Search results

@Argo... Completely missing the point, as usual. But I guess you're a lost cause for logical argumentation - you've made your mind up about who you think I am, no matter much much you need to misrepresent and twist what I'm saying, in order to fit into your ideological dogma about the world...

Freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. Noone but religions alone should have the authority to choose what terms they use. The state must not ever meddle there. The state can easily give the term up, with freedom being left intact. Making religions give the term up is...

Which, of course, leaves the question why on Earth the state and the religions should use the same word for it, why the legal and the religious aspects should go under the same term. I can see absolutely no necessity for this; it's a relic from times where church and state were far closer...

No, SCOTUS most definitely didn't. Religious representatives (priests, rabbis, etc.) still have the constitutionally guaranteed right in the US to refuse to officiate over gay marriages, so SCOTUS did, of course, not pretend that marriage weren't a religious term and a matter for religions the...

I simply don't understand your reasoning, Argo. I'm campaigning to strengthen freedom of religion, not to reduce it. I'm aiming to expand secularity, not put it on the fringe of society. It appears to me that you simply do not understand either of these concepts. And yes, the word marriage...

Because the question which meaning is older is completely irrelevant. It's a well known and undeniable fact that the religious meaning exists. Noone sane, informed, and reasonable can argue otherwise. And this fact makes every use of the word have undeniable religious connotations. And I stand...

Yes, sadly. For reasons unrelated to anything in this thread, and I still consider her a pretty awesome and reasonable person. (Gonna read that last essay later on, don't have my mind free for long texts ATM. *bookmarks*)

Heh. I think I like that definition too (though I'm at best indifferent to situations where it isn't inappropriate to orgasm :p ). I just have one nit to pick... including masturbation, yay or nay? I think sex refers only to social/interpersonal situations, not stuff someone does by themselves...

I can't even imagine a secular intent on the word "sacred", any more than "priest", "sin", etc. So, obviously I strongly oppose the use of these words in legal documents. You're spot on that "mystic" and "spiritual" don't equal religion. But still, these words, too, don't ever belong in any...

Buddhism lends itself very well to secularity. In fact, a solid argument could be made that secular Buddhism is closer to the original teachings of Siddharta Gautama (as preserved in Theravada Buddhism), than later branches of traditional Buddhism are (Mahayana, Zen, Vajrayana/Lamaism).

Never heard that term before, but you know that I'm so gonna steal it. :D True. As a radical secularist, I do think it should have to in vocabulary used by the state in official documentation. For private citizens, it's a completely different matter. But every gay couple has had the right to...

I've been known to mock the French tendency for old-fashioned language purism, but you have to leave it to speakers of French to be ahead of both English and German speakers in this way: "se pacser" ("getting a PACS", the French version of CU) has already become a fully regular and natural...

Argo, you're still wrong. And you still completely mistake my position. It is not coming from religion. At all. And there simply are no facts or scientific research that would contradict my view. It would be highly illogical for me to budge, when all the people speaking up in disagreement in...

:confused: Is that a common thing to say in English? I've never heard that phrase. (But I'll admit I'm neither a native speaker, nor do my cooking skills extend all that far beyond "throw a frozen pizza in the oven" :D) Not quite. It's not as black and white as you're making it sound here...

No, that's not at all how my logic goes. Wrong on both accounts. Why not rename presidents "His Divine Highness, The High Priest", taxes "tithes", government "the holy curia" and judges "high inquisitors"? According to your logic, that would make absolutely no difference, as long as their job...

In whatever way do you think that makes my point meaningless? Especially as you say you got married in the Jewish faith? That's a religion. Your post did nothing but prove my point. Just as nobody here has yet made any logical argument against it, neither have you.

:D Well, R. and I definitely failed by that formula. When we got together, I was 34 and she was just about to turn 21. Nothing indecent about it, either.

Expand legislation on C.U.s to carry all these rights. Problem solved. I definitely want C.U.s and marriages separate and not at all equal. Marriage should give none of the legal benefits - including adoption, taxes, etc. - that C.U.s give. None. Zero, zip, zilch. The state should be just as...

That's not a correction, it's the exact same statement. Even for someone who isn't Catholic, there can be no doubt that marriage is a Catholic sacrament. It's a plain, simple fact, you don't get to argue against it... unless your argument would be that Catholicism doesn't exist. (In which case...

Correct. Which is exactly why I'm speaking out against obviously wrong statements such as Argonaut's.