Obama - Romney debate

Like Tree382Likes

Wow, that is entirely the opposite view of "marriage" that I have always had. I think this is likely just semantics, but I have always viewed "civil unions" as the legal bond between to people,which gives them rights as spouses, next-of-kin, tax credits, etc etc, and marriages as a bond between to people recognized by a spiritual group of some sort. I mean... that's why a "civil" union is "civil"... it has nothing to do with religion. I have been to many weddings where religion plays no part whatsoever. I would loosely use the term "married" for anyone who has entered into a civil union, but when it comes to the law, what really matters, I would think, is whether or not every spouse, gay or straight, has the same legal rights, and that should be what is afforded in a civil union. I think the semantics are silly, but people seem to want that. I honestly don't understand why the issue is so complicated (except that some people seem to want to legislate morality, which I am firmly opposed to).

If that isn't the issue, then, well, you had best wage war on every church that doesn't recognize the marriage between divorcees or non-Catholics or... you get my drift. As a heterosexual woman I can't get married in a Catholic church, but since that is their own personal belief and doesn't affect my ability to get married in other churches, I'm not protesting that...
Originally Posted by susirene


NO church in America...absolutely NO church...has the legal abilty to marry anyone. They are merely authorized witnesses for the state. They have no power to marry anyone without the state. Marriage has ALWAYS been a legal definition since the dawn of the United States, not a religious one.

Knowing history is important in these matters. It's not just semantics.
I'm not sure if I will be able to watch, but I will definitely be following the pundits. My mind was made up months ago. I'm generally too left of center on too many issues (even if most are social issues) to feel comfortable with the Republican party on a national level. Local is different- I live in the state senate district of one of the three Republicans who crossed party lines to pass gay marriage in NY last year- any politician who will vote with his conscience even in opposition to his party absolutely has my vote. I even wish I had registered as a Republican when I moved so I could have supported him in what was a very close primary.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk
Originally Posted by Corrina777
We might be in the same district. I am very far left although I support responsible fiscal conservatism. I feel the same way about my (soon to be former) state senator... I might have voted for him this time just because of that. If I could have voted in the Republican primary, I would have absolutely shown up to vote for him.

To answer the OP, I probably will not watch but I may watch it later after my kids are all tucked in. I am firmly decided anyway. I don't feel like Obama is progressive enough for me but Romney is dangerous imo.

Last edited by cosmicfly; 10-03-2012 at 03:56 PM.
I probably will not watch. Debates make me anxious. It's like sanctioned bickering. And the polls are so close it will make me more nervous if I 'think' something does not go well for Obama. Yes, I have already made up my mind as to who I am voting for.
Central Massachusetts

One good reason to only maintain a small circle of friends is that three out of four murders are committed by people who know the victim. ~George Carlin~

In regards to Vagazzling: They just want to get into the goods without worrying about getting scratched up by fake crystals. ~spring1onu~
Wow, that is entirely the opposite view of "marriage" that I have always had. I think this is likely just semantics, but I have always viewed "civil unions" as the legal bond between to people,which gives them rights as spouses, next-of-kin, tax credits, etc etc, and marriages as a bond between to people recognized by a spiritual group of some sort. I mean... that's why a "civil" union is "civil"... it has nothing to do with religion. I have been to many weddings where religion plays no part whatsoever. I would loosely use the term "married" for anyone who has entered into a civil union, but when it comes to the law, what really matters, I would think, is whether or not every spouse, gay or straight, has the same legal rights, and that should be what is afforded in a civil union. I think the semantics are silly, but people seem to want that. I honestly don't understand why the issue is so complicated (except that some people seem to want to legislate morality, which I am firmly opposed to).

If that isn't the issue, then, well, you had best wage war on every church that doesn't recognize the marriage between divorcees or non-Catholics or... you get my drift. As a heterosexual woman I can't get married in a Catholic church, but since that is their own personal belief and doesn't affect my ability to get married in other churches, I'm not protesting that...
Originally Posted by susirene


NO church in America...absolutely NO church...has the legal abilty to marry anyone. They are merely authorized witnesses for the state. They have no power to marry anyone without the state. Marriage has ALWAYS been a legal definition since the dawn of the United States, not a religious one.

Knowing history is important in these matters. It's not just semantics.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
What I am saying is... How do you define marriage? If what you are calling marriage is what I am calling a civil union, then yes, that is semantics.

