Gay Marriage!!!

[Ordinary12]

This may, or may not, have anything to do with "We're Alive" but since one of the characters (Riley) has been confirmed as gay the question of marriage may come into play one day. I know this topic can get very heated very quickly but I still want to put my two cents in and listen to the different perspectives of the residents of the tower. I personally don't think gay marriage is right but its not up to me to make that decision. I believe that decision falls to the religious institution performing the marriage. If you can find a priest, preacher, or holly man that's willing to marry you then so be it...but...I also believe in the sepration of church and state. That being said...I have never understood why the government is involved in the religious institution of marriage any way. Marriage is a religious bonding of two people...no matter what religion you follow or not. If you say vows and mention a deity of some sort that you believe is witnessing your marriage then it qualifies as a religious rite. So why does the government say that you're not married if you don't file your marriage with them? Some people may say that its about recieving tax breaks and other priviledges offered by the government if they are married. And again...I say why is the government getting involved at all? I believe that a flat tax would solve the whole problem. That way no one is shown any special treatment for marriage or anything else and the government can remove itself from the instituion of mariage all together.

What say you?

[nikvoodoo]

Added spoiler tags. Dont spoil story points in spoiler free areas of the forum. By the by, you assume it's been confirmed. It never was.

I'm not weighing in on this one. You can assume what I'm going to say if you wish.

[Ordinary12]

Added spoiler tags. Dont spoil story points in spoiler free areas of the forum. By the by, you assume it's been confirmed. It never was.

I'm not weighing in on this one. You can assume what I'm going to say if you wish.


Okay...I just assumed that it was confirmed already.

[nikvoodoo]

Okay...I just assumed that it was confirmed already.

Nopers. It was widely speculated, but never confirmed.

[werewolf]

oh my I figure out what century ordinary12 is from

[Osiris]

I don't even know where to begin with this.

[yarri]

I don't even know where to begin with this.

I'm having trouble wrapping my vodka polluted brain around his initial post. If you're having trouble ... God help the rest of us.

[Ordinary12]

Come on guys!!! Did you actually read my initial post...or are you just attacking the subject line? I gave you the topic, my opinion on it, and a possible solution to it. At least read past the first two lines before you attack me. What's wrong with keeping the government out of marriage?

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Just to provide the critical mass for this, whom shall Riley marry? Besides, after listening to WA #53, I think she is anything but gay.

[Wicked Sid]

I'm fairly certain that the vocal majority of people in this forum are Atheistic, or at least very non-religious, and are supporters of gay rights. I fall within both of these groups.

You will very quickly destroy any respect you have here if you cannot be civil and at least debate, rather than angrily spout religious nonsense. If you wish to start this debate, be very prepared and intelligent. If not, please, leave it alone.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

This may, or may not, have anything to do with "We're Alive" but since one of the characters (Riley) has been confirmed as gay the question of marriage may come into play one day. I know this topic can get very heated very quickly but I still want to put my two cents in and listen to the different perspectives of the residents of the tower. I personally don't think gay marriage is right but its not up to me to make that decision. I believe that decision falls to the religious institution performing the marriage. If you can find a priest, preacher, or holly man that's willing to marry you then so be it...but...I also believe in the sepration of church and state. That being said...I have never understood why the government is involved in the religious institution of marriage any way. Marriage is a religious bonding of two people...no matter what religion you follow or not. If you say vows and mention a deity of some sort that you believe is witnessing your marriage then it qualifies as a religious rite. So why does the government say that you're not married if you don't file your marriage with them? Some people may say that its about recieving tax breaks and other priviledges offered by the government if they are married. And again...I say why is the government getting involved at all? I believe that a flat tax would solve the whole problem. That way no one is shown any special treatment for marriage or anything else and the government can remove itself from the instituion of mariage all together.

What say you?

Besides, in most European countries, getting married is an administrative act which might optionally included a religious ceremony. However, the latter itself does not grant you any tax benefits.

