Gay marriage

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Gay marriage

Postby earthling » Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:37 pm

KCMax wrote:DID POPE FRANCIS SECRETLY ENDORSE CIVIL UNIONS FOR GAYS?

As CNN reported this week, Marcelo Marquez, an activist and a former theology professor at a Catholic college, claims that the pope, formerly known as Jorge Mario Bergoglio, phoned him in 2010 to tell him about his views on civil unions.

“He told me. … ‘I’m in favor of gay rights and in any case, I also favor civil unions for homosexuals, but I believe that Argentina is not yet ready for a gay marriage law,’” Marquez told CNN.


Was wondering yesterday when MO would eventually show signs of change on the issue and then McCaskill spoke out today. MO overall maybe will be somewhere in middle of states accepting it, KS a few states later - if the Feds/SC don't decide it nationally beforehand.
Last edited by earthling on Fri May 22, 2015 3:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10720
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Religion...

Postby mean » Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:21 pm

earthling wrote:This shouldn't be about allowing other parties to marry, it should be about govt playing a direct role in a private matter in the first place.


While I completely agree that the government should get entirely out of the business of telling people who they can marry, as long as all parties involved are consenting adult humans, I don't see a near future where that happens. We'll probably all live to see gay marriage sanctioned by the government, though, and that's progress at least. Even if we are like the 12th or 15th country to do it.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Religion...

Postby earthling » Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:30 pm

yeah agree, that's basically what i was saying.

User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9224
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Religion...

Postby AllThingsKC » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:06 pm

earthling wrote:it should be about govt playing a direct role in a private matter in the first place.


I agree with this. As a Conservative, I believe in limited government. I believe that the individual is capable of doing a better job than the government at managing their personal happiness (as long as it's between two consenting adults, as mean has pointed out).

Off topic from religion, but that's exactly why many people oppose mandated healthcare.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12246
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Religion...

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:41 pm

earthling wrote: marriage shouldn't be any different.


Marriage is different. You have child support issues, alimony issues, pension issues, inheritance issues, and life support issues are just a few things taken care of by state or federal laws that are addressed by marriage that are not part of standard contract law. And that is why same sex marriage is so important to many.

Maybe what we need to do is separate the idea of marriage from its civil and religious meanings.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Religion...

Postby earthling » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:00 pm

Is just another complex contract. I've been involved in corporate contracts magnitudes more complex than the implications of marriage law. No need to have a one size fits all marriage contract. We have far more complex custom contracts in many other cases that are honored by the system. The contract should be defined by the private entities with a private lawyer (or select from any number of canned contracts), not with personal conditions defined by the Feds. Conditions that directly impact Feds likes taxes, sure, but not the state of the person.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Religion...

Postby earthling » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:23 pm

AllThingsKC wrote:
earthling wrote:it should be about govt playing a direct role in a private matter in the first place.


I agree with this. As a Conservative, I believe in limited government. .


And yet there are many conservatives who desire limited govt if it disagrees with them yet ultimately desire some form of control such as theocracy. Limited govt is really a libertarian thing and the libertarian in me can find hypocrisy in my own ideals, desiring some form of regulation in other ways. Is maybe why pure libertarianism can never work any better than pure fascism. Or any purism.

I cant say I desire limited govt in all things, but marriage is clearly private. And, we are all probably poly-sexual capable of bonding with any person or more than one. In my tribal studies of core human behavior, its not about the gender, its about the person. Monogamy didn't take hold as a primary unit until the single family household was invented. We can define and change the social rules as we see fit, as our situations change. Social conservatives typically want to permanently bind to some rule they think is defined by some supernatural force they cant even interactively communicate with.

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3273
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Religion...

Postby chaglang » Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:51 am

earthling wrote:Monogamy didn't take hold as a primary unit until the single family household was invented. We can define and change the social rules as we see fit, as our situations change. Social conservatives typically want to permanently bind to some rule they think is defined by some supernatural force they cant even interactively communicate with.

There's a tremendous momentum on these types of issues that is generated from nostalgia for an idealized form of society that never quite existed. Or if it did exist, the costs at which it was achieved are now outside the bounds of what we find acceptable. There is a book out by a sociologist named Stephanie Coontz, The Way We Never Were, that traces the roots of these idealized forms of family and society. A couple of the chapters deal with the sanctification of the nuclear family in the last 150 years. It's a very interesting book, well worth reading.

User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Religion...

Postby KCMax » Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:05 am

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
earthling wrote: marriage shouldn't be any different.


Marriage is different. You have child support issues, alimony issues, pension issues, inheritance issues, and life support issues are just a few things taken care of by state or federal laws that are addressed by marriage that are not part of standard contract law. And that is why same sex marriage is so important to many.

Maybe what we need to do is separate the idea of marriage from its civil and religious meanings.


Agree with this. I like the notion that government should stay out of marriage, but there are a number of rights that we have attached to marriage that many would argue are pretty important. Who determines end-of-life issues for an incapacitated patient? Who, if anyone, should get survivorship benefits? What should happen in probate if there is no will? It would be great if partners took care of all these matters in private contracts, but the fact is, most of us don't.

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3273
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Religion...