I have multiple gay friends who consider themselves married, whose partners I refer to as "your husband" or "your wife", because they made the decision to stand up in front of family and friends and commit their lives to one another. I, and they, consider that marriage, and felt strongly enough about it that they did it without worrying about whether or not they had a legal document to prove it. Now, do I (and they!) believe that they SHOULD be able to procure a legal document to prove it? By all means, yes. But that is why I say that government should be in the business of civil unions, NOT marriage, because what I define as marriage has a far more human/spiritual/personal definition.

Also, sociologically speaking, I'm pretty sure marriage - as I am defining it - came along before any kind of governmental recognition of the union, sooo.... the laws defining it in the dawn of America, which undoubtedly stemmed from the laws of England, were most likely a reflection of a social institution that eventually, as civilization developed, required a governmental definition. I don't think the first world governments made up marriage...

Oh, and I didn't say get married BY the Catholic church, I said get married IN a Catholic church. Which I cannot do. Because I am not Catholic.
Mod CG since 5/10, 2b/3a, med width/density, low/med porosity, greying since 18, color over grey since 21

Hair hates: non-keratin protein, glycerin, sorbitol, agave, sulfates, polyquats, co-washing (flaky scalp), maybe aloe?
Hair loves: fewer/more natural ingredients, moisture

Scalp wash: Selsun Blue naturals or reg when desperate
Low poo: Giovanni TTTT
RO: SN - Strawberry, ES
LI: SNES
Style: HETT mousse, FSG if I make it, ??
DT: GVPCB
PT: GVPKP

Last edited by susirene; 10-03-2012 at 05:10 PM.
Wow, that is entirely the opposite view of "marriage" that I have always had. I think this is likely just semantics, but I have always viewed "civil unions" as the legal bond between to people,which gives them rights as spouses, next-of-kin, tax credits, etc etc, and marriages as a bond between to people recognized by a spiritual group of some sort. I mean... that's why a "civil" union is "civil"... it has nothing to do with religion. I have been to many weddings where religion plays no part whatsoever. I would loosely use the term "married" for anyone who has entered into a civil union, but when it comes to the law, what really matters, I would think, is whether or not every spouse, gay or straight, has the same legal rights, and that should be what is afforded in a civil union. I think the semantics are silly, but people seem to want that. I honestly don't understand why the issue is so complicated (except that some people seem to want to legislate morality, which I am firmly opposed to).

If that isn't the issue, then, well, you had best wage war on every church that doesn't recognize the marriage between divorcees or non-Catholics or... you get my drift. As a heterosexual woman I can't get married in a Catholic church, but since that is their own personal belief and doesn't affect my ability to get married in other churches, I'm not protesting that...
Originally Posted by susirene


NO church in America...absolutely NO church...has the legal abilty to marry anyone. They are merely authorized witnesses for the state. They have no power to marry anyone without the state. Marriage has ALWAYS been a legal definition since the dawn of the United States, not a religious one.

Knowing history is important in these matters. It's not just semantics.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
What I am saying is... How do you define marriage? If what you are calling marriage is why I am calling a civil union, then yes, that is semantics.

And I should have worded that "get married in a Catholic Church", not "by the Catholic Church" - my fault.
Originally Posted by susirene
ETA: saw your clarifying post after I posted. You can be married in a Catholic Church as a non catholic if you are marrying a catholic. Usually it involves going to some counseling sessions or classes with the priest and agreeing the children will/can be brought up in the religion.

And it's not semantics. A priest/minister/rabbi whatever can "marry" a couple but it is not a LEGAL marriage until it is registered with the state. Technically until that happens people are just still dating. To legally define the term one way for one group of people and completely differently for another is just wrong. A marriage is just as much of a marriage whether performed by a priest or a rabbi a notary or a ship captain or your best friend who got ordained on the internet.

It is the LEGAL definition that people are arguing over. Technically churches already have the power to refuse to marry anyone they want based on church doctrine. A minister could deny me right now, a heterosexual woman, wishing to marry a man, just because he/she might believe I'm not ready.

Historically marriages have been used to align properties, gain money, and power esp/ Marriages among the upper classes (and sometimes in the lower) were arranged between families and often had little to do with love and declaring intentions. They were contracts, carefully laid out and planned with many clauses about inheritances, dowries, children etc. The notion of the marriages you described are a much more modern ideal of them. No less valid, but illustrative of the way the meaning of the word changes to reflect the society it is in.

To get back to the original topic: Heck yes I'll be watching! I love debates even though I am firmly decided. I do wish they'd let 3rd party candidates in on the game though, just to make them more interesting.
Amneris likes this.

Last edited by KookyCurl; 10-03-2012 at 05:34 PM. Reason: spelling, and clarification



NO church in America...absolutely NO church...has the legal abilty to marry anyone. They are merely authorized witnesses for the state. They have no power to marry anyone without the state. Marriage has ALWAYS been a legal definition since the dawn of the United States, not a religious one.

Knowing history is important in these matters. It's not just semantics.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
What I am saying is... How do you define marriage? If what you are calling marriage is why I am calling a civil union, then yes, that is semantics.

And I should have worded that "get married in a Catholic Church", not "by the Catholic Church" - my fault.
Originally Posted by susirene
Just wanted to say that you posted "as a heterosexual woman" you can't get married in the Catholic Church. Yes you can. It's HOMOsexual women that cant. Not sure of that was just a typo/autocorrect type thing or not.

And it's not semantics. A priest/minister/rabbi whatever can "marry" a couple but it is not a LEGAL marriage until it is registered with the state. Technically until that happens people are just still dating. To legally define the term one way for one group of people and completely differently for another is just wrong. A marriage is just as much of a marriage whether performed by a priest or a rabbi a notary or a ship captain or your best friend who got ordained on the internet.

It is the LEGAL definition that people are arguing over. Technically churches already have the power to refuse to marry anyone they want based on church doctrine. A minister could deny me right now, a heterosexual woman, wishing to marry a man, just because he/she might believe I'm not ready.
Originally Posted by KookyCurl
THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING. For the love, friends. I am agreeing with you. Your last paragraph is exactly what I am saying about the Catholic church - because I am not Catholic, I cannot have a full-on sacramental Catholic mass, literally and physically IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH, for my wedding ceremony, even if the groom is Catholic. Trust me, I have friends for whom this was a major ordeal because the special dispensation for the groom almost didn't come in in time for the wedding, etc etc. The Catholic church requires at least one spouse to be Catholic, and the other to be at minimum a baptized Christian, to recognize the marriage, and if the non-Catholic is unbaptized, it requires special dispensation from the Bishop. And if one of the people is divorced, then you can't be married in the Catholic church at all. All I am saying is exactly what you are saying - on the level of personal/spiritual beliefs, there are all sorts of barriers to having a marriage ceremony performed and recognized by a certain religion depending on what sect of what religion you're looking at, even for heterosexuals. So it's not like there's not already a precedent of distinguishing a socially/spiritually-defined marriage from a legally defined marriage. (I have also seen the reverse - people who got a quicky legal union but then wanted to have a bigger, spiritual ceremony at a later date).

It is "semantics" because people mean different things when they say "marriage". Which is why I defined what I meant. I was trying to make it clear that by "civil union" I meant the legal definition of marriage, not the personal one. And that marriage, as a SOCIAL, not legal, institution, is already recognized in our society, including in the gay community, regardless of legal definition. Do you consider your gay friends who have chosen to have a wedding ceremony less married because it's not legally defined? I hope not.

Bottom line: I think we all agree that gay people should be able to marry the loves of their lives and have them recognized as spouses with every legal and societal right currently afforded to heterosexual couples. I do not give a rip what we call it or which religions choose to recognize it within the auspices of their own church/temple/synagogue.

Back on topic (sorry for that):

All I was saying by mentioned Gary Johnson in this thread was that despite the fact that only 2 candidates are in the debate tonight, there ARE other valid candidates out there, and 1) it is worthwhile to find out whether or not there is a third-party candidate who better reflects what you believe and 2) that not every third party vote is a "wasted" vote, if you understand the way your state votes and whether or not your vote would truly "swing" the ballot or if it is an opportunity for you to use the power of democracy to make a statement.
Mod CG since 5/10, 2b/3a, med width/density, low/med porosity, greying since 18, color over grey since 21

Hair hates: non-keratin protein, glycerin, sorbitol, agave, sulfates, polyquats, co-washing (flaky scalp), maybe aloe?
Hair loves: fewer/more natural ingredients, moisture

Scalp wash: Selsun Blue naturals or reg when desperate
Low poo: Giovanni TTTT
RO: SN - Strawberry, ES
LI: SNES
Style: HETT mousse, FSG if I make it, ??
DT: GVPCB
PT: GVPKP

Last edited by susirene; 10-03-2012 at 05:36 PM.
^^ I am stealing for facebook!!
Central Massachusetts

One good reason to only maintain a small circle of friends is that three out of four murders are committed by people who know the victim. ~George Carlin~

In regards to Vagazzling: They just want to get into the goods without worrying about getting scratched up by fake crystals. ~spring1onu~
Other candidates aren't an option for me at this time.