[LiamKerrington]

Ok, rephrasing:

Historical fact on many to most (to all?) religions: The institutions of Religion took care of administrative acts or even superseded, i.e. controlled public authorities. Thus Religion and its institutions together with public authority/ The State were and in many areas of the world still are ONE ENTITY. (the church in the medieval times, even the Roman Empire in the Old Ages, today to some (all?) degree the Jews and to 100% the Muslims/ Islam) That's why I feel hard pressed to support the idea that The State or The Public Authority is very well in the position to rule and regulate Marriage. Secularization is not an argument for having public authorities to stay away from marriage. Else you would have to raise exactly the same question for things like schools or education and treatment of and care for children.

Besides this I consider the social development in especially the Western World, in which many homo- and heterosexual people live almost like within a marriage, but they have not married so far or do not intent to marry soon. Thus the insitute of marriage might become outdated anyway. But this is (very probably) highly arguable.

As for Riley: She marries Lady with HIS blessings. Amen.

Ok, maybe this was a little too much. BUT not this: I think during the last chapter of WA it became crystal clear that WA does not experiment so much on social and/ or ideological perspectives on family, marriage and stuff; instead the script provides - I think it is safe to state it that way - a lot for the very classic and very average relation between people. And although there is no 100% family-tie in it, we almost have a very "The Waltons"-like situation*, which is anything but near homo-sexual-relations ... If you don't know, what I mean, check the last 10 minutes of chapter #36 ...

My 2c.

All the best!
Liam

* We have Grandma and - very much caring - Grandpa, we have Mom and Dad, we have the still unborn child; then we have the other couple; and we have the pater putativus and 'his' adopted daughter; and around them many very good friends. Harmony 100%.

[LiamKerrington]

...the question of marriage may come into play one day.

It depends. If you refer to the marriage with HIS blessings, there won't be a marriage, 'cause there is no Priest or Reverend available. If *spoilered name* the highest ranked public authority in the group may perform the public authorization, then maybe, imho very unlikely, though, 'cause Marriage has nothing to do with Survival ... Besides, the latter wouldn't have your blessing according to your original posting ...

As for "gay marriage" - I prefer the term of "same-sex marraige" or "same-sex union", I simply give you the advice to read and learn. As a spoiler ahead:
Same-sex marriage is not only a matter of The State/ public authorities interfering with religion, but especially a question of religion itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Enjoy!
All the best!
Liam

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

[/SPECIAL]If WA were a soap, Riley would get separated from the group on a recon mission. She stumbles, hits her head badly, loses her long term memory, is rescued by Scratch then and falls in love with her...

Well, that sounds way too Aaron Spelling'ish to me.

[reaper239]

This may, or may not, have anything to do with "We're Alive" but since one of the characters (Riley) has been confirmed as gay the question of marriage may come into play one day. I know this topic can get very heated very quickly but I still want to put my two cents in and listen to the different perspectives of the residents of the tower. I personally don't think gay marriage is right but its not up to me to make that decision. I believe that decision falls to the religious institution performing the marriage. If you can find a priest, preacher, or holly man that's willing to marry you then so be it...but...I also believe in the sepration of church and state. That being said...I have never understood why the government is involved in the religious institution of marriage any way. Marriage is a religious bonding of two people...no matter what religion you follow or not. If you say vows and mention a deity of some sort that you believe is witnessing your marriage then it qualifies as a religious rite. So why does the government say that you're not married if you don't file your marriage with them? Some people may say that its about recieving tax breaks and other priviledges offered by the government if they are married. And again...I say why is the government getting involved at all? I believe that a flat tax would solve the whole problem. That way no one is shown any special treatment for marriage or anything else and the government can remove itself from the instituion of mariage all together.

What say you?

the government is involved because there are legal repercussions to being married, you die your spouse takes control of your belongings, but a girlfriend wouldn't, see what i'm saying? there are certain legal benefits to being married. here's another "for instance," if i was married, my wife could be on my insurance, but i'm only engaged, so my fiance can't. it sounds less like your question is on gay marriage, and more on governments role in marriage.

[LiamKerrington]

it sounds less like your question is on gay marriage, and more on governments role in marriage.

