One of THOSE topics

[moosetracker]

Horizon- Eagledad - you miss the fact that Federal taxation does not recognize gay marriage, so the tax benefits of a spouse are not there. Social Security benefits do not apply either.

 

Horizon - I never stopped to think about it, you just roll marriage into a bundled package of what it curtails.. That makes perfect sense when you stop to think about it. Because the state has approved the right to marry, they can only approve the benefits that the state can approve. Since the federal Government has not approved it yet then the benefits that they grant will not be included.

 

I guess as EagleDad said - the problem with your recommendation is that our law is full of various legal definitions wrapped around the word marriage. Is true, takes a while to unravel that bundle.

 

So that would mean 3 seperate ceremonies I guess if we want to unravel it.. The religious one for God's blessing. The State one for state benefits.. And the federal one for Federal benefits.. Of course with each cerimony / contract signing someone will charge a fee for each. So the cost of getting everything one old-fashioned marriage provided, will become more costly. But still it will allow the religious conservative the opportunity to not be upset about giving a gay union some legal benefits as it is not tied to their precious marriage ceremony. And it will allow the religions that are liberal thinking the option of marrying a same-sex couple when it is not against their religious beliefs, without the religious conservatives preventing them from doing so with state/government laws..

 

I really think Beavah's original proposal to unravel the marriage from the state/government and taking them out of the marriage business all together is right on the money.. It solves all the problems and issues. Wonderful proposal Beavah!!

 

 

[packsaddle]

This has to be one of the most fractured threads ever. Just catching up on things I see Beavah start with the words "I don't understand..." and then pontificate endlessly as if he DID. Scoutfish with his unique, dare-I-say-it, 'woodsy' take on things. Poor Trevorum vainly attempting to insert words of kindness and reason, almost as if he was Jesus Christ himself (and then ignored by everyone as if he WAS). And, of course, all the rest of us, ALL of whom are pig-headed and unwilling to consider anything that we disagree with. What would one of these threads BE without labels being thrown around as substitutes for reasoning?

And for what? It's because New Hampshire is trying to pass some legislation that many of us find incomprehensible.

There's a reason for this, of course. It IS incomprehensible.

Think about it. This is a state which, for its motto, poses a choice between the alternatives of living in freedom versus death. I mean if they can't even figure out which of THOSE two options is the best one, who COULD expect to comprehend their legislation?

 

Me, I'm still waiting for someone to give me the yes or no answer to the question: Is it OK for a hospital to deny treatment, on the basis of religious beliefs, to interracial couples?

JoeBob, I saw your hand raised a little while ago, yes or no.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Trevorum]

 

... hmm ... I don't know if I've been insulted, or not ...

 

[OldGreyEagle]

" Is it OK for a hospital to deny treatment, on the basis of religious beliefs, to interracial couples?"

 

It depends...

 

No Hospital can refuse emergency care because of EMTALA. They must provide an exam and stabilizing treatment.

 

If its elective surgery, then a hospital can refuse any service to anyone for any reason. One should note that physicians routinely exclude patients from their practice (Its called a practice since no one knows how to use medicine corretly)

 

Would it be wise? I dont think so, I can't imagine any facilty not providing service to a mixed racial couple just because they were a mixed racial couple but then until I started in this forum I thought stories of how Roman Catholics were perceived by others were overblown statements from long ago. Its been an education that such beliefs still exist

[packsaddle]

Trev, was it the comparison to Jesus or being accused of being pigheaded?

OGE, wow, you took all the fun out of it. OK let me pose the question again in different form:

Yes or NO, is it OK for businesses to deny services, on the basis of religious beliefs, to interracial couples?

 

Keep in mind that the question is not asking whether it is legal or not but rather if it is OK in our individual minds. Also, it isn't asking for a general answer but about denial of services, specifically on the basis of religious beliefs...to interracial couples because they ARE an interracial couple.

 

OR, someone could make an attempt on my earlier question which was NEVER addressed:

"The real question is for us as individuals: should our religious views trump everything else? And if not everything, then where do we draw the line?"

 

I suggest that in another place on this earth, the Taliban might answer that first part with 'yes'.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

Packsaddle starts with "This has to be one of the most fractured threads ever" and then launches into a whole series of ad hominem retorts on a whole mess of people he disagrees with.

 

Not puttin' too fine a point on it, packsaddle, but was there a rational argument yeh wanted to propose anywhere in there, or did yeh just need to vent a bit on anyone yeh disagreed with?

