I'm up in Oklahoma for a few days right now. Mind you, I've lived in Texas and Tennessee, and been through several other Bible Belt states ... I don't think I've ever seen the density of churches, and religious references ("Westboro Baptist Church welcomes you to Shitsplat, OK, pop. 48" at the city limit, for instance) anywhere else.

I hope these laws all pass, so all the True Believers® can get an acute case of butthurt when the courts overturn them.

(January 25, 2015 at 11:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm up in Oklahoma for a few days right now. Mind you, I've lived in Texas and Tennessee, and been through several other Bible Belt states ... I don't think I've ever seen the density of churches, and religious references ("Westboro Baptist Church welcomes you to Shitsplat, OK, pop. 48" at the city limit, for instance) anywhere else.

I hope these laws all pass, so all the True Believers® can get an acute case of butthurt when the courts overturn them.

this needs to be a bill board when that happens.

(January 25, 2015 at 7:44 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So what? This is neither a defense of discriminatory practices, nor of this specific proposal. At best, it's an argument from tradition, which is obviously fallacious. What's your actual point, here?

Why must everything be a fallacy to you guys? I don't believe you guys actually know what the word means, especially after someone called the concept of "justice" a fallacy.

Since everything must be spelled out for you "critical thinkers", this is the point I was making.

The marriage license in American was used for discriminatory purposes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

Quote:Anti-miscegenation laws or miscegenation laws were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races.

So why the surprise if a document invented in order discriminate, is still used to discriminate? And why would you want such a document?

My point in bringing up common law marriages was to show that at one point in (America) time, marriage licenses weren't required, and even now, like 9 states still recognize common law marriage. So the question is, why is something that is a basic human right (you know, the whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thing), being made into a privilege by the government?

To be clear, this isn't an issue I care about, there are more pressing issues than gay marriage.

There was a classic Candid Camera episode where Alan was at the courthouse gravely intoning to cohabiting couples that wanted marriage licence that they would have to divorce out of their common law marriage first before they could get married.

One woman even punched her boyfriend in the arm and said "I told you so !!!".

It was very funny.

In the 'for what it's worth' department, here in SC, the minister at the UU I attend started performing same-sex marriages for free as soon as it was allowed. I think we got in about a dozen like that.

---

(January 30, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 25, 2015 at 7:44 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So what? This is neither a defense of discriminatory practices, nor of this specific proposal. At best, it's an argument from tradition, which is obviously fallacious. What's your actual point, here?

Why must everything be a fallacy to you guys? I don't believe you guys actually know what the word means, especially after someone called the concept of "justice" a fallacy.

You should have picked a better example for your mini-rant. Appeal to tradition is a formal fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

---

(January 30, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: So why the surprise if a document invented in order discriminate, is still used to discriminate? And why would you want such a document?

Yes, it was, and still is, used to discriminate. It should not be used so. I might want that document because of the privileges accompanying having it.

I would be happy to see the marriage license requirement abolished, and marriage become a matter of contracts and ceremonies without government involvement beyond recognizing and enforcing said contracts. Short of that, I would like to see discrimination taken out of the matter. Why would you want to maintain discriminatory practices?

It's perfectly consistent to want to abolish marriage licenses and think they shouldn't be used in a discriminatory fashion.

Cohabitation was illegal in many places when I was younger.

I recall not being allowed to play at the home of 2 of my cousins (they could come to my house). It was years before I figured out the reason was because my aunt was on husband #2. I guess they were allowed here so my mom could be a good influence on them, LOL.

Mom was on a committee at church that sent letters to parents of kids baptized there that weren't going to Sunday school reminding them that they promised during the baptism ceremony that they would be responsible for their kids religious education.

And yes, that meant that I had to be on death's door step to get out of going to Sunday school.

(January 30, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: So why the surprise if a document invented in order discriminate, is still used to discriminate? And why would you want such a document?

Since marriage licenses were invented in the Middle Ages, your statement is clearly wrong.

(January 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Chas Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: So why the surprise if a document invented in order discriminate, is still used to discriminate? And why would you want such a document?

Since marriage licenses were invented in the Middle Ages, your statement is clearly wrong.

Didn't catch the part where I specified America?

"I don't want to discriminate against gays, I just want laws so that people can legally discriminate against gays."

I'm willing to allow religions to be backwards and not marry gay people. It only demonstrates to everybody how useless religion is. But, if this is how the fuckers want to play, that's when it comes time to draft laws forcing them to marry anybody who asks, regardless of whether they want to, by penalty of law. If they're going to break church/state separation, the state needs to break the church.