2363
Meaning: Full acknowledgement. You nailed it!

[nikvoodoo]

Do NOT mention a character in the story in regards to this conversation without using spoiler tags. If this problem continues after being explicitly pointed out as the first response to the OP, this thread will deleted.

[LiamKerrington]

Do NOT mention a character in the story in regards to this conversation without using spoiler tags. If this problem continues after being explicitly pointed out as the first response to the OP, this thread will deleted.

fixed it.

[scbubba]

the government is involved because there are legal repercussions to being married, you die your spouse takes control of your belongings, but a girlfriend wouldn't, see what i'm saying? there are certain legal benefits to being married. here's another "for instance," if i was married, my wife could be on my insurance, but i'm only engaged, so my fiance can't. it sounds less like your question is on gay marriage, and more on governments role in marriage.

I think you hit on the crux of the matter, reaper. Ordinary12's original post speaks of the religious institution of marriage vs the legal institution of marriage. The government (federal and state) guarantees and/or grants certain benefits to married (legal) couples that unmarried (legal) couples do not have. The government is under no obligation to recognize anything having to do with the religious institution of marriage. The government also has no role in forcing/requiring any religious organization to perform or allow certain marriage rituals, etc.

That being said, the big debate in the US is over an equal protection of rights and equal extension of benefits to homosexual citizens (on the pro-"gay marriage" side) vs the protection of a particular moral code in the institution of marriage at the legal level (on the anti-"gay marriage" side). So, not the government messing with religion but religious influence/doctrine in the government.

I am a Christian and that provides a particular set of values and moral code. I am also an American which also brings in a particular set of values but maybe not much of a moral code anymore. Many times these values line up just fine and many times they do not. On the issue of same sex marriage, there is dissonance.

But, that doesn't mean that I have the right to abridge the rights of people because of my religious beliefs. In fact, as a Christian, I'm not even supposed to hold non-Christians to the moral standard/values of Christianity. I'm supposed to show love and grace to my fellow humans, not judgement and condemnation.

It's a hard line to balance on sometimes but my personal take on this (not speaking for anyone else, much less all Christians here) is that the government in the US (both federal and state) was built on freedom and equality and it is not right to restrict the rights of a certain sector of the citizenry in the legal institution of marriage.

Coming back to WA here, I don't think we're going to see anything regarding this in the story because a) I'm not sure how it works to further develop the story arcs of any of the characters and b) it runs the risk of alienating a large group of people who are/could be listeners of WA.

[reaper239]

I'm fairly certain that the vocal majority of people in this forum are Atheistic, or at least very non-religious, and are supporters of gay rights. I fall within both of these groups.

You will very quickly destroy any respect you have here if you cannot be civil and at least debate, rather than angrily spout religious nonsense. If you wish to start this debate, be very prepared and intelligent. If not, please, leave it alone.

wow dude, way to do exactly what you accused him of. did you actually read the op?


This may, or may not, have anything to do with "We're Alive" but since one of the characters (Riley) has been confirmed as gay the question of marriage may come into play one day. I know this topic can get very heated very quickly but I still want to put my two cents in and listen to the different perspectives of the residents of the tower. I personally don't think gay marriage is right but its not up to me to make that decision. I believe that decision falls to the religious institution performing the marriage. If you can find a priest, preacher, or holly man that's willing to marry you then so be it...but...I also believe in the sepration of church and state. That being said...I have never understood why the government is involved in the religious institution of marriage any way. Marriage is a religious bonding of two people...no matter what religion you follow or not. If you say vows and mention a deity of some sort that you believe is witnessing your marriage then it qualifies as a religious rite. So why does the government say that you're not married if you don't file your marriage with them? Some people may say that its about recieving tax breaks and other priviledges offered by the government if they are married. And again...I say why is the government getting involved at all? I believe that a flat tax would solve the whole problem. That way no one is shown any special treatment for marriage or anything else and the government can remove itself from the instituion of mariage all together.

