Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2644 replies to this topic

#2266    Norbert Dentressangle

Norbert Dentressangle

    A bit dull

  • Member
  • 26,437 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:18 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 15 July 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

??? Huh? Sorry to point out your error, but you're not making it any better with whatever this response is supposed to mean. When did the 'Liberal Wave of Humanity' begin exactly since it's 'never-ending' and it approaches? Is there a Conservative Wave of Humanity somewhere also?

In general, to put it in a language I think you understand, it's not that they're wearing steel that's bright and true, it's that they build a dream for me and you. And if you're in the US you might as well close the door and put out the light, as it's only a matter of time, no matter whether you personally give no quarter or not. ;)
You know that "Liberal" is an all-purpose word of abuse in America now.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#2267    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 27,054 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005

Posted 16 July 2013 - 09:46 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 16 July 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

As always, I see this whole thing as being very simple and I see the whole arguement as being bulked by churches as an excuse to be petty children.

First off let's look at what marriage is in a secular state. It's a legal contract. Religious buildings are allowed to have weddings, but a wedding is meaningless without the appropriate paperwork. However, churches (unlike anywhere else) have the ability to say no to a couple. The reasons, ultimately, don't matter that much. They have the right to say no to a straight couple now and it can't be challenged so I don't see why the same thing shouldn't cover gay couples too.

Of course the right of a church to say no extends the other way too. Churches also have the right to say yes. Which is why atheists and divorced couples can marry in churches.

The important thting is not to give the church too much leeway. Like I mentioned the catholic church and church of england were trying to ban same sex marriages in religious buildings. That meant they didn't want the right to say no, but they wanted to take away the rights of other churches to say yes.

With civil partnerships they got a ban on all religious buildings put in. It took over 6 years for the ones that wanted the choice to gain the right they should have from the start.

This is why we have to be very careful with dealing with any religious arguements, because it becomes quite clear that the religious groups against same sex marriage are quite content to run over the religious freedoms of those that aren't. Religious freedom is the common arguement but since it seems they only support one type of freedom and want to force others to go along with it, you have to wonder.
You ignored my question.  What if two baptised members of the Catholic faith wish to have their marriage in a Catholic church?  The requirements of marriage, according to the second of the two links I provided earlier give:

* A Baptised Christian - check, both were baptised as children into the Catholic Faith
* Not too closely related - check, they are not related
* Free to marry - check, neither has ever married before
* Of the opposite sex to your partner - to quote the website:  "Marriage, by definition, is a lifelong union between one man and one woman."  But the Law has been changed now to include same-sex, but the church won't recognise it.   So, denied
* Of good standing within the church - check, they go regularly, confess, give money, are active in social programs and study the Bible in a mid-week study group with several other Christians in the church.

So, shadowhive, how long before a gay person demands the Catholic Church accept the legal definition of marriage, rather than their religious definition?  And how long before a gay person attempts to force them by law to change their definition?


View Postshadowhive, on 16 July 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

Of course, personally I don't see why a gay couple would want to be a part of one of the faiths that treats them, quite frankly, like **** anyway but that's just me.
Some do, that's just life.


View Postshadowhive, on 16 July 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

No one wants to force churches to do anything. (The reverse sadly, is all too true)

However, I do advocate two things first that churches take responsibility for the part they've played in encouraging homophobia (and take steps to try and stop it) and second that churches are encouraged (not forced) to change their stance. The latter's happening anyway, albeit slowly and we should make sure the reverse doesn't happen.
The way I interpreted Sheri's comment/s, by asking me why I am advocating that a church should have the Right to deny marriage, I felt the implication was that she didn't want churches to have that Right.

And of course, your definition of "encouraging" a church to change their stance on homosexuality is to call anyone who still believes that bigoted, hateful, intolerant, backwards, and homophobic.

Edited by Paranoid Android, 16 July 2013 - 09:47 AM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#2268    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,999 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004

Posted 16 July 2013 - 10:24 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 16 July 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

You ignored my question.  What if two baptised members of the Catholic faith wish to have their marriage in a Catholic church?  The requirements of marriage, according to the second of the two links I provided earlier give:

* A Baptised Christian - check, both were baptised as children into the Catholic Faith
* Not too closely related - check, they are not related
* Free to marry - check, neither has ever married before
* Of the opposite sex to your partner - to quote the website:  "Marriage, by definition, is a lifelong union between one man and one woman."  But the Law has been changed now to include same-sex, but the church won't recognise it.   So, denied
* Of good standing within the church - check, they go regularly, confess, give money, are active in social programs and study the Bible in a mid-week study group with several other Christians in the church.

So, shadowhive, how long before a gay person demands the Catholic Church accept the legal definition of marriage, rather than their religious definition?  And how long before a gay person attempts to force them by law to change their definition?

I didn't 'ignore it', I stated that a church has the right to deny any marriage. That right still applies. Hetrosexual couples who have tried to force the church to change it's stance legally for them have failed. So to go into the details of why the religion denies x couple marriage is pointless.

So let's look at the catholic church now. Well the legal definition of marriage is that a man can marry any woman (as long as they are consenting and not related). Is the catholic church required to follow the legal definition we have now? Nope. It can still deny hetrosexual couples marriage. Using your checklist, a hetrosexual couple can be denied marriage if one isn't baptised, if they've been married before and if they're not in good standing with the church. None of those things reflect the current legal definition of marriage.

So considering the fact that the catholic church is not even following the current legal definition of marriage and attempts to do so legally have failed how exactly is changing the legal definition meant to effect it again?

That, to me, is case closed, at least using a legal avenue.

So what of gay catholic couples? I'm sure they'll want to marry in church and they may try and get it to change it's stance, but the legal route simply won't work. They could try and get it to change it's stance legally, but at the end of the day it wouldn't work. Getting the church to change from within, that's much more likely.

(Like the legal defiition, the church's definition could, of course, change but that's much more long term.)

Quote

Some do, that's just life.

Mostly because they've been indoctrinated into it and can't leave despite the mistreatment.

Quote

The way I interpreted Sheri's comment/s, by asking me why I am advocating that a church should have the Right to deny marriage, I felt the implication was that she didn't want churches to have that Right.

And of course, your definition of "encouraging" a church to change their stance on homosexuality is to call anyone who still believes that bigoted, hateful, intolerant, backwards, and homophobic.

I feel the question was more aimed at why you were advocating that right so strongly and why the churches rights should trample over everyone elses.

That's not what my definition of encouraging is PA. More that the church should be encouraged to see the damage it's stance is doing and, at the very least, ease up on it. Is that somehow objectionable? I know you object to what the end goal is, that gay people and their relationships are treated as full equals even in churches.

Of course, however, what you say is pretty accurate in terms of what I think of people who believe that way. Why? Because most seem to be some combination of those things. Even you are one of those things PA. You may not be intolerant, hateful or homophobic... but you still cling to a stance that's backwards. But we've done that dance haven't we? You see yourself and the belief as guilt free. I see it as being exactly the opposite. To quote you, we've been over it, so I don't see the need to discuss it further (mostly because you have the bible and are too thick headed to see past it and also because I don't want to go through the usual pointlessness that follows).

Edited by shadowhive, 16 July 2013 - 10:42 AM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#2269    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,829 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013

Posted 16 July 2013 - 10:32 AM

As far into the foreseeable future as I can see, Catholics will refuse to marry same-sex parters, and the law will sustain that right.  This is just a scare tactic, and a rather sick one at that.  The only time Catholics will begin marrying gay couples is if they have a sudden burst of reason and compassion come into their midst, and history offers little hope of that.


#2270    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,999 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004

Posted 16 July 2013 - 10:37 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 16 July 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

As far into the foreseeable future as I can see, Catholics will refuse to marry same-sex parters, and the law will sustain that right.  This is just a scare tactic, and a rather sick one at that.  The only time Catholics will begin marrying gay couples is if they have a sudden burst of reason and compassion come into their midst, and history offers little hope of that.

That's exactly my point. It's pretty twisted that people (even someone like PA) are buying such a scare tactic as something that's in anyway viable. I agree there too. Reason and compassion don't exactly go hand in hand with any religion and catholics have certainly displayed that well in the past.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#2271    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,846 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012

Posted 16 July 2013 - 01:48 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 16 July 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

So, shadowhive, how long before a gay person demands the Catholic Church accept the legal definition of marriage, rather than their religious definition?  And how long before a gay person attempts to force them by law to change their definition?

