Author Topic: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans (Read 7220 times)

HeartShadow · « **Reply #30 on:** November 22, 2011, 03:19:52 pm »

Quote from: Fagan_the_Pagan;31339

Which is why I said "as a group." There is a trend towards it, and the ones that are corrupt keep anything from functioning, so the honest ones become irrelevant. I did not mean that ABSOLUTELY ALL congressmen are corrupt.

Still, booting them ALL - or even all the corrupt ones - will not necessarily help, because it will just introduce people that don't know what they're doing.

mandrina · « **Reply #31 on:** November 22, 2011, 03:48:42 pm »

Quote from: Darkhawk;31344

Thereby advocating state support of those religions that think that marriage is religious.

But religious marriage doesn't matter. To get the state and federal benefits, one will have to have the civil union, if I understand correctly. So to be married in the sight of the state and the church, religious people will have to have two ceremonies. THose that don't care about the sight of the church only need one and those that don't care about the state benefits only need one.

Darkhawk · « **Reply #32 on:** November 22, 2011, 03:58:50 pm »

Quote from: mandrina;31350

But religious marriage doesn't matter. To get the state and federal benefits, one will have to have the civil union, if I understand correctly. So to be married in the sight of the state and the church, religious people will have to have two ceremonies. THose that don't care about the sight of the church only need one and those that don't care about the state benefits only need one.

"Civil union" is a term invented to mean "second-class citizen pseudo-marriage".

Marriage is an anthropological universal. Some cultures mark it as an economic transaction; others as a religious one; others do it in other ways. It addresses matters of inheritance and property on the one hand and the formation of a recognised social unit on the other.

I am - OBVIOUSLY - a religious person. I do not have religious marriage, because my religion does not have religious marriage. This does not make me not married; it means that I am someone to whom the concept of religious marriage is personally incoherent. I don't have a theological justification for getting married religiously, and I'm reconstructionist enough to not want to pull one out of my ass so I'm more comprehensible to a society based in Christian assumptions about marriage.

Someone who "wants the state out of the business of marriage" wants there to be no marriage that I can personally access, because the only marriage I recognise is a legal contract. (And someone who wants the state out of legal contracts is an idiot. That's what courts are for.)

Pyperlie · « **Reply #33 on:** November 22, 2011, 06:48:07 pm »

Quote from: drekfletch;31279

Regarding marriage: He recognizes gay rights. He also recognizes the near impossibility of making religious extremists understand that there is a difference between religious and civil marriage. Given that near impossibility, he advocates removing marriage from the purview of the state entirely.

All couples, regardless of where they fall in the alphabet soup of sexuality and gender identity, would contract for federal Civil Unions which would be recognized across state lines. It is left up to religions to recognize Marriage. I interpret that to include secular celebrations of the cultural tradition of marriage as possible outside of the Gov't.

Kick ass! I didn't know that there were any candidates who agreed w/me on that.

Pyperlie · « **Reply #34 on:** November 22, 2011, 07:04:54 pm »

Quote from: Darkhawk;31352

"Civil union" is a term invented to mean "second-class citizen pseudo-marriage".

Which is one of the reasons it would be so delightfully ironic to do this. :p

Quote

Marriage is an anthropological universal. Some cultures mark it as an economic transaction; others as a religious one; others do it in other ways. It addresses matters of inheritance and property on the one hand and the formation of a recognised social unit on the other.

I am - OBVIOUSLY - a religious person. I do not have religious marriage, because my religion does not have religious marriage. This does not make me not married; it means that I am someone to whom the concept of religious marriage is personally incoherent. I don't have a theological justification for getting married religiously, and I'm reconstructionist enough to not want to pull one out of my ass so I'm more comprehensible to a society based in Christian assumptions about marriage.

Someone who "wants the state out of the business of marriage" wants there to be no marriage that I can personally access, because the only marriage I recognise is a legal contract. (And someone who wants the state out of legal contracts is an idiot. That's what courts are for.)