What say you?

his exact views on gay marriage are highlighted above. notice a distinct lack of "religious nonsense," just a personal view which he is distinctly unwilling to push or force on anyone else. now while we may assume it is based on religious values based on his understanding of the religious institution of marriage, he doesn't come close to throwing around scripture. the entire rest of the post has nothing to do with gay marriage, and is entirely based on, what looks to me like, a misunderstanding on the difference between the legal institution of marriage and the religious one. what i see in your post is an attack on someone who used a hot button topic to pose a question, not a debate on the topic itself. what i see in your response is that you essentially accuse him of being un-civil, and ignorant.

[LiamKerrington]

wow dude, way to do exactly what you accused him of. did you actually read the op?



his exact views on gay marriage are highlighted above. notice a distinct lack of "religious nonsense," just a personal view which he is distinctly unwilling to push or force on anyone else. now while we may assume it is based on religious values based on his understanding of the religious institution of marriage, he doesn't come close to throwing around scripture. the entire rest of the post has nothing to do with gay marriage, and is entirely based on, what looks to me like, a misunderstanding on the difference between the legal institution of marriage and the religious one. what i see in your post is an attack on someone who used a hot button topic to pose a question, not a debate on the topic itself. what i see in your response is that you essentially accuse him of being un-civil, and ignorant.


2364
Meaning: Full acknowledgement. You nailed it!

[Wicked Sid]

I didn't mean it at all as an attack. I always prefer to take preventative measures and that is exactly how I felt when I wrote that. Sure, it may have been unnecessary, as I'm certain the vast majority of people are extremely civil, but I wanted to make sure I had a warning out there before anything exploded.

It is meant for both sides, the whole "you" paragraph was a general 'you'. Religious debate tends to become heated very quickly.

I will also admit that it was 3 am when I posted that, I wasn't exactly tired but not at my most attentive. If I offended Ordinary12, or anyone for that matter, I sincerely apologize.

[reaper239]

I didn't mean it at all as an attack. I always prefer to take preventative measures and that is exactly how I felt when I wrote that. Sure, it may have been unnecessary, as I'm certain the vast majority of people are extremely civil, but I wanted to make sure I had a warning out there before anything exploded.

It is meant for both sides, the whole "you" paragraph was a general 'you'. Religious debate tends to become heated very quickly.

I will also admit that it 3 am when I posted that, I wasn't exactly tired but not at my most attentive. If I offended Ordinary12, or anyone for that matter, I sincerely apologize.

well i don't presume to speak for ordinary people (see what i did there? ordinary?) but i'll say this, you're good with me. your original post came across as an attack at ordinary, and that bothered me. let me say this too, if i ever come across like that (attacking and kind of dickish), i hope you will have the decency to call me on it and bust my balls for it. what's wrong is wrong and what's right is right.

[Ordinary12]

I'm fairly certain that the vocal majority of people in this forum are Atheistic, or at least very non-religious, and are supporters of gay rights. I fall within both of these groups.

You will very quickly destroy any respect you have here if you cannot be civil and at least debate, rather than angrily spout religious nonsense. If you wish to start this debate, be very prepared and intelligent. If not, please, leave it alone.

Was that comment directed at me? How was I not civil? How was I angry and spouting religious nonsense? If you actually read the body of my first post you will see that I'm only offering a solution that I think will fix several problems. I never said one hateful thing. My solution was to simply remove government from marriage altogether because I believe it has nothing to do with them.

Now I'm very curious to know why you thought I was being hateful. Was it just because I said I didn't agree with gay marriage? Do you consider that to be hateful? LOL!!! I challenge any of you to show where I said one negative thing about gay marriage in my original post. I only said I didn't agree with it...and then I went further to admit it's not up to me. After that point was made I only offered my opinion that this problem shouldn't even exist because if you could find someone willing to marry you then so be it. LOL!!! My original post was more about removing government from our lives than gay marriage.

I hope the next few comments will consist of more than belligerent ramblings. LOL!!!

[Wicked Sid]

Was that comment directed at me? How was I not civil? How was I angry and spouting religious nonsense? If you actually read the body of my first post you will see that I'm only offering a solution that I think will fix several problems. I never said one hateful thing. My solution was to simply remove government from marriage altogether because I believe it has nothing to do with them.