 

I'm not playin' da interracial hyperbolic argument either, because of course yeh can construct hyperbolics on the other side just as easily. There was a time in the world and even in the U.S. when eugenics was considered good science-based public policy. Do yeh really want to say that the state can force health care practitioners to perform medical procedures contrary to conscience? It was, after all, those selfsame Catholic hospitals that also resisted da compulsory sterilization laws that were passed throughout the U.S. in the early part of the last century, and those same Catholic churches that refused to comply with the eugenics-based marriage laws of the same period.

 

They have been consistent, eh? And I reckon their objection to these practices by governments has a solid basis in their experience with governments around da world. Including ours.

 

So before we start smearin' folks with comparisons to the Taliban, perhaps it might be appropriate to get a grip. As often as not, science and government collude to do heinous things when not "checked" by religious conscience.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Tampa Turtle]

What...most fractured threads ever?! Well I think--look a bunny!

[JoeBob]

Bunny? Quick! Pass me the twelve gauge!

 

Packsaddle: Not gonna play the hyper-sensitive interracial game. I know that you think I'm a closet bigot. (Pack, have you ever made out with a black lady? Those lips, those lips!)

 

In the mid 1800s was when the first marriage license was issued by the state. You couldn't marry inter-racially UNLESS you had a license. (Here's your opening, Pack) So marriage licenses / state entanglement of marriage has only been around for 162 years. But marriage as a religious institution has been around for tens of thousands of years. (Anybody know how to carbon date Adam & Eve?) Which definition has more credence?

 

Tax benefits from marriage? Last time I checked the rate was HIGHER for married paying jointly than for filing separately. Any accountants know the current scoop?

 

And finally to abortion being required by the state in Catholic hospitals. Put yourself in the mind of a Cathoilc doctor who is ordered to perform an abortion: dread and fear before the procedure, revulsion duing, and overbearing guilt afterwards. He knows that his government has forced him to go to Hell. And his government will continue to make him sin.

I wonder if the Doctor can escape this mandate by using the 'cruel and unusual punishment' defense?

 

You know government is chasing it's tail when it both PROHIBITS and MANDATES murder...

 

***

Dang! You don't shoot no Bunny with a slug gun!

[packsaddle]

Beavah, Actually I agreed with quite a few, but you just go ahead and spin things the way you want. And in this thread, I am quite willing to defer to your hyperbolic abilities. I'm still taking lessons, I'm the student, you're the master.

 

But let me get this straight, you're saying that the Taliban would NOT control someone's behavior or their access to services or anything, on the basis of a religious belief? Is that what you maintain? Yes? No?

 

JoeBob, how can you possibly know what I think if I've never stated it? But in response to the rest of that paragraph: WOW! I think I'll just let you continue to speak for yourself. (but I did 'save' that comment in case someone tries to edit it away. Definitely goes into my collection.)

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

And again, is there a rational argument in there anywhere?

 

Or have yeh suddenly become a modern Republican, that da fear of a small Pashtun tribal group on donkeys half way around the world is all yeh can muster to justify doin' ridiculous things?

 

I've always really enjoyed da taste of fresh-cooked wabbit, by the way. .22 to the head, JoeBob. Put yer dang shotgun away. Too much work cleanin'.

 

Beavah

[packsaddle]

On page 2 I asked the following questions:

"The real question is for us as individuals: should our religious views trump everything else? And if not everything, then where do we draw the line?"

 

You then ignored any reasonable response and instead hijacked the thread with hyperbole. No one, as far as I can find, even attempted to answer those questions. They were not hyperbole. They were not provocative. All they asked was for anyone to provide a good, reasonable, rational discussion. And you didn't.

So I turn your question back to YOU, is there a rational discussion in there anywhere?

[Trevorum]

Pack, the problem of course is that our society is vastly pluralistic and does not have a single way to define - or practice - the concept of "religion." To me, religious belief is a circumscribed and fairly private matter; others wear their religion on their shirtsleeves and see an *obligation* to articulate it with others as much as possible.

 

So, I would say one's religious belief stops at the limits of their soma. Others, (possibly Rooster, for example) would say their ARE no limits to the influence of their religion and that it SHOULD trump all else.

 

And we'll never get the two sides to agree.

 

[packsaddle]

Thanks Trev,

Please explain what you mean by 'limits of their soma.' This is an unfamiliar concept.

[Trevorum]

sorry - just what it sounds like: their own body.

[packsaddle]

Thanks, so how do the two sides manage to live together? I can understand how persons with your approach can probably manage not to directly affect others whose religious views are different. Should you be forced to allow the other side to directly affect you with theirs? Is there a resolution in principle?