Marriage: RITE or RIGHT?

Discussion in 'Kiddie Korner' started by MrBishop, Aug 9, 2010.

?

RITE or RIGHT

  1. Marriage is a Rite

    4 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. Marriage is a Right

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  3. Marriage is both a Rite and a Right

    2 vote(s)
    25.0%
  4. Marriage is neither a Rite nor a Right

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Other.

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  1. MrBishop

    MrBishop Well-Known Member

    Is Marriage a RITE or a RIGHT?

    If it is a RITE, it's up to the church/mosque/temple in question as to whether they wish to bless the union of people, which people they wish to be allowed to marry, and when.

    IF marriage is simply a RITE and there is a seperation between church and state whereby the state/local//federal governments ...
    Then Prop-8, which clearly limits which unions churches may and may not bless, is unconstitutional.

    Marriage is not simply a RITE. If it was, then any church could choose to marry same-sex couples and there would be SFA that the gvt could do about it.

    Churches/mosques/temples don't marry people though. They conduct the ceremony and bless the marriage. Then they fill in the proper paperwork and send it off to the federal government and state government and that's how Marriage happens. The same forms are filled out in court-rooms, at beaches, in parks etc... for civil ceremonies.

    It's the form that makes the marriage. No form, no legal entity..no rights afforded to wedded couples.
    What's the difference between a church wedding and a civil ceremony? The blessing...that's it. In the eyes of the gvt, there is NO difference. There can't be. The gvt cannot afford more or less rights based on the religion used during the ceremony or the lack thereof.

    SO...Marriage is more than just a RITE. It changes things from the point of view of the local, state and federal gvts. It changes things for insurance companies, banks, hospitals, etc etc... That little box that get's ticked on forms does more than just allow you to call your spouse 'husband' or 'wife'.

    What rights? Legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious rights.

    A marriage bestows rights and obligations on the married parties, and sometimes on relatives as well, being the sole mechanism for the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). These may include:
    Right to benefits while married:
    • employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
    • per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
    • Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
    • sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
    • Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
    • veteran's disability
    • Supplemental Security Income
    • disability payments for federal employees
    • medicaid
    • property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
    • income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
    • wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
    • Joint and family-related rights:
    • joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
    • joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
    • family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
    • next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
    • custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
    • domestic violence intervention
    • access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
    • Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
    • Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
    • Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
    • Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
    • Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
    • Court notice of probate proceedings
    • Domestic violence protection orders
    • Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
    • Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
    • Funeral and bereavement leave
    • Joint adoption and foster care
    • Joint tax filing
    • Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
    • Legal status with stepchildren
    • Making spousal medical decisions
    • Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
    • Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
    • Right of survivorship of custodial trust
    • Right to change surname upon marriage
    • Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
    • Right to inheritance of property
    • Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
    • For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
    • Social Security pension
    • veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
    • survivor benefits for federal employees
    • survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
    • additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
    • $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
    • continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
    • renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
    • continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
    • payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
    • making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
    Responsibilities

    • Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:
    • veteran's medical and home care benefits
    • housing assistance
    • housing loans for veterans
    • child's education loans
    • educational loan repayment schedule
    • agricultural price supports and loans
    • eligibility for federal matching campaign funds
    • Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home:
    • Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
    • Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage

    ...just to name a few. Obviously, Marriage gives the couple more RIGHTS than the RITE does.
     
  2. ResearchMonkey

    ResearchMonkey Well-Known Member

    It is the Rite of Marriage. The rest is for tax and legal purposes. It's simply a time tested fact that has become a time honored tradition.

    I can prove that males and females are different and that they are meant to make union. I can prove that this union can produce offspring and that this union is a benefit to the offspring thus ensuring a brighter future for the species.

    Can you provide any proof that being homosexual is anything more than a dysfunctional mental issue? It's a safety switch at best.

    Good luck with your rationalizations though. I'm sure it makes you feel better.

    :rainfrow:
     
  3. ResearchMonkey

    ResearchMonkey Well-Known Member

    Being a breeder carries a large responsibility. The future is dependent on the efforts we breeders commit to for the rest of our lives. We will spend ~15-++20 years fully supporting offspring emotionally, spiritually and financially. We will spend countless thousands of hours nurturing and educating our children to give them the best chance to be successful in life and continue the species. Most of all we will love and care for our children unconditionally until the day we die.

    So it's reasonable to allow benefits to those whom carry this burden for the future, a labor of love. In contrast, those who will not produce offspring will have more expendable income and time. Why should they be rewarded for not doing their part to promote the future species. Why reward them by allowing them indulge themselves in an overly selfish sexual addiction and material indulgences?

    We heterosexuals who abide by the responsibilities that come with the rite of marriage carry a burden far larger than any financial offering that can come those who cannot fulfill the commitments of rite of marriage.
     
  4. MrBishop

    MrBishop Well-Known Member

    The production of biological offspring is the sole reason for all those rights, then?

    Should these rights be limited only to those married couples who have had at least one child?

    Should couples who choose to adopt have the same rights afforded to them?

    Should married couples who refuse to have children have their marriage annulled?
     
  5. MrBishop

    MrBishop Well-Known Member

    So...if a church decides that it would like to perform this rite with a same-sex couple, should the government be able to interfere with this rite?
     
  6. ResearchMonkey

    ResearchMonkey Well-Known Member

    You mean like a satanic church?

    You're really putting to much diluted thinking into this. The tradition and rite are historically very clear on the matter. After all my nation is based on JudeoChristian values. I can't speak for your nation.


    You are proving the old adage: "A little knowledge is dangerous."

    These values in regards to the Rite of Marriage are time tested and proven to be the best scenio for the future propagation of the species.