Now I'm very curious to know why you thought I was being hateful. Was it just because I said I didn't agree with gay marriage? Do you consider that to be hateful? LOL!!! I challenge any of you to show where I said one negative thing about gay marriage in my original post. I only said I didn't agree with it...and then I went further to admit it's not up to me. After that point was made I only offered my opinion that this problem shouldn't even exist because if you could find someone willing to marry you then so be it. LOL!!! My original post was more about removing government from our lives than gay marriage.

I hope the next few comments will consist of more than belligerent ramblings. LOL!!!

I was already berated for this post and have explained my reasoning.

[LiamKerrington]

@Ordinary12: Have you actually read any other comment then what Wicked Sid wrote in his first posting, which he apologized for on his second posting? :flowerpot:

[Ordinary12]

@Ordinary12: Have you actually read any other comment then what Wicked Sid wrote in his first posting, which he apologized for on his second posting? :flowerpot:

Sorry guys!!! LOL!!! I didn't refresh my browser to catch the new comment. Just disreguard the prior post. You guys write really fast! LOL!!!

[LiamKerrington]

It's cool.

[Ordinary12]

well i don't presume to speak for ordinary people (see what i did there? ordinary?) but i'll say this, you're good with me. your original post came across as an attack at ordinary, and that bothered me. let me say this too, if i ever come across like that (attacking and kind of dickish), i hope you will have the decency to call me on it and bust my balls for it. what's wrong is wrong and what's right is right.

I did see that. LOL!!! Very nice!!! Perhaps people will think of me when ever they use the word "ordinary" from now on.

[DeadMen_Walking]

Let's hug it out, with our shirts off, and baby oil...

[Wicked Sid]

Let's hug it out, with our shirts off, and baby oil...

Just a giant apology-fest in here.
---

Carry on, my fellow debaters.

[Ordinary12]

Let's hug it out, with our shirts off, and baby oil...

Ah...you mean my average Friday nights! LOL!!! Are you the "Mirror/Mirror" version of Hank Venture?

[LiamKerrington]

2366

[reaper239]

back on topic:

the thing is that this is one of the very few aspects in which the government is actually required. boil out the love and the romance, what is a marriage? besides a sham? (shamWOW!!! i just had to) it's a contract. a marriage, when you boil it down to its most base essence, is a social contract between two people who choose to share responsibility for each other. enforcement of contractual obligation (or in this case, managing restitutions when the contract is broken) is one of the few legitimate purposes of government. gay or otherwise.

[LiamKerrington]

Imho marriage based on religion or law made by The State is an artifical concept to put some order into the second-smallest part of human society. The smallest part is the individual; the second-smallest is the marriage which ends in a couple unless you are Mormon or Muslim or member of some other special religion (no offense intended; just statement of facts); then the third-smallest is the family.

In either case, so in case of a marriage based on religion or based on law, certain rules are applied - rules which bind the individual as well as the couple, but also rules which bind the society, the religious community, or The State. Such rules combine allowances and permissions on the one side, limitations and duties on another side, and probably certain priviliges on the other side. This overlaps with the idea of the contract mentioned by reaper239.

Since marriage is the foundation of a certain "social unit" (a couple mostly), and this unit interacts as such within the society and in front of The State, I think it is pretty important for the society and The State to know what they are up against. Thus rules need to be established which allow The Community (as the combination of The State and society) to interact properly with the married couple. Therefore I have no trouble with The State getting involved with or even superseding the religious ceremony of marriage.

After all the Religion itself only applies for a part of the society, while the Marriage itself is in force against everyone and everything. Therefore the Marriage as such has a much more impact on the social and public community then on a certain religious part within the community.

Also I don't see the point why only Religion may be the source of organizing the fundamental elements of the society. It is what society does with itself; and for this it uses the empowerment of public authority through The State, which receives its legitimation from the people, the society.

I think all of this does not interfere with the religious ceremony as such. It is just the means to recognize certain religious beliefs and to establish the marriage in the face of the personal religion. This is how things work here in Germany: You get married at the public authorities, and you may also perform the religious rites accordingly. The difference, though, is that the general acceptance of the marriage stems from the marriage in from of the Civil Registry Office.