In other words, slippery slope?  Do you have any example from the western world where a church was forced by the law to marry people they did not wish to, is this concern really legitimate?  When has any church been forced to give up their 'religious definition' of anything?  I always thought it was clear that churches can discriminate, they don't have to allow atheists or Muslims or even other Christians from different denominations to attend their services.  I think most of them are obviously pretty welcoming, but I'm not aware that they are required to be.  

Is Australia different, does a marriage in a church carry some type of legal weight?  Here in the US it is strictly ceremonial, from a legal sense it is taken care of with a marriage license.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#2272    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 22,559 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:24 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 16 July 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

They should have the right to teach as their morals allow.  If a church wishes to marry off a gay couple, they can.  But they should also have the Right not to, if it is not part of their beliefs.

Why do you want to force churches to do something that is against their principles?

I am not arguing for forcing a church to do anything, I am just interested in your position.


#2273    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 27,054 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:57 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 16 July 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

I didn't 'ignore it'
You chose not to answer.  Isn't that the quintessential definition of "ignoring"?


View Postshadowhive, on 16 July 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

So let's look at the catholic church now. Well the legal definition of marriage is that a man can marry any woman (as long as they are consenting and not related). Is the catholic church required to follow the legal definition we have now? Nope. It can still deny hetrosexual couples marriage.
Under what criteria?  I've already posted links, you haven't, so please, help me out here.


View Postshadowhive, on 16 July 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Using your checklist, a hetrosexual couple can be denied marriage if one isn't baptised, if they've been married before and if they're not in good standing with the church. None of those things reflect the current legal definition of marriage.
So if all these criteria are met, and they still don't qualify because they are same-sex?  You can't tell me that not a single person would try and argue against that, when the legal definition has been changed?


View Postshadowhive, on 16 July 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

That's not what my definition of encouraging is PA.
It is as I have seen it.  You've used similar terms in regards to my beliefs on the matter on more than one occasion.  And when I've disagreed, you've called me "two-faced".  so with respect, from where I sit that is EXACTLY what your definition is.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#2274    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 27,054 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:03 PM

View PostSherapy, on 16 July 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

I am not arguing for forcing a church to do anything, I am just interested in your position.
I believe every person has a Right to act as their conscience allows, that applies to all people of all walks of life.  Sometimes this conscience gets in the way of their work, but as long as it is not the primary role of their job, then they can "opt out" of certain aspects, provided the business provides alternatives.  When I read your post, I got the impression you didn't want alternatives, you wanted churches to agree with you.  If that was not your intent, then I apologise.

In the gay marriage debate, if same-sex marriage were legalised, I would expect (nay, demand) that religious organisations have the Right to make a conscience decision to deny, if that is what they stood for.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#2275    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 27,054 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:07 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 July 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

In other words, slippery slope?  Do you have any example from the western world where a church was forced by the law to marry people they did not wish to, is this concern really legitimate?  When has any church been forced to give up their 'religious definition' of anything?  I always thought it was clear that churches can discriminate, they don't have to allow atheists or Muslims or even other Christians from different denominations to attend their services.  I think most of them are obviously pretty welcoming, but I'm not aware that they are required to be.  

Is Australia different, does a marriage in a church carry some type of legal weight?  Here in the US it is strictly ceremonial, from a legal sense it is taken care of with a marriage license.
I already admitted several posts ago that this was a "slippery slope" argument.  The question, though, is whether it is valid?  A bisexual person can love both sexes.  Marriage currently says one man and one woman only.  If we appease the gay crowd by making marriage a matter of "two people", then we're still discriminating  - how long until a bisexual person wants to marry both a male and a female?  After all, God "made them that way", they can easily love both sexes, but marriage discriminates against them, since they can only choose one!

Slippery slope, absolutely.  Practically speaking, not so easy to dismiss.