That's sort of the point, IMO. If the gov't were to only recognize civil unions for legal purposes, endowing them w/all the goodies that go w/marriage now, not only does the basic legal contract that we call marriage still exists, but it would show a greater recognition that legal marriage is, in fact, a contract. That the state is not sanctifying your union, it's performing it's proper function wrt contracts.

And really, it's not like people would stop saying they were married, or stop referring to their spouse as their husband or wife or whatever. It wouldn't really effect anything day-to-day.

I'm not saying I'm pushing hardcore for this to happen; I'm just saying I see very little downside, and some definite benefits. AFAIC, all that really matters is that citizens be treated equally before the law. If the law wants to call it marriage or civil union, I don't really give a damn as long as the right of every legal adult to enter into said contract with any other legal adult they choose is held to be the same.

Fagan_the_Pagan · « **Reply #35 on:** November 22, 2011, 10:07:08 pm »

Quote from: HeartShadow;31347

Still, booting them ALL - or even all the corrupt ones - will not necessarily help, because it will just introduce people that don't know what they're doing.

Not necessarily, perhaps, but I think it is the only hope for getting the opportunity to fix the problems.

HeartShadow · « **Reply #36 on:** November 23, 2011, 07:34:58 am »

Quote from: Fagan_the_Pagan;31416

Not necessarily, perhaps, but I think it is the only hope for getting the opportunity to fix the problems.

As long as the lobbies hold the ability for re-election campaigns, it won't matter a damn who's in office.

RandallS · « **Reply #37 on:** November 23, 2011, 08:27:48 am »

Quote from: Darkhawk;31345

And I am absolutely opposed to getting the government out of legal contracts.

Exactly. As for marriage, IMHO, it should be treated by the state as a form of partnership agreement.

LyricFox · « **Reply #38 on:** November 23, 2011, 09:30:05 am »

Quote from: Fagan_the_Pagan;31416

Not necessarily, perhaps, but I think it is the only hope for getting the opportunity to fix the problems.

I'm with Shadow on this one.

While it would be tremendously satisfying to kick the idiots out and start over, the problem ultimately revolves around the huge amounts of cash sloshing around in our election process. Not to mention the process set up for both the House and Senate to function...they write the rules, and you can bet those rules aren't going to change that much.

Until that problem is addressed, it really isn't going to be productive to make a whole sale change of politicians. And really, while everyone likes to say "Vote them all out." the reality is it's almost always some other Senator or Representative. It's rarely ever their elected official. So there's that problem as well.

sailor · « **Reply #39 on:** November 23, 2011, 01:25:14 pm »

Quote from: Pyperlie;31383

Which is one of the reasons it would be so delightfully ironic to do this. :p

That's sort of the point, IMO. If the gov't were to only recognize civil unions for legal purposes, endowing them w/all the goodies that go w/marriage now, not only does the basic legal contract that we call marriage still exists, but it would show a greater recognition that legal marriage is, in fact, a contract. That the state is not sanctifying your union, it's performing it's proper function wrt contracts.

And really, it's not like people would stop saying they were married, or stop referring to their spouse as their husband or wife or whatever. It wouldn't really effect anything day-to-day.

I'm not saying I'm pushing hardcore for this to happen; I'm just saying I see very little downside, and some definite benefits. AFAIC, all that really matters is that citizens be treated equally before the law. If the law wants to call it marriage or civil union, I don't really give a damn as long as the right of every legal adult to enter into said contract with any other legal adult they choose is held to be the same.

To rephrase your point I think.

Current - marriage has full legal benefits, civil union has limited.

Proposed - marriage has zero legal benefits and marriage, as a word, is not used by the govt; civil union has full legal benefits and civil unions is the only word used by the govt.

If you want a marriage, you Must see a clergy person. Whether your civil union is done by a clergy person or a JP wouldn't really matter.

drekfletch · « **Reply #40 on:** November 24, 2011, 12:27:57 pm »

Quote from: sailor;31486

To rephrase your point I think.

Current - marriage has full legal benefits, civil union has limited.

Proposed - marriage has zero legal benefits and marriage, as a word, is not used by the govt; civil union has full legal benefits and civil unions is the only word used by the govt.

If you want a marriage, you Must see a clergy person. Whether your civil union is done by a clergy person or a JP wouldn't really matter.