All the best!
Liam

[reaper239]

Imho marriage based on religion or law made by The State is an artifical concept to put some order into the second-smallest part of human society. The smallest part is the individual; the second-smallest is the marriage which ends in a couple unless you are Mormon or Muslim or member of some other special religion (no offense intended; just statement of facts); then the third-smallest is the family.

In either case, so in case of a marriage based on religion or based on law, certain rules are applied - rules which bind the individual as well as the couple, but also rules which bind the society, the religious community, or The State. Such rules combine allowances and permissions on the one side, limitations and duties on another side, and probably certain priviliges on the other side. This overlaps with the idea of the contract mentioned by reaper239.

Since marriage is the foundation of a certain "social unit" (a couple mostly), and this unit interacts as such within the society and in front of The State, I think it is pretty important for the society and The State to know what they are up against. Thus rules need to be established which allow The Community (as the combination of The State and society) to interact properly with the married couple. Therefore I have no trouble with The State getting involved with or even superseding the religious ceremony of marriage.

After all the Religion itself only applies for a part of the society, while the Marriage itself is in force against everyone and everything. Therefore the Marriage as such has a much more impact on the social and public community then on a certain religious part within the community.

Also I don't see the point why only Religion may be the source of organizing the fundamental elements of the society. It is what society does with itself; and for this it uses the empowerment of public authority through The State, which receives its legitimation from the people, the society.

I think all of this does not interfere with the religious ceremony as such. It is just the means to recognize certain religious beliefs and to establish the marriage in the face of the personal religion. This is how things work here in Germany: You get married at the public authorities, and you may also perform the religious rites accordingly. The difference, though, is that the general acceptance of the marriage stems from the marriage in from of the Civil Registry Office.

All the best!
Liam

religion has been the basis for all society since adam and eve left the garden (see that? see what i did there?) men have worshiped God. whether that's the one true God, or the god of the sky, or the god of the earth, or zeus, or oatmeal, or allah, or the god of myself, or the god of atheism, men have worshipped at one altar or another. we are religious creatures, we crave habit, and we like order. religion has never been a part of the society, it's been the society, so to say that you don't see why religion organizes society, well that's just because you're not looking far enough back.

yes, marriage is artificial, but so is everything. law is artificial, human rights are artificial, if you are an atheist, everything about society is artificial. what would be natural is that you have something i want, i kill you, i take it, but what society does is it imparts a set of boundaries. now, if you have something that i want, society has established rules and assigned that thing a value, and if i do an ammount of work that is comparable to the ammount of work you've put in, i might have enough of what you want that you'll trade me for it. religion establishes a baseline of values from which you can now derive a code of conduct. that's something that i see that atheism simply lacks.

[LiamKerrington]

yes, marriage is artificial, but so is everything.

That's my main point, which is why I don't see the point in limiting marriage by making at an only religious act. This would mean that all the people in the world who have split from religions would not be able to marry. That's insane - at least in the secularized nations of the world, in which people live by rules of law in the first place and with regard to religion and ethics to a code of morality in second place.

All the best!
Liam

[DeadMen_Walking]

ah...you mean my average friday nights! Lol!!! Are you the "mirror/mirror" version of hank venture?

tgif!!!

[Kc]

To quote Saul in the last episode:
About Marriage: "Does it really matter anymore?"

[LiamKerrington]

To quote Saul in the last episode:
About Marriage: "Does it really matter anymore?"

From the legal point of view: It depends.

[reaper239]

http://www.vamworld.com/file/view/depends.jpg/169661655/depends.jpg

[LiamKerrington]

2367

Oh.My.God.

And how close it does resemble the mind-set of lawyers. I must know. With some luck I become one sooner or later ...

[Kc]

Well, Saul's point was that there are no licenses or laws really any more, so someone being "Married" can't be recognized by the state or government... if there isn't one any more.