But as I said, the argument is moot, I've already acceded that gay marriage will be part of Australian culture in the very near future.  Even if Kevin Rudd isn't installed as Prime Minister, I would bet $1000 that it is codified into Law within the next election window.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#2276    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,846 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012

Posted 16 July 2013 - 04:40 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 16 July 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

I already admitted several posts ago that this was a "slippery slope" argument.  The question, though, is whether it is valid?  A bisexual person can love both sexes.  Marriage currently says one man and one woman only.  If we appease the gay crowd by making marriage a matter of "two people", then we're still discriminating  - how long until a bisexual person wants to marry both a male and a female?  After all, God "made them that way", they can easily love both sexes, but marriage discriminates against them, since they can only choose one!

Good point, and I think the answer to that gets much more involved in that we have to factor in and determine an answer to the question, what is the purpose of having the state recognize the institution of marriage at all, which is a much more involved issue.  Your argument above is of course nothing peculiar to bisexuals, it applies to everyone of all sexualities currently, if you like two women as a male hetero, in the exact same way you also have to choose one.

Quote

Slippery slope, absolutely.  Practically speaking, not so easy to dismiss.

I guess it depends, I find it a little easy to dismiss, we can deal with separate issues as they come up; I haven't heard really anyone, although I'm sure they exist, supporting gay marriage but including polygamy in that.  One can logically support marriage being between any two people while simultaneously dealing with polygamy as an entirely separate question.  A country can legalize cigarettes and alcohol without having to deal with the separate question, well then what are we going to do when someone wants to legalize heroin?

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#2277    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,999 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004

Posted 16 July 2013 - 05:07 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 16 July 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

You chose not to answer.  Isn't that the quintessential definition of "ignoring"?

Because I had already dealt with the question. And I've dealt with it again.

Quote

Under what criteria?  I've already posted links, you haven't, so please, help me out here.

Under the critea of, I don't know, the very checklist you are using. Which I stated in my last post. What do you want here PA? I've spelled it out for you and it's not enough.

Let me spell it out simply one last time.

Right now, legal definition of marriage is one one, one woman. As long as they are consenting, over a certain age, not related and no currently married they can marry.

Right now ANY church, not just catholics, can choose not to marry any couple for any reason. Churches right now DO NOT follow the legal definition of marriage, but their own. So if the legal definition changes, it won't effect the churches definition. Each church can then go 'well the legal definition of marriage has changed should we change ours?' and then do so accordinly. But that process has never been changed by anyone legally.

Now what is hard to understand there?

Quote

So if all these criteria are met, and they still don't qualify because they are same-sex?  You can't tell me that not a single person would try and argue against that, when the legal definition has been changed?

I'm not sayin a single person would not try and argue against it. I can neither see the future nor stop anyone from trying. What I have said is I wouldn't advise it, because getting the church to follow the current leal definition through leal means hasn't worked. That's not saying someone won't try, but it is saying that it would be a waste of time amd wuld not work.

View PostParanoid Android, on 16 July 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

I already admitted several posts ago that this was a "slippery slope" argument.  The question, though, is whether it is valid?  A bisexual person can love both sexes.  Marriage currently says one man and one woman only.  If we appease the gay crowd by making marriage a matter of "two people", then we're still discriminating  - how long until a bisexual person wants to marry both a male and a female?  After all, God "made them that way", they can easily love both sexes, but marriage discriminates against them, since they can only choose one!

Slippery slope, absolutely.  Practically speaking, not so easy to dismiss.

But as I said, the argument is moot, I've already acceded that gay marriage will be part of Australian culture in the very near future.  Even if Kevin Rudd isn't installed as Prime Minister, I would bet $1000 that it is codified into Law within the next election window.

Like Liquid Gardens says above, that's hardly something that would be proposed by bisexual people. After all anyone, gay straight or bi, could be in love with multiple people at once. So do I think multiple marriages will most likely come along, but attempting to argue it'd be done solely to please bisexual people is absurd.

I didn't expect you to make the slippery slope arguement I considered you mart than that. But I guess I was wrong.

Quote

It is as I have seen it.  You've used similar terms in regards to my beliefs on the matter on more than one occasion.  And when I've disagreed, you've called me "two-faced".  so with respect, from where I sit that is EXACTLY what your definition is.

I've moved this to here so I can reply to it last.

The thing is PA, I see this as being something that's relatively simple. The simple thing being is this: that the chruch is wrong in it's stance on human sexuality. It's wrong in it's attitude on it. That stance, that attitude has cost lives. As such, it needs to be change. The religious stance is an enabler in these things and even some religious leaders have started to acknowledge the role their religions have played in fanning the flames.