Also, while I haven't seen any specifics, the way he speaks about the general concept I interpret for allowing any cultural system to conduct marriages, and that civil unions wouldn't really need a 'ceremony,' just paper signing.

Fagan_the_Pagan · « **Reply #41 on:** November 28, 2011, 02:49:55 pm »

Quote from: LyricFox;31457

While it would be tremendously satisfying to kick the idiots out and start over, the problem ultimately revolves around the huge amounts of cash sloshing around in our election process. Not to mention the process set up for both the House and Senate to function...they write the rules, and you can bet those rules aren't going to change that much.

You said it exactly. "They write the rules, and you can bet those rules aren't going to change that much." This is exactly WHY I suggest getting rid of them all. A clean slate is the only way I can think of to get the rules to change. Congress gets to vote themselves pay raises whenever they feel like it, and give themselves huge retirement plans, sending us the message that we should be grateful to them for screwing us over. And because their asses are secure no matter what, they have no personal incentive to do a thing about the rapidly expanding debt. They can keep putting it off indefinitely.

Of course, this leads to one of the other huge problems, which is the two-party system. The goal of politics has become much closer to sports than to running a country: Each "Team" is wholly focused "Beating" the other team, not on doing what is best for the country. The Democrats say let's tax the rich and will NEVER agree to cut social spending. The Republicans say let's cut social spending and will NEVER agree to raise taxes. So the whole system stalls because each is stuck on one idea and will not even discuss anything that goes against their stance. There is no compromise or synthesis. Just two more and more entrenched sides willing to do less and less.

We need a third party capable of standing up the Republicans and Democrats. There has to be another source of ideas, another ingredient to the recipe. If there was a third party to balance things out we could have a system where two parties aren't just diametrically opposed. It allows for more flow of ideas, and more thought about who you are voting for. It complicates thinking enough to make people have to actually make a real decision instead of just going with the party line.

It would be even better if the Republicans and Democrats were dissolved and three new parties were drawn up on different lines. That would at least help to not just settle right back into the old modes of thinking. Better still would be a system with NO political parties, because then we would just be voting on two PEOPLE, not on a Republican and a Democrat, or on a Whig or a Torry, or on a Red or a Blue or a Green. People would HAVE to think. Voting for your party would not be an option. Of course, I think that we are so driven to be part of a group that I doubt that it would be long before political parties or their equivalents formed again anyway. This is why I adhere to a strong Third Party, because I think that THAT at least, could be able to work and potentially last.

mandrina · « **Reply #42 on:** November 28, 2011, 03:12:59 pm »

Quote from: Fagan_the_Pagan;32043

You said it exactly.

Better still would be a system with NO political parties,

Is there an example of a single stable country with no political parties?

Darkhawk · « **Reply #43 on:** November 28, 2011, 03:37:31 pm »

Quote from: mandrina;32049

Is there an example of a single stable country with no political parties?

Ironically, this is what many of the Founding Fathers of the US wanted. Unfortunately, the system they built has an emergent property of an entrenched two-party system, the like of which more parliamentary structures boggle at.

Melamphoros · « **Reply #44 on:** November 28, 2011, 04:34:12 pm »

Quote from: Darkhawk;32051

Ironically, this is what many of the Founding Fathers of the US wanted. Unfortunately, the system they built has an emergent property of an entrenched two-party system, the like of which more parliamentary structures boggle at.

I think it was mostly Washington that wanted no parties. Given that the Federalists and Anti-Federalist drew party lines after the big guy stepped down from office....

The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

News:

Recent Posts

Author Topic: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans (Read 7220 times)

HeartShadow

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

mandrina

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

Darkhawk

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

Pyperlie

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

Pyperlie

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

Fagan_the_Pagan

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

HeartShadow

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

RandallS

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

LyricFox

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

sailor

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

drekfletch

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

Fagan_the_Pagan

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

mandrina

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

Darkhawk

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

Melamphoros

Re: GOP presidential hopeful courts pagans

Related Topics

Who's Online

Please Donate!

Shop & Support TC

In Memoriam

Cauldron Staff