    You have the benefit of living at time where knowledge is exploding like no other time in history. You have a very limited amount of actual knowledge as we are at the dawn understanding the nature of the world. -- Yet you hold what you know as the absolute final truth. -- Even worse you take this very limited information and make wild theories and then proclaim them better than the traditions that have naturally developed over the last 2.5 million years.

    Let me put in a frame of mind you might understand better. -- In the last ~2000 years we discovered knowledge that hydrocarbons can produce light, heat and even make cars move, jets fly and create fantastic consumer goods. We now know this naturally occurring set of chemicals pollute our biological world and does some degree of damage. This damage has increased and now has polluted enough to where we've taken notice. You and I both believe that we need to make some changes, that we need to stop using the limited knowledge we have on fossil fuels to avoid making more ways to pollute with it.

    Much is the same with our very limited and more complex knowledge of human development. We are no where close to understanding human development. Your thinking is overly polluted with theroies and made up political fodder that are presented to you in a fashion that appears to make sense on the surface. Like the notion we can power our world with fossil fuel forever without consequences.

    In contrast, traditions that have evolved over thousands of years are based on real observation and real consequence. They are proven. You seem to believe that your very limited pool of information are solid facts, they are not. They are over-thought rationalizations from people who trying to justify a behavior. Thought pollution if you will.

    Even with all the scientific advance we have: The world is a dangerous place, it is an unfair place and it is a very unforgiving place. The future of the species and the survival of my nations are important to me. I have far more faith in the time tested traditions than I do in your over thought theories.

    Don't mistake the time you live in as something changes the nature of the way the world works. You are not a god.






    Hey Bish, have you ever heard of Yuri Bezmenov?

    ;)
     
  7. Winky

    Winky Well-Known Member

    Fag Marriage ain't Right!

    Gol darn post #3 is epic work there Monkey!
    Why can’t this stupid bunch, a tiny minority
    understand why we are appalled by this crap?
    damn Fags trying to equate their sickness
    with the Rite of Holy Matrimony
    Sick bastards (oh and the scissor sisters too)
    they should be grateful we don’t just chain em to a fence
     
  8. catocom

    catocom Well-Known Member

    I said 'rite'.

    I guess it does depends.... on if one, or the two believe in God...
    if you do, and he gives you your 'rights', then it's a rite.
    If you think government gives you your 'rights, then it can be a 'right'.
    (in one's own mind) or 2 in this case.
     
  9. Winky

    Winky Well-Known Member

    You don't even know what marriage is?

    It is as though we set out on a trip
    and made a series of wrong turns
    and now that we’ve arrived at our destination
    the place some of us have been screaming
    for years we’d end up in, some are asking
    Where the hell are we?

    These are the people who are currently driving.
    I say boot their asses out of the driver’s seat
    and let the adults drive.

    We know where we should be going.
     
  10. catocom

    catocom Well-Known Member

    It's that junky GPS man.
    I told you we needed to update it.
    Now here we are in a ditch.

    We should have used that proven map.
     
  11. Winky

    Winky Well-Known Member

    Jeez I know man!
    whaddya say we hitch a ride outta here?
    We'll just leave this wreck behind.
     
  12. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    Genesis 2:24

    It is a rite. It can be (and is) considered a contract, for legal reasons. Noone has a RIGHT to get, or be, married. It is a States Rights issue. However, using Article IV, Sec 1, it becomes a federal issue.

    As for legal claims...Powers of Attorney.
     
  13. catocom

    catocom Well-Known Member

    oh, hack no!
    I gotta shovel, a jack, and a wench.
    We're gonna ride this puppy.:hairbang:
     
  14. Winky

    Winky Well-Known Member

    oh alright pull that dead guy out from behind the wheel
    gimme dat shovel I'll bury him while you change that tire.

    Yer Right we can get this thing back on the road.
     
  15. spike

    spike New Member

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

    Can you prove that it's a dysfunctional mental issue? No.

    Interesting that you want to ban marriage from people with any mental issue though. It's worse than I thought. We're going to have to unmarry all those people with OCD, or if they get a little senile, hyper, depressed, etc.

    Nope, sometimes they're just fucked up. Like oppressing women, not allowing inter-racial marriage, not allowing gay marriage, etc.

    Allowing gays and lesbians to marry doesn't change that. We just stop interfering with their freedom.
     
  16. catocom

    catocom Well-Known Member

    now That's team work!
    Gotta have the Right attitude. :bgtup:

    I think we got the wrong DD.
    I'll be sober by the time I get this tire fixed.
     
  17. valkyrie

    valkyrie Well-Known Member

    Very well put. I actually like this explanation, Cat.

    Neither my husband nor I believe in a god. Yet we are married. We had a civil ceremony. We enjoy the same legal rights as others who have chosen to make this lifetime commitment to each other.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. MrBishop

    MrBishop Well-Known Member

    So...if a church allows a same-sex couple to marry and blesses said union, you have no problem with that couple being afforded the same contract?

    The gvt should have no business telling churches who they may or may not marry..it's in the constitution, and yet that is precisely what the gvt is doing.

    **
    As for Genesis..I'm afraid that marriage predates the bible.
     
  19. valkyrie

    valkyrie Well-Known Member

    Spike, I think that if this goes to the Supreme Court the justices will rule the same as had been done with the anti-miscegenation laws, such as Loving v. Virginia.
     
  20. MrBishop

    MrBishop Well-Known Member

    Yeah...seems to be talking about the Bush Doctrine, but someone spliced in pics of Obama in order to scare the people back onto the path of the Republican Fascist takeover that they started 30 years ago.
     

Share This Page