I think you are two faced because you hold the church's negative stance but try and be nice about it. You see that the problem is there, but don't care enough to go the distance with it. You're two faced because a book that's over 1000 years old matters to you more than current, up to date information. Because you value that book more than living, breathing people. You care more about a book written by people uneducated on the subject, rather than people that are. That's pretty much the textbook definition of backwards and that sums you up pretty well.

But hey. I wanted to avoid this, because hey, we've been over it countless times and it's pointless going over it isn't it? And yet there you go, pushing again. Debating with you on this is pointless. In fact it's not even a debate, because you have a magic book with all the answers and it has homosexuality is bad. You've let that book poison your mind quite effectly and simply don't care about anything outside it.

You've proven yourself to be a hyocrite, with double standards but no, you've never in the bloody wrong because you and other morons have god on their side and you know what? That attitude p***es me off. It makes me angry. Because it's that attitude that lets gay people suffer in all kinds of ways an it's got to go.

Not that you care. If your church detoxified itself even of it's treatment of women) you'd just go somewhere else.

But hey, now I fully expect you'll have a go at me and blah blah bloody blah and make your pathetic excuses as to why your belief is so great and why it doesn't harm anyone and why you're saint pa, but you know what? I do not ******* care. I have absolutely, completely, had it with you and your hypocrisy. Any time you seem to be a good person, you do something to lower my opinion of you, to prove that you're an idiot ruled by your religion.

You'e proven why I'm riht not to trust people that think homosexuality is a sin. They really, truly can't be trusted.

Maybe it's the heat, maybe it's the fact we've been over this ground before, maybe it's both, but I am sick of you and your whole 'good christian' act.

So reply, say whatever you damn well want. But I'm not going to reply to you, because honestly it's a waste of my time.

(And I apologise for the swearing, but I've had it with the hyocrisy and the double standards that religious people like PA display.)

Edited by shadowhive, 16 July 2013 - 05:17 PM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#2278    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005

Posted 16 July 2013 - 07:55 PM

This topic has been off course for nearly a month now... I have never seen a topic that was derailed for so long.. This should go down as UM's most derailed topic of all time  lol


For a while, when I entered, I thought it was about gay marriage and then later - What or who owns marriage?  

Next month, it will be ...Parenting ...Who says gays can't have kids?  lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 16 July 2013 - 07:56 PM.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#2279    JMPD1

JMPD1

    Child of the Universe

  • Member
  • 6,022 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2005

Posted 16 July 2013 - 11:43 PM

It all comes to down to comfort.

Some folk are just not comfortable admitting that those who are different are still people, and are made comfortable by keeping up barriers.

And perhaps, just maybe the definition of marriage should be changed to mean "a publicly recognized union of two people who love each other".

Of course, the rabid fear-mongers will claim that is but one small step to total anarchy, but I still maintain that the institution of marriage has been more 'demeaned' by the number of divorces, re-marriages, failed marriages, and celebrity 60-day marriages than a marriage of two same-sex partners could ever do.

Just my two cents worth.  And since I think that this discussion is just running in circles, my last contribution to this particular train wreck.

Live well, love well, be happy.

Quote of the Year 2006: HAY! I did more then just say I wanna be ina a man sammich! - SC

You have the right to remain silent.  You might want to think about exercising that right more often

Not Another Moment Lost To Seizures

#2280    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,247 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:19 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 15 July 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

What you say pertains to Australia; they still have a severe "marriage penalty" in the States.

Yes that was my point. Any changes in the USA are likely to benefit the govt  in tax/financial terms as much, or more than, individuals. Eg when they bring in gay equality in marriage that  financial advantage of marriage might be one of the first things to go in the name of making things more equal. This happened with the institutional recognition of defacto relationships in australia as equal to married relationships.

The only thing mariage does now is make official separation a little more difficult. And so we very commonly  see a defacto couple never married, who have half a dozen children by the same number of parents from previous defacto liasons lasting a year or three, while in married/ divorced families at most there may be two sets of parents.

Edited by Mr Walker, 17 July 2013 - 12:25 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.