Postby chaglang » Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:24 am

KCMax wrote:
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
earthling wrote: marriage shouldn't be any different.


Marriage is different. You have child support issues, alimony issues, pension issues, inheritance issues, and life support issues are just a few things taken care of by state or federal laws that are addressed by marriage that are not part of standard contract law. And that is why same sex marriage is so important to many.

Maybe what we need to do is separate the idea of marriage from its civil and religious meanings.


Agree with this. I like the notion that government should stay out of marriage, but there are a number of rights that we have attached to marriage that many would argue are pretty important. Who determines end-of-life issues for an incapacitated patient? Who, if anyone, should get survivorship benefits? What should happen in probate if there is no will? It would be great if partners took care of all these matters in private contracts, but the fact is, most of us don't.

Seems like an easy solution would be for the role of government to be to guarantee those rights for anyone who is married, but leave it up to the various religions who they marry.

User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Religion...

Postby KCMax » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:34 pm

earthling wrote:Was wondering yesterday when MO would eventually show signs of change on the issue and then McCaskill spoke out today. MO overall maybe will be somewhere in middle of states accepting it, KS a few states later - if the Feds/SC don't decide it nationally beforehand.
.


Interestingly, Jay Nixon ducked the issue today. I saw a national article somewhere that speculated it would be interesting to see where he came out as his stance could well determine whether or not he becomes a serious VP candidate for (presumably) Hillary.

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3273
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Religion...

Postby chaglang » Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:59 pm

earthling wrote:Was wondering yesterday when MO would eventually show signs of change on the issue and then McCaskill spoke out today. MO overall maybe will be somewhere in middle of states accepting it, KS a few states later - if the Feds/SC don't decide it nationally beforehand.
.

Nate Silver did some projections on this today:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means

Missouri is somewhat more accepting of marriage equality right now, but he's projecting both to cross the 50% threshold between 2016 and 2020. Both states are polling in the low-mid 40's in favor right now. By the 2020 election, he thinks that will be at around 55%. The "gain" rate of 1-2% per year seems steep to me, but I'm not the statistician. Nationally the rate has been clearly trending upward for the last 10 years.

longviewmo
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 875
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:58 am
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Contact:

Re: Religion...

Postby longviewmo » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:59 pm

Kansas supporting it at nearly the same level by 2020? Hah.

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3273
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Religion...

Postby chaglang » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:10 pm

In his table, Missouri is at 37.5% and Kansas is at 36.8, so they're basically even right now. It will be interesting to see if one pulls away from another (in either direction). I'd say that the larger urban areas in Missouri will mean it crosses the 50% threshold first, but that's just a WAG.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12246
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Religion...

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:15 am

earthling wrote:Is just another complex contract. I've been involved in corporate contracts magnitudes more complex than the implications of marriage law. No need to have a one size fits all marriage contract. We have far more complex custom contracts in many other cases that are honored by the system. The contract should be defined by the private entities with a private lawyer (or select from any number of canned contracts), not with personal conditions defined by the Feds. Conditions that directly impact Feds likes taxes, sure, but not the state of the person.


BTW, for those who are married do you remember signing a contract when you got married? I don't. I do remember something called a marriage license, but no contract. Did a little bit of research and from what I can tell there is no contract with marriage. You might have some vows or pledges or promises but an actual contract in most instances no. Some marriages have a so-called prenup, which is a contract but that is far from universal. So it seems the rights given to us by marriage are rights given by the government, not by a contract.

User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Religion...

Postby KCMax » Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:08 am

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
earthling wrote:Is just another complex contract. I've been involved in corporate contracts magnitudes more complex than the implications of marriage law. No need to have a one size fits all marriage contract. We have far more complex custom contracts in many other cases that are honored by the system. The contract should be defined by the private entities with a private lawyer (or select from any number of canned contracts), not with personal conditions defined by the Feds. Conditions that directly impact Feds likes taxes, sure, but not the state of the person.


BTW, for those who are married do you remember signing a contract when you got married? I don't. I do remember something called a marriage license, but no contract. Did a little bit of research and from what I can tell there is no contract with marriage. You might have some vows or pledges or promises but an actual contract in most instances no. Some marriages have a so-called prenup, which is a contract but that is far from universal. So it seems the rights given to us by marriage are rights given by the government, not by a contract.


Contracts can be oral. I remember being asked "will you have this woman, to have and to hold, from this day forward, til death do you part?". And I said "I do."

Besides ALL contracts have rights given to them by governments. A contract without a government is just a piece of paper.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12246
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Contracts can be oral. I remember being asked "will you have this woman, to have and to hold, from this day forward, til death do you part?". And I said "I do."


But what are the terms of the contract?

User avatar
taxi
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1550
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:32 am
Location: North End
Contact:

Re: Gay marriage

Postby taxi » Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:25 pm

We'd better support gay marriage, or else...
http://youtu.be/X-YCdcnf_P8

pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Gay marriage

Postby pash » Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:40 pm

.
Last edited by pash on Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ColumbusParkian
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:41 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Postby ColumbusParkian » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:23 am

planning myself a gay wedding right now. I find it really interesting to follow all of this news while i'm freaking out about caterers.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest