ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Brannon Braga calls lack of gay Star Trek characters 'a shame'

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 12:55 pm

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Jun. 14 2013, 12:31 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jun. 14 2013, 11:12 am

>

>

>There is no "agenda" by the LGBT community, unless of course you count seeking equality.

>As far as labeling people bigots? What would you call a group of people that wants to deny another group of people rights? And personally I do consider homophobes bigots

>And your phrase of "cannot tolerate the intolerate" just made me laugh out loud

>

You can laugh all you like, but it's the core of the problem.  You cannot preach tolerance while practicing intolerance, otherwise your words have no weight.  

The conflict really lies in the fact that the majority of western nations have societal institutions steeped in Christian doctrine of one sort or another.  Thus, there are governmental reflections of this in the way we treat our citizenry.  There are tax breaks for married couples, people with children, various inhertance laws and health care benefits, all based on an idea of family based in a religious set of values.  Although society has changed drastically over the years, the ways in which government benefits its citizens has changed much more slowly.  In my opinion, government has gone the wrong way in how it approaches these factors.  Instead of trying to create recognition for all by changing the definition of marriage, they should have removed marriage from the equation and returned it to the sole purview of religion.  This is especially poignant as even heterosexual couples are moving away from "traditional" norms of marriage, and in many cases, shunning the institution altogether.  

Really, marriage is one of the last remnants of religious influence on what is otherwise a secular government, and I think in the long run, it would behoove government to back out of supporting the institution altogether.  


if you want your marriage to be religious that's up to you, but there are plenty of people who are not religious, so would they not be able to get married? My husband and  are atheists, does that mean we would not be able to get married?


the institution is fine the way it is, with the exception of discriminating against same sex marriages.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 1:18 pm

No, what I'm saying is that pretty much, for the last few hundred years, Western civilization has been heavily influenced by Christian doctrine.  Hence, marriage has been ingrained into governments formed during those periods.  It needs to be pulled back out again because the way people approach marriage these days cannot possibly be accomodated by the workings of a democratic government.  You mention you're atheist, and that's perfect for the example.  If my definition of marriage is a contract between two people before God, and I push for that in government, you're not represented.  If your definition of marriage is a contract between two people specifically without any religious influence, I am not represented.  If our mutual government were to decide to represent both, it creates a source of conflict between citizenry.  The most logical response, then, is to leave government out of the situation altogether.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 1:24 pm

How are you not represented if marriage is a contract between two people?  People get married in non-religious ceremonies every day.  You can choose to add a religious element to your marriage/vows but it's not a requirement. No one is telling you you cannot have a religius ceremony, but religion is not a requirement to be married.


Personally, I think all organized religions, especially the Catholic church, are full of greedy hypocrites. Catholicism is one of the most oppressive, bigoted Western religions there is. 

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 1:25 pm

Your idea is backwards and is really a transparent wish to remove rights from people who do not kowtow to whichever cell of a monotheist faction you're part of. Your religious acknowledgement cones from your being married in a church by a designated holy man. The government regulation of legal rights outside of that in no way interferes with you but the system you wish for in which monotheist faction's seize control of the institution interferes with others.

That kind of plan will be viciously denounced by all right-thinking individuals and institutions.

Ethics are arbitrary.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 1:44 pm

I'm a bit confused.  How does letting people define marriage amongst themselves instead of having the government do it rob anyone of rights?  

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 1:53 pm

The rights legally granted by marriage cover a wide range of subjects from property to children to Medical decisions and the ability to visit our loved ones in the hospital. By allowing a monotheist faction to arbitrarily acknowledge the rights of others based on their own ideas derived from ancient supernatural sources means that they'll be able to deny the right of a spouse to see their ill loved one in the hospital amongst other things. I have already witnessed that exact scenario on multiple occasions.

Nothing's should provoke suspicion like the plea of a monotheist faction to trust them and to give up government protected rights.

Ethics are arbitrary.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 1:58 pm

I never said or implied that marriage should be defined solely by religious institutions, either.  I think all those rights you mentioned should be definable on an individual basis alone, regardless of relation to the individual.  If I want a best friend to be in charge of my medical decisions or if you want your dog to inherit your property, those should be our choices.  Relegating all of that onto the marriage contract has done nothing but create all this conflict in the first place. The idea that marriage is a guarantee of the best interests of another is grossly exaggerated.  