[LiamKerrington]

Damnit, Kc! Yes, you are the Master of the WA-Universe. Sure ... But: SPOILER!, Dude, SPOILER! :cool: I was punished and tortured for less ... :D

Anyway. And what about marriage based in religion in the WA-verse? If I get Ordinary12's original posting right, in which he basically critizes the interference by the state in religious matters, he also may understand it that marriage based on religion might be possible in the WA-verse ... So, whatabout Saul and marriage based on religion, if there is no law or legal system or rules-body available anymore ... ;)

All the best!
Liam

P.S.: Question: Will Nikvoodoo, following his announcement, delete this thread now?

[Ordinary12]

Damnit, Kc! Yes, you are the Master of the WA-Universe. Sure ... But: SPOILER!, Dude, SPOILER! :cool: I was punished and tortured for less ... :D

Anyway. And what about marriage based in religion in the WA-verse? If I get Ordinary12's original posting right, in which he basically critizes the interference by the state in religious matters, he also may understand it that marriage based on religion might be possible in the WA-verse ... So, whatabout Saul and marriage based on religion, if there is no law or legal system or rules-body available anymore ... ;)

All the best!
Liam

P.S.: Question: Will Nikvoodoo, following his announcement, delete this thread now?

(Spooky music playing in the background.)

[Ordinary12]

Damnit, Kc! Yes, you are the Master of the WA-Universe. Sure ... But: SPOILER!, Dude, SPOILER! :cool: I was punished and tortured for less ... :D

Anyway. And what about marriage based in religion in the WA-verse? If I get Ordinary12's original posting right, in which he basically critizes the interference by the state in religious matters, he also may understand it that marriage based on religion might be possible in the WA-verse ... So, whatabout Saul and marriage based on religion, if there is no law or legal system or rules-body available anymore ... ;)

All the best!
Liam

P.S.: Question: Will Nikvoodoo, following his announcement, delete this thread now?

(Spooky music playing in the background.) Damn it, KC!!! I'm a doctor....not a fortune teller!!! I think "Jim" sounds better. LOL!!!

[nikvoodoo]

Nah. I'm just gonna move it. If we gonna keep referencing the show, we can do it there without some douche in red being all cranky.

Reference Riley and her potential lesbian Lizzy desires freely now

[LiamKerrington]

+1

[LiamKerrington]

@Ordinary12: Now that you have received several very distinguished positions by several forum-members in return to your raised topic, what's your opinion?

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Oh man, it is beer, pretzels and popcorn time each time a sex related topic is discussed in this forum.

As I happen to have an IT background, marriage itself is not merely more than just a data flag. Oh, what, you are married, well that two persons are jointly and severally liable from a finanical point of view. That is great. No big deal.

Moreover, yes, it is true. You can get killed in a lot of countries for being gay. Brave (new) religious world. All Abrahamic religious seem to have issues with that. Well, that is a fact, glad we do not get stoned to death for adultery anymore.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WR93UWGPNE

[Ordinary12]

@Ordinary12: Now that you have received several very distinguished positions by several forum-members in return to your raised topic, what's your opinion?

Well, Liam...while I do appreciate the love everyone has been showinjg me since I joined the Tower, my position on "Same Sex Marriage" is still the same. I think a complete seperation of Church and State, along with a "Flat Tax" (No more than 10%), would solve a lot of our problems in this country. I've read everyone's comments on the subject and I respect all of them...the ones I could follow any way...some of you people were speaking Greek to me. LOL!!! But I must stay with my original stance on the subject matter. An American citizen should be able to marry whomever they please, provided they can find some sort of holly man to marry them. I believe that marriage is a religious institution and should be completely seperate from the government but if someone is non-religious and wants the government to perform the marriage ceremony I wouldn't have a problem with the "Justice of the Peace" performing it for them. I just want it to be clear that the government would have to recognize all marriages performed by a representative of the Federal Government and/or a religious institution...but since being married wouldn't give you any speacial tax incentives, since we would all be under a flat tax, it wouldn't really be of any use to anyone for that purpose. I believe that marriages would then only be performed by people who really loved each other because there's no financial gain from it...thereby strengthening the family bond.

I believe "Reaper" was the one that stated insurance companies would not allow you to designate your girlfriend or lover as your primary beneficiary so I think that should be changed. I think insurance companies should allow you to name any (Single) person as your primary beneficiary, along with any children you may have (Two Child Coverage Only: To prevent over population.)

I also think we should do away with Social Security...since none of us is going to have anything when we're old enough to draw from it. I expect that I will have to work till the day I die because SS will be completely broke in 15 years. The most infuriating thing about SS is that I can't opt-out of it!!! This is not the America I fought for in Operation Iraqi Freedom! We claim to be the home of the free but our government steals from us on a daily basis. They take money out of my check every two weeks to put it towards Federal programs that don't work! The Presidential choices are either to vote for the guy wearing the blue tie or the guy wearing the red tie...they both suck!!! Then we have a chance to try something different...something fantastic...and the media calls him crazy and tells us, THE VOTERS, that he can't win so we shouldn't vote for him!!! If you aren't seething with anger at what our government has done so far to you, your children, your grandchildren, and the majority of other countries in the world, then you're just dead inside and should be ashamed of yourself!!!

That's my opinion, Liam...May God save America from itself!!!

"America's dead, Jim."

[LiamKerrington]

Okeydokey.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Okeydokey.

Ned, is it you?

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111220204822/looneytunes/images/6/67/THOHXXII_Ned_Flanders_Looney_Tunes.png

:yay:

@Ordinary: I can assure you that everything will be ok regarding social security, if the US government continues to coin nice litte coins like this one (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senators-want-replace-dollar-bill-1-coin-attack-debt-and-deficit).

[LiamKerrington]

Ned, is it you?

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111220204822/looneytunes/images/6/67/THOHXXII_Ned_Flanders_Looney_Tunes.png



No.

2371

Sorry for hijacking the topic with fun-stuff ...

[Gfresh]

This may, or may not, have anything to do with "We're Alive" but since one of the characters (Riley) has been confirmed as gay the question of marriage may come into play one day. I know this topic can get very heated very quickly but I still want to put my two cents in and listen to the different perspectives of the residents of the tower. I personally don't think gay marriage is right but its not up to me to make that decision.
I believe that decision falls to the religious institution performing the marriage.
If you can find a priest, preacher, or holly man that's willing to marry you then so be it...but...I also believe in the sepration of church and state. That being said...I have never understood why the government is involved in the religious institution of marriage any way. Marriage is a religious bonding of two people...no matter what religion you follow or not. If you say vows and mention a deity of some sort that you believe is witnessing your marriage then it qualifies as a religious rite. So why does the government say that you're not married if you don't file your marriage with them? Some people may say that its about recieving tax breaks and other priviledges offered by the government if they are married. And again...I say why is the government getting involved at all? I believe that a flat tax would solve the whole problem. That way no one is shown any special treatment for marriage or anything else and the government can remove itself from the instituion of mariage all together.

What say you?

Forgive me if this sounds silly, I'm from the UK so not familiar with marriage in Mississippi, you believe the decision should fall to the religious institution performing the marriage? Is marriage a solely religious thing over there, are there no alternatives?

Here in the UK, the majority of weddings are what we call "Civil Ceremonies", with no religion involved at all.

[Witch_Doctor]

Forgive me if this sounds silly, I'm from the UK so not familiar with marriage in Mississippi, you believe the decision should fall to the religious institution performing the marriage? Is marriage a solely religious thing over there, are there no alternatives?

Here in the UK, the majority of weddings are what we call "Civil Ceremonies", with no religion involved at all.

We have both civil and religious ceremonies and a few states allow common-law marriages where no ceremony or government action takes place at all. Statistics are hard to come by, but it looks like there are more religious ceremonies than civil ones in the U.S. Speaking from people that I know personally, the main reason for a civil ceremony is that it's cheaper.

[Gfresh]

We have both civil and religious ceremonies and a few states allow common-law marriages where no ceremony or government action takes place at all. Statistics are hard to come by, but it looks like there are more religious ceremonies than civil ones in the U.S. Speaking from people that I know personally, the main reason for a civil ceremony is that it's cheaper.

Thanks for clearing that up, I'm not quite sure what Ordinary12's point is then, when he says "Marriage is a religious bonding of two people...no matter what religion you follow or not"