purpose of supporting the church and its administrative needs.

Unless they’ve changed things in the wake of the financial scandals (which they may have for all I know, but I haven’t heard of them doing so) that’s not how it works. They may say they are asking for the money for one purpose or another, but it all goes into the same pot and is spent as the archbishop sees fit. That was one of the complaints of the Catholic critics of the scandals, that their money wasn’t going where they’d been told it was going.

[OttoDaFe]

Kind of an afterthought at this point, but SSM opponents have conceded defeat in Washington.

Predictably, they blamed “Washington’s political establishment and news media,” plus the fact that we’re a bunch of unchurched heathens up here.

Whatever. When you boil off the bullshit, what remains is that NOM went 0-for-4 this time around.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

@Bricker

We did handle slavery this way! We passed the 13th Amendment.

Right, slavery was ended solely through the legislative process. The unpleasant events from April 12, 1861 - May 9, 1865 had nothing to do with it.

I’m beginning to suspect something about you. By any chance was Mitzi Shore the “Dean” of your “law school”?

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

We did handle slavery this way! We passed the 13th Amendment.

And we did handle suffrage this way, for race, gender, and age – three separate amendments, 14, 19, and 26.

So, yeah, good idea.

@Kolak_of_Twilo

Right, slavery was ended solely through the legislative process. The unpleasant events from April 12, 1861 - May 9, 1865 had nothing to do with it.

I’m beginning to suspect something about you. By any chance was Mitzi Shore the “Dean” of your “law school”?

**Bricker **is just saying that it’s OK for the President to unilaterally declare gay marriage legal in the southern states while going to war with them over the issue, and then vote for a constitutional amendment while those states are under the control of the northern states. You know, the typical legislative process.

[Gyrate]

@OttoDaFe

Kind of an afterthought at this point, but SSM opponents have conceded defeat in Washington.

Interesting use of the word “educate”:

“It’s a cause worth fighting for, and we will continue to educate citizens and policymakers on the timeless truth that real marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” he said.

Also, apparently if gays get to call their unions “marriage”, heterosexuals will just change theirs to “real marriage”.

[hajario]

@Gyrate

Interesting use of the word “educate”:Also, apparently if gays get to call their unions “marriage”, heterosexuals will just change theirs to “real marriage”.

Maybe they should go with “legitimate marriage.”

[Gyrate]

@hajario

Maybe they should go with “legitimate marriage.”

And if gays try to do it, the church has ways to shut that thing down.

[Irishman]

@Inner_Stickler

All of it. There’s nothing magical about putting some money in account 1 and some money in account 2.

Unless the question is about whether they took money from account 1 and moved it to account 2.

@Der_Trihs

Unless they’ve changed things in the wake of the financial scandals (which they may have for all I know, but I haven’t heard of them doing so) that’s not how it works. They may say they are asking for the money for one purpose or another, but it all goes into the same pot and is spent as the archbishop sees fit. That was one of the complaints of the Catholic critics of the scandals, that their money wasn’t going where they’d been told it was going.

And that is a fair criticism, if true.

[gamerunknown]

There are plenty of good arguments against gay marriage. One primary one is that the state has an interest in increasing the population, so there are more normal citizens and thus we do not have to rely on immigrants. So, the state can define marriage as between a man and a woman as this removes unproductive, unevolutionary pairings from the consideration (and is simpler than specifying the couples have to be fertile and that unproductive pairings must be dissolved).

The arguments against it relying on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which is a joke by the way - the right to join a union?) are flawed, as the wording clearly implies that people shall not be impaired in marriage just because they are blacks or Asians, but that doesn’t give them the right to marry whites (as evidenced by the fact that the US did not overturn sage laws against racial miscegenation for several years after endorsing the UDHR). By the way, if you don’t approve of laws against racial miscegenation you’re probably a racist against Malcolm X.

[Kimstu]

@gamerunknown

There are plenty of good arguments against gay marriage. One primary one is that the state has an interest in increasing the population, so there are more normal citizens and thus we do not have to rely on immigrants. So, the state can define marriage as between a man and a woman as this removes unproductive, unevolutionary pairings from the consideration (and is simpler than specifying the couples have to be fertile and that unproductive pairings must be dissolved).

What makes you think that gay marriages are bound to be “unproductive pairings”? Plenty of gay couples want children, and with things like sperm banks and surrogacy, they have access to the necessary reproductive biology to have children.

Allowing gay people access to the stability and benefits of marriage, in fact, makes them more likely to become parents than if their relationships are forever stuck in a quasi-recognized second-class not-really-a-marriage status.

[jackdavinci]

@gamerunknown

(1)There are plenty of good arguments against gay marriage.

(2)So, the state can define marriage as between a man and a woman as this removes unproductive, unevolutionary pairings from the consideration

(3)By the way, if you don’t approve of laws against racial miscegenation you’re probably a racist against Malcolm X.

(my numbers)

1. I can’t think of any that wouldn’t equally apply to all marriages.

2. Gays can have kids in gay marriages (and a recent study showed that the best parents are lesbians!). Stopping them from marrying won’t magically increase the population. Marriages that are unions of genuine love and desire are healthier environments for both the spouses and their children.

3. Disagreeing with a black person is not racist. Black people can be racist too.

[jackdavinci]

@Gyrate

Interesting use of the word “educate”:Also, apparently if gays get to call their unions “marriage”, heterosexuals will just change theirs to “real marriage”.

Then gays will do the same and the heterosexuals will be forced to change it again to “really truly real marriage like seriously” and only the straight couples in Pleasantville will get to stop being monotone.

[Der_Trihs]

@Kimstu

What makes you think that gay marriages are bound to be “unproductive pairings”?

To quote his signature:

Since I like Richard Parker’s idea, if Jill Stein loses and Obama wins then I’ll post the complete opposite of what I believe in as articulate a way as I can.

Only holds true for the elections forum.