If I hear a peep of "states' rights"....ever....it makes me nervous for the reasons RCW outlined. It's usually code for something else, and usually the states that mean so well for their populations actually mean well only for certain portions of the population.

When I hear "states' rights" my brain automatically thinks [fill in the blank] supremacy, aka, trying to do some sort of dirt to the "undesirables." The states have a history of making really bad decisions when it comes to protecting the rights of the vulnerable. Unfortunately people who have not ever had the opportunity to be vulnerable sometimes see no use in federal regulation until their number comes up. And it eventually does, one day, either through old age, disability, or other circumstance.

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
I may have to participate in this drinking game, but only because I happen to have everything needed for screwdrivers and Cape Codders.
scrills and Amneris like this.

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
Slightly off topic: How old is the term "civil union"? How can we say that historically there was a difference when there was only one name until recently? Wasn't the term the same for both (religious of civil) until recently? If there was also a difference, wouldn't "unions" at say the JOP have a different name than those that took place with clergy?

Just asking, because I was always under the impression that Civil Unions were new and something made up to avoid the real issue.
Amneris likes this.
Just set my DVR from work!
I think that I deceive genius.
Ill be closed captioning it for CBS.
Originally Posted by Springcurl
Nationally or locally?
I think that I deceive genius.
Looking forward to this debate! 20 minutes and counting!

Sent from my SCH-I510 using CurlTalk App






Still loving my curls and kinks!
Products I love:
Ion Dandruff/Seborrheic Dermatitis Tar Shampoo
Suave Shea Butter Conditioner
Biolage Scalp Therapy Shampoo
Biolage Fortify Therapy Shampoo
Trader Joe's Tea Tree Tingle Conditioner
Beautiful Textures Rapid Repair Deep Conditioner
Shea butter, olive oil, coconut oil, apricot oil, peppermint oil, tea tree oil, and eucalyptus oil
Ok, logged into Twitter. Now let me get my drink. LOL

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
Slightly off topic: How old is the term "civil union"? How can we say that historically there was a difference when there was only one name until recently? Wasn't the term the same for both (religious of civil) until recently? If there was also a difference, wouldn't "unions" at say the JOP have a different name than those that took place with clergy?

Just asking, because I was always under the impression that Civil Unions were new and something made up to avoid the real issue.
Originally Posted by scrills
Wikipedia said it is only about 10 years old, so...

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
A vote for a third party candidate is not a waste of a vote.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds

-Albert Einstein
Discounts:iHerb: EZA283 for $5 off!, OCO522 for $10 off first purchase | Komaza Care Referral Code: J5Q362VG
Does "top down policies" count as blaming the previous administration? Otherwise, no drinks for me.

Never mind, I can't hang. I took two sips already and that's quite enough for me. You will be drunk quick on the third person rule alone.
Amneris and thelio like this.

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.

Last edited by curlyarca; 10-03-2012 at 07:11 PM.
Slightly off topic: How old is the term "civil union"? How can we say that historically there was a difference when there was only one name until recently? Wasn't the term the same for both (religious of civil) until recently? If there was also a difference, wouldn't "unions" at say the JOP have a different name than those that took place with clergy?

Just asking, because I was always under the impression that Civil Unions were new and something made up to avoid the real issue.
Originally Posted by scrills
Wikipedia said it is only about 10 years old, so...
Originally Posted by curlyarca
ok, thanks
Does "top down policies" count as blaming the previous administration? Otherwise, no drinks for me.
Originally Posted by curlyarca
Lol.

Every teardrop is a waterfall
About my hair:
weekly shampoo-HE Honey I'm Strong
daily conditioner-HE Honey I'm Strong (use as li)
go to style-Pocahontas braids

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com