Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Canalan]

Marriage is a fundamentally religious thing.  Civil unions, however, are not.  So I say that anyone can marry anything as long as they get a licence from the local wherever.  Whatever ceremonies that are employed to formalize said union are up to the people concerned.

I wish this could stop being an issue.

[Heron TSG]

Results: Obama 60%, Huntsman 45%, Romney 11%. Note that Romney was only on there for the increase of nuclear power. I do not agree that we should increase oil production, so that probably doesn't count.

Results when I selected my least favorite: Bachmann 66.7%, Perry 64.8%, Santorum 64.8%.

On the other hand, I got 100% for myself. I should run for president. See you all in 2028 or 2032, depending on what day my birthday falls that year. We need a slogan!

I actually have a license to perform marriages as an ordained minister of the Atheist church. If anyone wants to get married, I can test that out. I got my own certificate and everything.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Marriage is a fundamentally religious thing.  Civil unions, however, are not.  So I say that anyone can marry anything as long as they get a licence from the local wherever.  Whatever ceremonies that are employed to formalize said union are up to the people concerned.

I wish this could stop being an issue.

No, marriage is not a fundamentally religious thing in the current legal climate. Our government, which is by law a secular entity, hands out licenses for legal marriages and the privileges that come with it. Ceremonial marriages in churches and the like are religious, but they have no legal binding whatsoever. Only a marriage license has legal binding, and those are issued by the government.

This allows for the whole "civil union" idea to deprive same-sex couples of the legal benefits of a marriage (See: Defense of Marriage Act) while acting as if they have been granted legal equality to opposite-sex couples. The only way granting civil unions is acceptable is if that applies to all legally binding unions, and the government does not actually get involved in "marriages" at all. For the moment, that is not the case.

[Aqizzar]

Alright, just because I gotta leave and won't be here to police the thread, can I not come back to five pages of vitriolic argument about marriage, religion, and homosexuality?  Okay?  Cool.

Keep calm and carry on.

[Canalan]

The idea of binding yourself to one spouse in they eyes of God is a religious thing.  That's what I meant by "Marriage is a fundamentally religious thing."  The idea of binding yourself to one spouse in the eyes of the state is not a religious thing, but can be motivated by religious beliefs.  I believe that the latter idea should be extended to everyone and thing, as I have pointed out.  The former thing is up to the various institutions.

But I'm off topic. 

I hate Romney with the passion of a thousand suns, but I like him better than his GOP opponents.  Santorum is really the only electable one besides Romney, but I don't think anyone I know knows Santorum actually exists.  Obama is fine, and I'll probably vote for him unless he screws up/one of the Republicans proves himself to me.  If they all disqualify themselves in my eyes, I'll write Barbarossa in.

Edited for clarity.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I've noticed a strange trend. I've seen people swearing left and right that either "Only Ron Paul has a shot at defeating Obama!" or "Only Mitt Romney has a shot at defeating Obama!". None of the same for Santorum. Regardless, there seems to be an emerging conflict about the idea of nominating the "one person" who has a shot of defeating Obama.

[PyroDesu]

Took the survey:

Obama, 69.6%
Paul, 34.9%
Bachmann, 30.6%

Now, back to my lurking in this thread.

[Nadaka]

My mother insisted I take this poll she found while netsurfing at work.  It's actually kinda interesting, by weighting your interest with responses to five-choice questions about ten issues, and tells you which Presidential candidates (including Obama, but no extra parties) you most align with.  If you're informed about issues (or can recognize silhouettes), you'll probably know where each answer is going.  If not, you might learn something.  The results could surprise you - my grandmother got Ron Paul, and she's a lifelong Democrat.

The crapping hell? I answered none of the above for most, but I was ranked gingrich, perry, bachman!

[Strife26]

Took the survey:

Obama, 69.6%
Paul, 34.9%
Bachmann, 30.6%

Now, back to my lurking in this thread.

How do you go about lurking in a thread like this? Seems to move faster than I'd be willing to keep up with. I know that when I go to bed and wake up in the morning, I'm not going to be reading through five pages of vitriolic debate about the virtues of civil unions versus marriage.

[Nadaka]

For some reason, taking an online survey like this makes me think of those horrid "WHICH CHARACTER ARE YOU" surveys, and the frightening truth that a completely apolitical character that I dislike would have supremely more agreeable stances on issues than many of the candidates.  I would vote for Goku over Rick Perry.

Edit:  Let me clarify, I'm not even talking about if Goku were real.

I would vote Vegeta over Perry.

[Sirus]

Took the quiz/survey thing

Obama: 70.1%
Bachman(?!): 50.1%
Gingrich: 45.1%

I already knew I was going to be voting for Obama, but I didn't want to have anything in common with Bachman. Whyyyyy?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

How is it even possible to get both 70% Obama and 50% Bachman? I didn't think they had any real policy overlap.

[Sirus]

Hey, don't ask me. I didn't make this thing. It might be because my policies are a little here-and-there, plus I don't have any experience with things like Medicaid so I couldn't provide a good answer.

[Mego]

Atheist church

Anyone else see a problem here?

[Urist Imiknorris]

None at all.