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 2:00 pm

The rights of married couples need to be equal. You cannot allow individual religions to define what marriage is (legally) within their own faction. Marriage comes with certain rights such as property rights, next of kin (so that never again will a member of a same sex couple be denied entry to their partner's funeral by the surviving family). Health benefits, death benefits. Protection from discrimination.  These are all things that the government must protect across the board, no matter what race, color or religion.    That is why there is a separation of church and state.  

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 2:07 pm

Quote:

.  I think all those rights you mentioned should be definable on an individual basis alone, regardless of relation to the individual.  If I want a best friend to be in charge of my medical decisions or if you want your dog to inherit your property, those should be our choices.


 


Marriage is pretty much the strongest legal tie there is.  If I'm in a committed relationship and have a will that gives my partner Power of Attorney, that can and has been contested by blood relatives. The same with inheritance.  A marriage empowers a partner and protects that partner.  It also insures that they get social security benefits if applicable. This year I believe same sex spouses will finally get military benefits.  

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 2:08 pm

Many of us are well versed in the trickery of the various monotheist factions in the U.S. The real reasons that you want to remove the ability of the government to apply these rights equally is quite transparent to us. No amount of excuse-making, fact distortion or cherry picking of examples is going to confuse or deceive us in regards to the debased monotheist motives.

Ethics are arbitrary.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 2:36 pm

I can't tell if crellmoset is being serious or not...  He (or she) makes it sound as though I'm arguing on behalf of some subversive conspiracy.  That's a bit odd.


Also, bunkey, you're illustrating my point for the most part.  Marriage should not be the strongest legal tie; the fact that it is the strongest legal tie is the whole problem.  In this day and age, blood ties are very anachronistic.  It harkens back to a clan-like mentality, and that's just so foreign to today's world.  The strongest legal tie should be the one you define for yourself.  Of course there will be cases where that's contested, but a sound declaration by an adult in front of a legal representative should be the only legally binding requirement to give those rights to anyone you please.  Blood relationships are almost meaningless nowadays in US society.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 2:49 pm

Why shouldn't marriage be the strongest legal tie? Isn't marriage defining something for yourself? You're saying "I'm marrying this person and they are now my next of kin, my partner, the person I trust with my heart, my soul and my life. I choose this person to be my other half. This person above all others." Marriage is a legal partnernship. It's a choice.  To say that marriage should not be the strongest legal tie makes zero sense if in the next sentence you're saying that is should be something you define for yourself. By marrying someone you're defining their place in your life and vice versa. 

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 3:05 pm

I'm not saying the person you're married to cannot be the beneficiary of your legal benefits.  What I'm saying is that it should not be so limiting.  Take marriage out of the legal framework because it muddies the whole thing.


I'm saying that people who chose not to get married, or who fall outside of the current legal definition of marriage, should have the same benefits as those who do.  I agree, marriage is a choice.  It should not be a legally limiting factor, both for or against.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 3:23 pm

There has to be a definition, limit and standard on legal benefits otherwise the claims to legal rights become so blurred and murky that people would be in litigation for decades.  Marriage is a legal way to insure that your partner has rights.  What "other" definition would you use to legally define the status of someone? There has to be a legally binding contract between two people for these rights and benefits and that is essentially what marriage is.  You declare someone your partner, you fill out paperwork attesting to that, you swear before a judge that your partner and you wish to be legally joined, and then you are.  That's pretty much what marriage is.  It's a legal declaration.  If you choose not to get married, you're choosing not to legally define your relationship, which is fine, but if there's no legal paper trail, then you cannot expect to get the same benefits and protections.  There has to be government involvement to record and protect rights. The same way governments require birth and death certificates.  Same sex couples should be afforded the same chance to legalize their unions in the eyes of the government so that they enjoy the same rights as straight couples.


So I don't entirely understand what alternative you're talking about.  In order to have legal rights and benefits, there has to be some formal declaration and marriage is just that.

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 3:29 pm

What's being talked about is really rather simple; remove the government and standardization of rights from marriage so that when a monotheist faction decides to violate the wishes of a citizen that isn't living the way they want them to then the victim of this aggression has less immediate access to legal recourse and enforcement of their rights.

Ethics are arbitrary.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum